Is artificial intelligence something that should be embraced or feared? Do you believe in the hype?

It seems to me that much of the public hype regarding artificial intelligence in the recent past has been characterized by “fun” technologies, like Watson and AlphaGo which have been able to play games and beat humans in “trivial” matters, so to speak. While the uses of such technologies may be “gimmicky” in nature, their basis is not. At their core, they are making decisions based off information that they currently have and then adapting their behavior based on information that they receive. The more data that they obtain, the more informed their decisions are, and the better they will perform. This basic concept applies widely in the field of AI – if Watson can use all the data handed to it by its developers and acquired through its interactions and competition with opponents to win a trivia game, there seems no reason an automated car can’t use this same process – utilizing the data programmed into it by its developers and acquired through its interactions with its surroundings, environment, etc. to drive itself around. Granted, this use case is obviously on a larger scale, has much further reaching consequences, and requires extremely broad data sets. But, the data sets available are only becoming greater and greater, especially as technologies are becoming more integrated and interconnected with each other, and the core development concepts are the same. Watson and his “peers” stand maybe not as full proof of the viability of AI, but definitely as solid evidence towards it.  

Thus, I think the increasing trend towards automation is somewhat inevitable, and likewise the discomfort and uncertainty that comes with change and delving into the unknown are inevitably feelings many of us will experience. However, I definitely don’t think we should simply accept AI as something to be feared.  For instance, one of the things that Prof. Walter Scheirer discussed as part of his guest lecture is the belief that facial recognition technologies have “inherent” biases based on race, gender, etc. If we simply accept this to be true and label these technologies as discriminatory and evil and not to be trusted, we are accepting that the possible consequences of their use are something we should be afraid of. In doing so we are giving up on the hope of improvement, and we benefit no one by doing this. Rather, we need to get past our fears and actually make efforts to fix and develop this technology further with the goal of removing the biases rather than simply accepting them. 

I have to make the note, though, that this all might be easier for me to say because my career path is in the field of technology. Increasing automation and developing software is likely only going to widen the expanse of opportunities that are open to me and to others like me with a computer science background and quality education. My opinions might indeed differ if I made my living in the manufacturing field or as a truck driver,  positions considered to be at the greatest risk when it comes to this discussion.

Thus, as much as I don’t believe fearing AI is beneficial to anyone, I also don’t believe it should be entirely embraced and adopted with open arms. Understanding its risks and the possible issues that could come from its implementation is essential to making sure things don’t spiral out of control too quickly. As usual when it comes to technology, the speed at which things progress, the competition among companies to develop the next best tech, the idea of innovating and moving forward at all costs, can theoretically cause a lot of problems. We can’t even fully understand the implications of one technology before we’re on to the next one. As some of the readings discussed, economists have not been able to come to a definitive conclusion regarding whether manufacturing job losses in the past two decades have stemmed from automation and robots or from trade deals or from some combination of these things and others. If we don’t know what is causing a problem for certain, we most definitely are going to struggle to fix it. This is why I believe we have to be very cognizant of all the issues that can arise from a new AI technology’s implementation. We have to do our best testing and research to predict faults and disruptions that these technologies may have, so that we don’t fall so far behind that we can’t develop solutions to these problems. This may mean delaying the adoption of AI slightly- not taking it in with open arms but with a very slow embrace, so to speak. 

What are the limits of freedom of speech on the Internet? Is online censorship a desirable good, a necessary evil, or a bad idea be avoided?

I think there is a lot that we have to take into consideration when it comes to the discussion of limiting freedom of speech on the internet. Doing so does not come without substantial risk especially given that it theoretically seems to go against aspects of our nation’s core values of freedom. However, when this speech is being placed on a platform that is owned and controlled by a private company, then I feel this company has every right to be able to censor or choose what content they do and don’t display.

There are a lot of arguments against companies doing so, one being that censoring material just allows us to ignore things that shouldn’t be ignored. It blinds us from the reality of what people are thinking or saying and could potentially prevent positive change from occurring if we’re not even aware of the negative behaviors that need to be changed in the first place. Further, blocking things like hate speech from appearing on a website won’t make the hatefulness behind it go away, and people with evil intentions will just find another platform or another method to spread their ill will.

Such was the case in the readings regarding Cloudfare’s removal of Daily Stormer and 8chan. Cloudfare knew, and acknowledged, that their decision to kick these hate-filled sites off their network would not end their users’ hateful activity. These sites simply would and did move to another network. But just because they remain on the internet, having found an alternative way to keep their vile messages alive, doesn’t invalidate Cloudfare’s decision. Those in Cloudfare do not have to feel responsible at all for the words said on these sites or any form of violence that might stem from them. They know they did what they were capable of to counteract the hatefulness, and they made a stand against something they felt was wrong.

In this situation, I don’t take issue with Cloudfare’s decision. At the same time though, the idea that private companies running platforms that have millions of users have the ability to block content of their choosing and to thus influence the thoughts and opinions of their mass audience is concerning. It’s hard to say that a big private entity having such influence over the masses could ever be a good thing, but it’s hard to justify how we could rightfully prevent this from happening, given that they’re a private company whose services consumers are freely choosing to use.

Even more difficult, I think, is answering the question of whether there are situations in which a company should be required or forced to block content. One of the points raised by some in class was that it might be more beneficial to have the government be the entity in charge of online censorship. This does make sense to me in a lot ways, especially in regards to things that are objectively wrong, like terrorism. If the government laid out a set of standards for online censorship that could theoretically save lives by preventing terrorism, and all platforms/companies were forced to comply, I would be okay with that because when it comes to terrorism, there are innocent lives at stake.

But I guess what I hadn’t really considered prior, is that while even if one claims terrorism is objectively wrong, what is considered terrorism is not universally agreed upon, and the internet is a universal thing. One of the readings discussed how the Chinese government had asked Google to take down more than 2000 items in the first half of 2017 and that content related to terrorism made up a substantial portion of the material China asked Google to take down. While we don’t know the specifics of what this included, I think we can be almost certain that the Chinese government’s definition of terrorism would differ greatly from ours. I don’t know that this means we shouldn’t at least attempt to impose standards in our own country when it comes to online speech that provokes violence and puts lives at stake, but it certainly is a question to which I think there is no easy answer.

If corporations are afforded the same rights as individual persons, should they also be expected to have the same ethical and moral obligations and responsibilities? Who (if anyone) or what (if anything) should enforce fair play and competition between corporations?

Because a corporation’s primary goal is to make a profit and to bring forth financial gain for its shareholders, it theoretically seems that it should base its actions on this goal, not on ethical considerations. However, the undeniable truth is that a corporation is made up of people, and it’s not quite so easy to say that people should not base their actions on ethical considerations.

When considering this question, I feel like there needs to be a distinction made between a company itself performing directly immoral actions – such as mistreating its workers or putting forth misleading product information – and a company creating a tool or platform that is not inherently harmful but may be used by others for an unethical purpose – such as the hypothetical use of Amazon’s facial recognition software by ICE, as we discussed in class.

In our readings regarding IBM’s Hollerith machine use in the Holocaust, for example, one of the clearest issues was that IBM played an active role in the machine’s continued use by the Nazis. The machines were regularly maintained by IBM, there was ongoing training for technicians to work on them, and CEO Thomas Watson visited Nazi Germany on multiple occasions and actually dined with Hitler. In this case, IBM as a company was actively and directly involved in the Holocaust; it was directly performing immoral actions. Thus, I feel much more culpability lies on IBM under these circumstances than if they had simply created the tabulation machine as part of their technology development and Nazi Germany had purchased the machines and used them strictly on their own accord.

While it can be argued that certain actions, like those of the Nazis during the Holocaust, are objectively right or wrong, I think there are aspects of morality that are undoubtedly subjective. Different people can examine the same situation and disagree vastly on what they believe to be the moral thing to do because of their background, culture, experiences, religion, and so forth. Therefore, because a corporation is an entity made up of individuals, it is fairly impossible that every individual in the entire corporation will always agree on whether a decision is ethical or not. There may be cases in which one person will think something is unethical but be willing to allow it because they value more highly the financial gain for the company, but there also may be cases in which a person might simply not believe the decision or action to be unethical at all.

As a result, I think in large part the moral responsibility falls on an individual level as opposed to the corporation as a whole. There has to be a line at which a corporation decides what companies are moral enough to work with, what projects it’s willing to support or provide technology for, what agencies it will create contracts with, etc. Everyone in the corporation is not going to agree on what this line is, but everyone does have the opportunity to act for themselves based on what this line is. If they choose to protest with hopes the company might change their decision, they may do so. If they choose to leave the company because of their moral obligations, they may do so. If they choose to stay and work regardless, then they must be willing to deal with the ramifications and to accept whatever moral responsibility they hold as a result.

I think this internal decision as opposed to strict external regulation of a corporation’s business practices is probably the better solution, and I think this same idea likely carries over to the examination of the ethical limits of how competitive a company can or should be. Regardless of whether or not they are behaving ethically, I think big companies are going to be seen in a negative light simply because they are big and thus seem inherently dominant and intimidating. A company with massive growth and success that surpasses all its competitors might indeed be crushing the competition, but that does not necessitate that its behavior was predatory or bullying or with ill-intent (although of course we’ve seen many cases where it has been). It seems hard to justify the government trying to break up or impose strict regulations on a company that may just be wildly successful or popular in the eyes of consumers and cannot necessarily be proven to have actually done something wrong. Further, if it can be proven that they have acted wrongly, because a corporation is indeed made up of so many people, it is likely that only some of the people within it were making unlawful or immoral decisions on the company’s behalf. It thus seems likewise more diffult to justify punishing an entire company and all the people within it because of an unethical act or ill will of a single or few individuals within it. 

Where do you draw the line between individual privacy and national security? In a democracy, which one is paramount?

My inclination when it comes to this topic has always been towards the argument that if you have nothing to hide, then you should have nothing to fear. Government surveillance isn’t something I worry about regularly, largely maybe, because I don’t feel like it has any profound or at least any very direct effect on my life. I feel safe in my country. I live my daily life without fear. I know there are agencies and forces within the government that are protecting me, but I don’t actually really know exactly what this protection involves and what measures and actions are taken for this purpose. Though it’s not something I’d love to admit, to a certaint extent I definitely live my life with some form of the “ignorance is bliss” mentality when it comes to surveillance- honestly, those who worry about Big Brother may be entirely justified in doing so, but I’d rather not, so I don’t. 

Therefore, my general feeling is that if asked to choose, I would say national security is paramount. I value my safety over my privacy, and if the government has to compound all sorts of information on me to ensure the safety and security of country I live in, then so be it. However, as we read about and discussed more specific situations and examples as opposed to just abstractly thinking about these concepts, it’s made me consider the fact that this isn’t all so clear cut as: choose one – safety or privacy. In some cases. actually, the lack of privacy could mean a lack of safety, if not immediately, then at some future time. 

For example, this week we read about the San Bernardino terrorist attack and the request by the FBI for Apple to create a version of iOS that would allow them to enter the phone of the suspected terrorist. On the surface, my initial reaction is that if Apple has the capability to do such a thing, of course they should. The right thing to do seems obvious if you don’t question it: this is a situation where the safety of our nation is threatened and information on that phone could be crucial to our protection and Apple has the potential to do something about it. When you assess no further than that or if you just have no further information than that, it does indeed seem that Apple’s refuse to build the software is somehow a selfish obstruction of government.

But once I actually read more and informed myself more and started to have a deeper understanding of the situation, the true complexity of it all began to manifest and make me realize that I think there really does have to be a line drawn at some point, even (or maybe especially) for the government. 

I don’t think I’d be alone in admitting that I tend to think of the government as some abstract body as opposed to what it really is- which is a group of individuals who are all just humans like any other one of us. In this San Bernardino scenario, the FBI was guaranteeing to Apple that the software they were asking them to develop would be strictly used for the purpose of this investigation and assuring that the privacy of Apple’s customers would not be compromised. The principle law enforcement agency of our nation was making this promise. They were trying to ensure our safety from terrorist attacks and they were ensuring our privacy would not be compromised in the meantime, and Apple was just being uncooperative in the process – or so it seemed on the surface. 

But I think what I’ve failed to really consider in the past is that just because it’s the government, it’s the FBI, doesn’t mean its some divine or infallible entity. It’s simply a group of humans like any one of us, and even though they may be the very best of the best at what they do, our nature disallows perfection. Therefore, the FBI as an entity could make these guarantees but at the end of the day they cannot truly “guarantee” that this information won’t get into the wrong hands or that some individual won’t make a mistake or an error won’t arise. If something were to go amiss, it is possible and not inconceivable that this would lead to a situation in which our safety is at even greater risk than it was to begin with. 

These are heavy things to weigh and in my opinion, it kind of feels like another case in which “ignorance is bliss.” It’s easier to put the blame on big tech companies, to consider them and their incredible power, at fault as opposed to having to really consider the depths and complexities of situations like these. It’s disconcerting to acknowledge the fact that there are only going to be more situations like this in the future and the government is only going to want to know more, not less. At a certain point putting that information in the hands of individuals does indeed have risk, and could do more harm than good when it comes to our safety.  

According to Roger Boisjoly, “[whistleblowing] destroyed [his] career, [his] life, everything else.” What good, then, is whistleblowing?

I think it’s difficult to say that whistleblowing is either strictly a good thing or strictly a bad thing.

As a concept, it seems ethically correct. It encourages people to stand up for what is right, to report wrongdoings, to not allow those in power to take advantage of their position or get away with abuse. It promotes telling the truth and being transparent with the potential goal of avoiding harm or even disaster in the future. It might involve an individual putting himself at risk to do so. It sounds heroic.

But, in practice, I don’t believe this is always the case. Many real life situations in which people are forced to make these kinds of decisions – whether it be regarding a risk in a major engineering project or a security issue or having access to private information (personal or government or otherwise) – are too complex to have a standard response that is ethically correct for a single individual to make every time.

As a general rule, for example, telling the truth is morally correct. Someone with strong morals will likely feel an obligation or duty to tell the truth, not only in the sense of not lying, but in the sense of not omitting. That is, they may feel morally responsible not to “hide things,” especially if the things they’re hiding have impact on others. From the perspective of equality, it might seem that if everyone is affected by some piece of information, then everyone deserves to have full and equal knowledge of it- it only seems fair. Telling the fullest truth puts everyone on the same level in some ways. This may indeed be fair, but is it good? I think there are definitely situations where giving certain people certain knowledge will lead to more harm than good. A whistleblower may have the best of intentions and he may be a truly good person and there may be potentially large benefits that could arise from his actions. But, it is simply a fact of our human society that there are many people who do not have good intentions and are not good people and will take advantage of any knowledge they’re given to cause harm or destruction, and this fact cannot be disregarded. When you divulge the “full truth” to the general public, you are ensuring that this information will get into the right hands- people that may be capable of and motivated to make changes for the better. But at the same time, you are also inevitably ensuring that every bit of this information is getting into the wrong hands- people that may be capable of and motivated to cause issues larger than what were there to begin with.

Thus, because this is a possibility that cannot be avoided, as with any complex ethical issue, one has to weigh the pros and cons. One must examine what good versus what damage will come from what they do and consider who is at stake. But further than that, I believe one has to self-assess and take a deep look at what their motives are for performing this whistleblowing action. On the surface, one might truly believes their intention are to stop a negative situation or bring light to evil actions that are being hidden. But if at the root, there is some desire to receive attention or to seek some form of glory for being the “truth teller,” then this person needs to evaluate their decision at a deeper level before acting on it. If ego plays a role in the decision-making process, which I find hard to believe that it often doesn’t, then I think the ethical value of the whistleblowing action is diminished, regardless of the consequences.

Along these lines, I think what raises the most concern for me is the personal aspect of whistleblowing. The general concept of whistleblowing seems right as the general concept of telling the truth seems right. But these situations are not general. They are all extremely different and have extremely specific parameters and unique humans involved and at stake. It’s hard to imagine a single individual who is tied to a situation deeply, who may be emotionally invested, or just personally invested- in terms of their career or their finances or their relationships- can make a purely objective decision on whether exposing the truth is the correct thing to do. I think often cases of whistleblowing involve people who feel they’ve been wronged in the past or mistreated or spurned and so they may feel very passionately. They may want to ensure that others don’t experience what they’ve experienced, and they may also want to ensure that those who caused them pain are held responsible for their actions, and so they therefore choose to expose someone or something. I worry about this culture of “exposing” because there are always two sides to every story, and in a lot of these scenarios, only one (the whistleblower’s) is fully heard or the other is unduly discredited from the start. Part of making an ethical judgment, I believe, involves giving equal consideration to both sides or to all parties involved, especially when people’s reputations and families and livelihoods are at stake. With such high stakes as these, I think very rarely is there a black or white answer to what the right thing to do is. For this reason, I find it very risky and not intrinsically heroic for one single individual to “blow a whistle” and make a black or white choice on what is to be done. 

How should the computing and technology community work towards creating a welcoming, diverse, and inclusive community? Is this a moral imperative or a laudable goal or unlikely wish?

Discussion in class this week was quite lively to say the least- it brought up strong feelings and brought out stories of emotional experiences and struggles that people have faced. It is a pure statistical fact that the field of computer science lacks diversity, in terms of both ethnicity and gender. The charts shown in class displaying the numbers didn’t particularly surprise me – I feel like it’s something I’ve always known about the field. What did stand out to me is how many females in my class have had specific experiences in which this lack of diversity affected them negatively and how their very strong general feeling was that they’ve been treated lesser than or even actually harassed or mistreated by males. 

I feel awful for my peers and anyone else who has been demeaned in such a way, and I feel lucky to be able to say it, but I do not relate to their overall sentiment, or at least definitely not on the same level.

I can only speak for myself, but I feel that I’ve actually been more encouraged to enter the engineering fields as a woman. Since being a little kid, I’ve been firmly supported and applauded for every endeavor in a STEM field that I took on. The idea that these fields “need women” and these fields “really need people like you” have been repeated to me time and time again. I never felt intimidated by or discouraged from seeking this path because it was so male-dominated and I would be the minority. If anything, I felt empowered by this, like I actually could be more successful as a result.

This past summer at my internship was probably the first time I truly witnessed the lack of diversity in action. I was indeed the only woman on my team of 10+ people. One time I found myself in conference room meeting with twenty-four people and literally one other female. I can’t say I didn’t notice it, or that I didn’t occasionally feel like the odd one out, but I never felt that I was treated or even thought of as lesser than. In fact, at the end of my internship, my manager (a male) talked to me about where I eventually could see myself in the company, how he believed I could get to where I want, and that he appreciated seeing my ambition because he has two young daughters, and he never wants them to feel limited in their potential or opportunities. 

I of course know that not everyone is as lucky as me and that many people are treated disrespectfully or with intolerance in the workplace. This lack of respect can be intentional or not – perhaps its the effect of someone saying what’s on their mind – “being their whole selves”, so to speak and offending someone as a result. Regardless of intention, one should consider the differences in those around them and understand that being one’s self is not always entirely necessary or appropriate in the workplace- where you are forced to be around certain people as opposed to choosing to be around them. In my life, there aren’t a ton of people that I am entirely myself around, and I see no issue with that. I can be my whole self when I am with my family and my good friends and they can be themselves, and that’s why we have such a strong bond. However, I do not feel the need to have a strong bond or say everything I’m feeling to every person that I work with – I don’t need to be my whole self or seek to know them on a deeper level- and so if I have to censor myself to a certain degree so as to maintain an environment of tolerance in the workplace, I am willing to do so. 

For those who might be entirely unwilling to do so, I understand the need for Codes of Conduct because people do need to be held to some standard of behavior. There is nothing theoretically wrong with putting into writing what a company or organization stands for and documenting consequences for violating the code.  However, I do have to say I firmly agree with the statement in the anonymous response reading that “We need a CoC that does not assume that you can create a space free from assholes because life does not work that way.” I don’t think a Code of Conduct should be attempting to specifically censor people’s speech or to be categorizing any and all forms of criticism as harassment. Life is never going to be without some discomfort and the workplace is no different. There needs to be a balance: no, you don’t have to say whats on your mind all the time, but you also should not have to worry that any word that comes out of your mouth could get you ostracized or even fired for harassment. Such stringent codes will inevitably make people feel like they’re walking on eggshells, and that is never going to lead to a feeling of community.

Thus, aiming to be a welcoming community and an inclusive community where people are treated with dignity and respect is, I believe, a moral imperative. But I don’t think welcoming and inclusive are synonymous with diverse and I don’t think it is a moral imperative that our tech field be diverse.  There are certainly many fields beyond just tech that are not balanced, and if those who are working in them are content and thriving, then I don’t see anything inherently wrong with the imbalance. However,  if it is indeed intimidation or mistreatment or disproportioned opportunity that are at the roots of this imbalance, then these are issues that we need to not only be aware of but seek to fix- for the benefit of those who lack as well as for our own field which is now lacking those who could benefit us. 

What is your overall impression of the hiring process in your chosen industry? Is it efficient? Is it effective? Is it ethical?

As the “Hiring is Broken and Yours is Too” reading from this week spelled out in bullet points, there are definitive pros and cons to every tactic a company utilizes during an interview or hiring process. I don’t know that I would choose the term “broken” to describe the hiring process in the tech industry because that implies that it doesn’t work the way it should, the right way – and I don’t necessarily think there is a right way. In the conversations we had in class, it seemed like – whether consciously or not – people’s opinions on what was important when landing a job tended to be based on the way that had worked out best for them. Those with strong networking ties to a company saw less need to prove themselves in coding challenges. Those who obtained jobs through more personal interviews and struggled with technical interviews seemed to see less benefit in technical interviews while those who felt they marketed themselves better through their coding skills than their people skills disagreed. And why shouldn’t they think that way? If they had secured a job and succeeded at it and had a positive experience with and impact on the company, then this was mutually beneficial and the process decidedly not broken. However, chances are that an objective outsider might look at the way they were hired and disagree or take issue with the process.

When it comes to most of the aspects of hiring and employment that we’ve discussed this week, I just think they’re all so person dependent – whether it’s what you consider a fair interview, or what resources you take advantage of to help you get the job, whether you choose to negotiate an offer or whether you would renege on a job offer you already accepted if a better one arises. 
My own experience with the topic is fairly limited and in some ways this fact itself has been a personal decision. Being at a school like Notre Dame, we’re provided with so many opportunities: there are countless networking events, companies always visiting, opportunities to travel to conferences, a career center with extensive resources, a massive alumni network… the list goes on…

Yet, I have only formally interviewed for one company – I was offered an internship position there and I took the position and that is the same company that I now have an offer from. It all happened fairly quickly for me: Last year, I went to one of the com-sci specific networking events on the morning of the career fair and approached and conversed with a rep for one of the companies I knew nothing about. He told me to come back and see him later at the career fair, and when I did he remembered me and signed me up for an on-campus interview the next day (just another opportunity that Notre Dame provides). Because that interview was the very next day, I obviously did not prepare extensively, but it went well. Within a month or so, I had a second interview and then shortly after, an internship offer. I found the whole thing stressful at the time, but looking back I’m starting to think maybe it was too easy. I didn’t even think about going to the career fair until my junior year, did not prepare extensively, and then I went and talked to a friendly rep, and here I am a year later with a decent job offer and decent pay and benefits. 

This makes me realize that had I gone back and taken advantage of all the other opportunities, put a ton of effort into the process of job-searching, and had an actual plan of action, I probably could have a better job offer with better pay and better benefits. But, I don’t know if I regret that I didn’t do those things so much for that reason, but rather because I wish I had those experiences for learning purposes. Even if things had worked out exactly the same, having more networking experiences, more practice with interviews, and stepping out of my comfort zone could have taught me a lot, increased my confidence and benefited my growth as a person. 

So my perspective is such that the whole hiring process can simply be whatever you make of it, and thus super unique and personalized to an individual. Yet, in the tech industry, realistically I think there just probably isn’t a way to perform this process in a way that is personal and also efficient. For companies trying to expand in the tech industry, an industry of rapid growth and change, their focus is going to be on efficiency. They want tech people who have potential to help them grow and keep up in crucial, fast-paced environments. This has potential to lead to unethical practices- which people do and should take issue with- but even if the company acts ethically and with good intentions, people will still disagree with their practices. It is just inevitable, I think, that the individual has more at stake than the large company whose focus is on big picture growth. For the individual, this hiring process is so much more meaningful- it is a judgment of who they are and whether they are good enough; it involves major decisions about their future that will have major impact on their lives, families, and loved ones. And thus because it has such profound effect on people’s lives and their self-worth, it is something that people will feel strongly about, and a controversy that I don’t imagine will dwindle, especially as the industry continues to grow.

What is your identity and how does it impact how you see the world and how the world sees you?

I walked out of class on Tuesday after our discussion on the hacker mindset, computer science as an art form, coding as a craft, etc., feeling some form of both awe and doubt. Classmates had talked about the “zen” they feel when coding, referred casually to “beautiful code”, compared hacking to forms of art and music. In one of this week’s readings, Paul Graham had discussed how great software “requires a fanatical devotion to beauty.”

I’m awed by these concepts in part because I just don’t really relate. As a computer science student, I consider myself to be self-disciplined and a hard worker. I seek to be successful in my classes and other endeavors and to demonstrate my ability through the quality of my work, which I pride myself in. In that sense, I think of myself as someone who has potential for success in my field if I work for it – but I certainly don’t identify in my daily life as a “hacker.” I wouldn’t even really consider being a programmer any central part of who I am as a person at all.

What I do think of myself as in my daily life as is a Notre Dame student and a Catholic, a family-oriented person, a loyal friend and an empath, a Yankee fan… These are all characteristics I think I’ve adopted as part of my identity because I feel strongly about them.

The discussion of whether you need to feel strongly – to be passionate- to succeed at what you do is one that arises often in our industry and society at large. Specifically, our class discussed whether you need to be passionate towards programming, work on side projects, have desire to code in your free time, etc. I just don’t think you do at all. There’s so much more to life, and what you do in your career doesn’t have to be everything – nor should it be – for some. I think I can have tremendous drive to complete a project and do it really well and put all my effort and hard work into it – but my reason doesn’t have to be because I love doing it. It can be solely because I take pride in being successful or because I know this work will benefit me or others or allow me to do things that bring me joy in other areas of my life.

I guess I’ve just always kind of questioned the “do what you love” mentality that I feel is often thrown at us. I think it’s just as admirable to decide you’re going to do something because you have to so that you can do what you love to in other areas of your life. I’m sure some personality types are more suited to this mindset and some people wouldn’t be content with this, but I don’t think you have to LOVE your career to be good at it or to be truly happy in your life.

I picked computer science as a major because I thought I could probably succeed in the field, get a job when I graduated college, and not have to worry too much about my future – it would allow me to do things in my life that I would want to do that would bring me joy.

But this week also really made me reflect upon the fact that I’m absurdly lucky to even be able to say that. I’m so privileged to have been raised in a family with parents that have done everything for me- supported me, sacrificed and provided me with a quality education. It’s a privilege to attend Notre Dame and to be able to say I chose this major not because I love it – but because I know I can get a job in the field and because of all the opportunities it will allow me to have to do other things that I do love. The prospect of a secure future is an insane privilege in itself, not a luxury everyone has and yet something I think I’ve often seriously taken for granted.

And I’m sure many would disagree, but I think I’m also privileged or at least I honestly feel blessed to say that the greatest joys in my life don’t now- and probably won’t ever- come from coding or from my com-sci career. I wouldn’t want them too. I feel strongly that my identity is grounded not in what I do in my life but on who I spend it with – particularly my family. The older I’ve gotten and the more exposure I’ve had to others, the more I’ve realized how lucky I am to have the parents that I have and to have siblings that’ve taught me the importance of loving people despite their faults and being called out for my mistakes, of appreciating differences and learning to live and work with them. Not only have my parents worked tirelessly to provide a comfortable life and quality education for my siblings and I, but they’ve instilled values in me that have been crucial to my achievements. They’ve provided me with a place I look forward to going home to and yet given me the toolset and freedom to be comfortable and happy going out into the world on my own, knowing I’ll always have a support system behind me.

I look forward to having a family and having children and to trying to provide them with a life and a childhood in a way that my parents have for me. If that means doing what I have to do and aiming for success with this goal in mind – not because computer science is my passion but because it’s part of what allows me to be productive in the world, accomplish something that could help others, and allows me to seek joy in other aspects of my life, then that is more than good enough for me.

What does it mean to be an ethically responsible person and is that something you strive for?

This week’s readings and class discussions have given me the opportunity to reflect upon responsibility: what it means to be ethically responsible, what my duties and obligations are, and how I should be held accountable for the consequences of my actions, both as an engineer and as a human being.

I believe that a lot of the responsibility that I hold stems from the talents that I’ve been given and the blessings that I’ve received. I’ve been fortunate throughout my entire life to have a family that loves and supports me, to have been provided with endless opportunity and a quality education, to have been given talents that have allowed me to produce and succeed in much of what I’ve worked at – the list goes on. As a result of all this good that has been given to me, I know that I have an obligation to try and give back and spread all this good to the world around me. But I find the difficulty lies in determining how I should go about this: how much good am I obligated to do and what exactly should I be doing? how do I change lives as a 20-year old college student coding at my desk?

We talked a lot in class about the idea of coding as a superpower, and I understand why this notion developed and how it could be inspiring to young people. But, I don’t think at this stage in my education that I would really classify it as that. My friends that aren’t computer science majors or family members that aren’t “tech-savvy” would be considerably more apt to view coding as a superpower or as somewhat “magical” simply because they don’t understand it. My friends do often marvel that the projects I work on and the things I’ve created come from lines and lines of code that seem so foreign to them. More often than not, my response is that they could probably be doing exactly what I’m doing too, had they chosen to go into this field and learn it. In the same way that I learned to code, so could they. I think programmers therefore view themselves as people with a lot less “superpower” than those who have never programmed might view them as. Stemming from this, as Jeff Atwood talks about in his “To Serve Man, with Software” blog post, it’s probably the case that most programmers don’t think of themselves as people with power to change the world. I know I certainly don’t think of myself in this way and I think I’d find myself getting overwhelmed if I did, if I really considered myself someone who could have an impact that large. But yet when I return to the idea of responsibility – isn’t that precisely my duty, my obligation because of all the gifts I’ve been given?

Professor Bui presented a notion in class that served as a prospective answer to this question for me, an answer that I honestly found very comforting. He proposed that being your best self, using your talents to the fullest, and being the ultimate version of yourself in all aspects of your life is a way of giving back and making a positive impact on the world. I can thus fulfill my duties by bettering myself and offering the best version of myself to the world. I find this view reassuring because it seems more attainable- the world at large seems out of my control but the person that I am is in my control. This view also presents a challenge to determine what that best self is and how to reach it. It challenges me to assess my daily actions and interactions- Am I actually putting my best effort into nurturing the relationships that I have in my life or am I taking them for granted? Am I doing things with good, purposeful intention or strictly out of habit? It further challenges me to cultivate my talents and requires me to reflect on and assess what my talents truly are- Is coding my primary talent? Or is it a skill I’ve developed? Are there other talents I have that I’m neglecting?

In essence, the question of what an ethically responsible person is has left me with a lot more questions although there is no question that it is indeed something I strive to be. When I first read this prompt prior to any discussion this week, my initial thought was to view it through the lens of the field of ethics; that is, to consider all the ethical frameworks and theories I had read about, contemplate which one I thought to be most correct in most situations and develop my own definition of an “ethically responsible person” with these frameworks as a basis. I’ve realized now that there’s a lot more to it and whether or not I come to a clear-cut definition, just thinking about these topics – being aware – or to use the term used by Samuel Florman in his Engineering Ethics discussion- being “conscientious” – is a step in the right direction.