<\/p>\n
check out the attachment, it has prompt, use the 4 website to quote AND paraphrase (both are required) that i pasted on there. 800 words. APA style
\ndownload the attachment and follow the requiremen
\n
\n1. A Swiveling Proxy That Will Even Wear a Tutu
\nBy ROBBIE BROWNJUNE 7, 2013
\n
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/nytimes.com\/2013\/06\/08\/education\/for-homebound-students-a-robot-proxy-in-the-classroom.html?_r=0
\n
\n2. How One Boy With Autism Became BFF With Apple\u2019s Siri
\nBy JUDITH NEWMANOCT. 17, 2014
\n
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/nytimes.com\/2014\/10\/19\/fashion\/how-apples-siri-became-one-autistic-boys-bff.html
\n
\n3. The Ethical Frontiers of Robotics
\nNoel Sharkey*
\n
\nhttp:\/\/webpages.uncc.edu\/~jmconrad\/ECGR4161-2011-05\/notes\/Science_Article_Robotics_Ethics2.pdf
\n
\n4. THE ROBOTIC MOMENT
\nsherry turkle
\nIn late November 2005, I took my daughter Rebecca, then fourteen, to the Darwin exhibition
\nat the American Museum of Natural History in New York. From the moment you step into
\nthe museum and come face-to-face with a full-size dinosaur, you become part of a celebration
\nof life on Earth, what Darwin called \u201cendless forms most beautiful.\u201d Millions upon millions of
\nnow lifeless specimens represent nature\u2019s invention in every corner of the globe. There could
\nbe no better venue for documenting Darwin\u2019s life and thought and his theory of evolution by
\nnatural selection, the central truth that underpins contemporary biology. The exhibition aimed
\nto please and, a bit defensively in these days of attacks on the theory of evolution, wanted to
\nconvince.
\nAt the exhibit\u2019s entrance were two giant tortoises from the Gal\u00e1pagos Islands, the bestknown
\ninhabitants of the archipelago where Darwin did his most famous investigations. The
\nmuseum had been advertising these tortoises as wonders, curiosities, and marvels. Here,
\namong the plastic models at the museum, was the life that Darwin saw more than a century
\nand a half ago. One tortoise was hidden from view; the other rested in its cage, utterly still.
\nRebecca inspected the visible tortoise thoughtfully for a while and then said matter-of-factly,
\n\u201cThey could have used a robot.\u201d I was taken aback and asked what she meant. She said she
\nthought it was a shame to bring the turtle all this way from its island home in the Pacific, when
\nit was just going to sit there in the museum, motionless, doing nothing. Rebecca was both
\nconcerned for the imprisoned turtle and unmoved by its authenticity.
\nIt was Thanksgiving weekend. The line was long, the crowd frozen in place. I began to talk
\nwith some of the other parents and children. My question\u2014\u201cDo you care that the turtle is
\nalive?\u201d\u2014was a welcome diversion from the boredom of the wait. A ten-year-old girl told me
\nthat she would prefer a robot turtle because aliveness comes with aesthetic inconvenience:
\n\u201cIts water looks dirty. Gross.\u201d More usually, votes for the robots echoed my daughter\u2019s sentiment
\nthat in this setting, aliveness didn\u2019t seem worth the trouble. A twelve-year-old girl was
\nadamant: \u201cFor what the turtles do, you didn\u2019t have to have the live ones.\u201d Her father looked at
\nher, mystified: \u201cBut the point is that they are real. That\u2019s the whole point.\u201d
\nThe Darwin exhibition put authenticity front and center: on display were the actual magnifying
\nglass that Darwin used in his travels, the very notebook in which he wrote the famous
\nsentences that first described his theory of evolution. Yet, in the children\u2019s reactions to the inert
\nbut alive Gal\u00e1pagos tortoise, the idea of the original had no place. What I heard in the museum
\nreminded me of Rebecca\u2019s reaction as a seven-year-old during a boat ride in the postcard-blue
\nMediterranean. Already an expert in the world of simulated fish tanks, she saw
\nsomething in the water, pointed to it excitedly, and said, \u201cLook, Mommy, a jellyfish! It looks so
\nrealistic!\u201d When I told this story to a vice president at the Disney Corporation, he said he was
\nnot surprised. When Animal Kingdom opened in Orlando, populated by \u201creal\u201d\u2014that is, biological\u2014animals,
\nits first visitors complained that they were not as \u201crealistic\u201d as the animatronic
\ncreatures in other parts of Disneyworld. The robotic crocodiles slapped their tails and rolled
\ntheir eyes\u2014in sum, they displayed archetypal \u201ccrocodile\u201d behavior. The biological crocodiles,
\nlike the Gal\u00e1pagos tortoises, pretty much kept to themselves.
\nI believe that in our culture of simulation, the notion of authenticity is for us what sex was
\nfor the Victorians\u2014threat and obsession, taboo and fascination. I have lived with this idea for
\nmany years; yet, at the museum, I found the children\u2019s position strangely unsettling. For them,
\nin this context, aliveness seemed to have no intrinsic value. Rather, it is useful only if needed
\nfor a specific purpose. Darwin\u2019s endless forms so beautiful were no longer sufficient unto
\nthemselves. I asked the children a further question: \u201cIf you put a robot instead of a living turtle
\nin the exhibit, do you think people should be told that the turtle is not alive?\u201d Not really, said
\nmany children. Data on aliveness can be shared on a \u201cneed-to-know basis\u201d\u2014for a purpose.
\nBut what are the purposes of living things?
\nOnly a year later, I was shocked to be confronted with the idea that these purposes were
\nmore up for grabs than I had ever dreamed. I received a call from a Scientific American reporter
\nto talk about robots and our future. During that conversation, he accused me of harboring
\nsentiments that would put me squarely in the camp of those who have for so long stood in
\nthe way of marriage for homosexual couples. I was stunned, first because I harbor no such
\nsentiments, but also because his accusation was prompted not by any objection I had made
\nto the mating or marriage of people. The reporter was bothered because I had objected to the
\nmating and marriage of people to robots.
\nThe call had been prompted by a new book about robots by David Levy, a British-born entrepreneur
\nand computer scientist. In 1968 Levy, an international chess master, famously
\nwagered four artificial intelligence (AI) experts that no computer program would defeat him at
\nthe game in the subsequent decade. Levy won his bet. The sum was modest, 1,250 British
\npounds, but the AI community was chastened. They had overreached in their predictions for
\ntheir young science. It would be another decade before Levy was bested in chess by a computer
\nprogram, Deep Thought, an early version of the program that beat Gary Kasparov, the
\nreigning chess champion in the 1990s.3 These days, Levy is the chief executive officer at a
\ncompany that develops \u201csmart\u201d toys for children. In 2009, Levy and his team won\u2014and this
\nfor the second time\u2014the prestigious Loebner Prize, widely regarded as the world championship
\nfor conversational software. In this contest, Levy\u2019s \u201cchat bot\u201d program was best at convincing
\npeople that they were talking to another person and not to a machine.
\nAlways impressed with Levy\u2019s inventiveness, I found myself underwhelmed by the message
\nof this latest book, Love and Sex with Robots.4 No tongue-in-cheek science fiction
\nfantasy, it was reviewed without irony in the New York Times by a reporter who had just spent
\ntwo weeks at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and wrote glowingly about its
\nrobotics culture as creating \u201cnew forms of life.\u201d5
\nLove and Sex is earnest in its predictions about where people and robots will find themselves
\nby mid-century: \u201cLove with robots will be as normal as love with other humans, while the num-
\nber of sexual acts and lovemaking positions commonly practiced between humans will be extended,
\nas robots will teach more than is in all of the world\u2019s published sex manuals combined.\u201d
\n6 Levy argues that robots will teach us to be better friends and lovers because we will
\nbe able to practice on them. Beyond this, they will substitute where people fail. Levy proposes,
\namong other things, the virtues of marriage to robots. He argues that robots are, of
\ncourse, \u201cother\u201d but, in many ways, better. No cheating. No heartbreak. In Levy\u2019s argument,
\nthere is one simple criterion for judging the worth of robots in even the most intimate domains:
\nDoes being with a robot make you feel better? The master of today\u2019s computerspeak judges
\nfuture robots by the impact of their behavior. And his next bet is that in a very few years, this
\nis all we will care about as well.
\nI am a psychoanalytically trained psychologist. Both by temperament and profession, I
\nplace high value on relationships of intimacy and authenticity. Granting that an AI might develop
\nits own origami of lovemaking positions, I am troubled by the idea of seeking intimacy with
\na machine that has no feelings, can have no feelings, and is really just a clever collection of
\n\u201cas if \u201d performances, behaving as if it cared, as if it understood us. Authenticity, for me, follows
\nfrom the ability to put oneself in the place of another, to relate to the other because of a
\nshared store of human experiences: we are born, have families, and know loss and the reality
\nof death.7 A robot, however sophisticated, is patently out of this loop.
\nSo, I turned the pages of Levy\u2019s book with a cool eye. What if a robot is not a \u201cform of life\u201d
\nbut a kind of performance art? What if \u201crelating\u201d to robots makes us feel \u201cgood\u201d or \u201cbetter\u201d
\nsimply because we feel more in control? Feeling good is no golden rule. One can feel good
\nfor bad reasons. What if a robot companion makes us feel good but leaves us somehow diminished?
\nThe virtue of Levy\u2019s bold position is that it forces reflection: What kinds of relationships
\nwith machines are possible, desirable, or ethical? What does it mean to love a robot?
\nAs I read Love and Sex, my feelings on these matters were clear. A love relationship involves
\ncoming to savor the surprises and the rough patches of looking at the world from another\u2019s
\npoint of view, shaped by history, biology, trauma, and joy. Computers and robots do not have
\nthese experiences to share. We look at mass media and worry about our culture being intellectually
\n\u201cdumbed down.\u201d Love and Sex seems to celebrate an emotional dumbing down, a
\nwillful turning away from the complexities of human partnerships\u2014the inauthentic as a new
\naesthetic.
\nI was further discomforted as I read Love and Sex because Levy had interpreted my findings
\nabout the \u201cholding power\u201d of computers to argue his case. Indeed, Levy dedicated his
\nbook to Anthony,b an MIT computer hacker I interviewed in the early 1980s. Anthony was
\nnineteen when I met him, a shy young man who found computers reassuring. He felt insecure
\nin the world of people with its emotional risks and shades of gray. The activity and interactivity
\nof computer programming gave Anthony\u2014lonely, yet afraid of intimacy\u2014the feeling that he
\nwas not alone.8 In Love and Sex, Levy idealizes Anthony\u2019s accommodation and suggests that
\nloving a robot would be a reasonable next step for people like him. I was sent an advance
\ncopy of the book, and Levy asked if I could get a copy to Anthony, thinking he would be
\nflattered. I was less sure. I didn\u2019t remember Anthony as being at peace with his retreat to what
\nhe called \u201cthe machine world.\u201d I remembered him as wistful, feeling himself a spectator of the
\nhuman world, like a kid with his nose to the window of a candy store. When we imagine robots
\nas our future companions, we all put our noses to that same window.
\nI was deep in the irony of my unhappy Anthony as a role model for intimacy with robots
\nwhen the Scientific American reporter called. I was not shy about my lack of enthusiasm for
\nLevy\u2019s ideas and suggested that the very fact we were discussing marriage to robots at all
\nwas a comment on human disappointments\u2014that in matters of love and sex, we must be failing
\neach other. I did not see marriage to a machine as a welcome evolution in human relationships.
\nAnd so I was taken aback when the reporter suggested that I was no better than bigots
\nwho deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. I tried to explain that just because I didn\u2019t think
\npeople should marry machines didn\u2019t mean that any mix of adult people wasn\u2019t fair territory.
\nHe accused me of species chauvinism: Wasn\u2019t I withholding from robots their right to
\n\u201crealness\u201d? Why was I presuming that a relationship with a robot lacked authenticity? For me,
\nthe story of computers and the evocation of life had come to a new place.
\nAt that point, I told the reporter that I, too, was taking notes on our conversation. The reporter\u2019s
\npoint of view was now data for my own work on our shifting cultural expectations of
\ntechnology\u2014data, that is, for the book you are reading. His analogizing of robots to gay men
\nand women demonstrated that, for him, future intimacy with machines would not be a secondbest
\nsubstitute for finding a person to love. More than this, the reporter was insisting that machines
\nwould bring their own special qualities to an intimate partnership that needed to be
\nhonored in its own right. In his eyes, the love, sex, and marriage robot was not merely \u201cbetter
\nthan nothing,\u201d a substitute. Rather, a robot had become \u201cbetter than something.\u201d The machine
\ncould be preferable\u2014for any number of reasons\u2014to what we currently experience in the
\nsometimes messy, often frustrating, and always complex world of people.
\nThis episode with the Scientific American reporter shook me\u2014perhaps in part because the
\nmagazine had been for me, since childhood, a gold standard in scientific publication. But the
\nextravagance of the reporter\u2019s hopes for robots fell into a pattern I had been observing for
\nnearly a decade. The encounter over Love and Sex most reminded me of another time, two
\nyears before, when I met a female graduate student at a large psychology conference in New
\nOrleans; she had taken me aside to ask about the current state of research on robots designed
\nto serve as human companions. At the conference, I had given a presentation on an-
\nthropomorphism\u2014on how we see robots as close to human if they do such things as make
\neye contact, track our motion, and gesture in a show of friendship. These appear to be
\n\u201cDarwinian buttons\u201d that cause people to imagine that the robot is an \u201cother,\u201d that there is, colloquially
\nspeaking, \u201csomebody home.\u201d
\nDuring a session break, the graduate student, Anne, a lovely, raven-haired woman in her
\nmid-twenties, wanted specifics. She confided that she would trade in her boyfriend \u201cfor a
\nsophisticated Japanese robot\u201d if the robot would produce what she called \u201ccaring behavior.\u201d
\nShe told me that she relied on a \u201cfeeling of civility in the house.\u201d She did not want to be alone.
\nShe said, \u201cIf the robot could provide the environment, I would be happy to help produce the illusion
\nthat there is somebody really with me.\u201d She was looking for a \u201cno-risk relationship\u201d that
\nwould stave off loneliness. A responsive robot, even one just exhibiting scripted behavior,
\nseemed better to her than a demanding boyfriend. I asked her, gently, if she was joking. She
\ntold me she was not. An even more poignant encounter was with Miriam, a seventy-two-year-old
\nwoman living in a suburban Boston nursing home, a participant in one of
\nmy studies of robots and the elderly.
\nI meet Miriam in an office that has been set aside for my interviews. She is a slight figure
\nin a teal blue silk blouse and slim black pants, her long gray hair parted down the middle and
\ntied behind her head in a low bun. Although elegant and composed, she is sad. In part, this is
\nbecause of her circumstances. For someone who was once among Boston\u2019s best-known interior
\ndesigners, the nursing home is a stark and lonely place. But there is also something immediate:
\nMiriam\u2019s son has recently broken off his relationship with her. He has a job and family
\non the West Coast, and when he visits, he and his mother quarrel\u2014he feels she wants
\nmore from him than he can give. Now Miriam sits quietly, stroking Paro, a sociable robot in
\nthe shape of a baby harp seal. Paro, developed in Japan, has been advertised as the first
\n\u201ctherapeutic robot\u201d for its ostensibly positive effects on the ill, elderly, and emotionally
\ntroubled. Paro can make eye contact by sensing the direction of a human voice, is sensitive to
\ntouch, and has a small working English vocabulary for \u201cunderstanding\u201d its users (the robot\u2019s
\nJapanese vocabulary is larger); most importantly, it has \u201cstates of mind\u201d affected by how it is
\ntreated. For example, it can sense whether it is being stroked gently or with aggression. Now,
\nwith Paro, Miriam is lost in her reverie, patting down the robot\u2019s soft fur with care. On this day,
\nshe is particularly depressed and believes that the robot is depressed as well. She turns to
\nParo, strokes him again, and says, \u201cYes, you\u2019re sad, aren\u2019t you? It\u2019s tough out there. Yes, it\u2019s
\nhard.\u201d Miriam\u2019s tender touch triggers a warm response in Paro: it turns its head toward her
\nand purrs approvingly. Encouraged, Miriam shows yet more affection for the little robot. In attempting
\nto provide the comfort she believes it needs, she comforts herself.
\nBecause of my training as a clinician, I believe that this kind of moment, if it happens
\nbetween people, has profound therapeutic potential. We can heal ourselves by giving others
\nwhat we most need. But what are we to make of this transaction between a depressed woman
\nand a robot? When I talk to colleagues and friends about such encounters\u2014for Miriam\u2019s
\nstory is not unusual\u2014their first associations are usually to their pets and the solace they
\nprovide. I hear stories of how pets \u201cknow\u201d when their owners are unhappy and need comfort.
\nThe comparison with pets sharpens the question of what it means to have a relationship with
\na robot. I do not know whether a pet could sense Miriam\u2019s unhappiness, her feelings of loss. I
\ndo know that in the moment of apparent connection between Miriam and her Paro, a moment
\nthat comforted her, the robot understood nothing. Miriam experienced an intimacy with another,
\nbut she was in fact alone. Her son had left her, and as she looked to the robot, I felt that
\nwe had abandoned her as well.
\nExperiences such as these\u2014with the idea of aliveness on a \u201cneed-to-know\u201d basis, with the
\nproposal and defense of marriage to robots, with a young woman dreaming of a robot lover,
\nand with Miriam and her Paro\u2014have caused me to think of our time as the \u201crobotic moment.\u201d
\nThis does not mean that companionate robots are common among us; it refers to our state of
\nemotional\u2014and I would say philosophical\u2014readiness. I find people willing to seriously consider
\nrobots not only as pets but as potential friends, confidants, and even romantic partners.
\nWe don\u2019t seem to care what these artificial intelligences \u201cknow\u201d or \u201cunderstand\u201d of the human
\nmoments we might \u201cshare\u201d with them. At the robotic moment, the performance of connection
\nseems connection enough. We are poised to attach to the inanimate without prejudice. The
\nphrase \u201ctechnological promiscuity\u201d comes to mind.
\nAs I listen for what stands behind this moment, I hear a certain fatigue with the difficulties
\nof life with people. We insert robots into every narrative of human frailty. People make too
\nmany demands; robot demands would be of a more manageable sort. People disappoint; robots
\nwill not. When people talk about relationships with robots, they talk about cheating husbands,
\nwives who fake orgasms, and children who take drugs. They talk about how hard it is
\nto understand family and friends. I am at first surprised by these comments. Their clear intent
\nis to bring people down a notch. A forty-four-year-old woman says, \u201cAfter all, we never know
\nhow another person really feels. People put on a good face. Robots would be safer.\u201d A thirtyyear-old
\nman remarks, \u201cI\u2019d rather talk to a robot. Friends can be exhausting. The robot will always
\nbe there for me. And whenever I\u2019m done, I can walk away.\u201d
\nThe idea of sociable robots suggests that we might navigate intimacy by skirting it. People
\nseem comforted by the belief that if we alienate or fail each other, robots will be there, programmed
\nto provide simulations of love.9 Our population is aging; there will be robots to take
\ncare of us. Our children are neglected; robots will tend to them. We are too exhausted to deal
\nwith each other in adversity ; robots will have the energy. Robots won\u2019t be judgmental. We will
\nbe accommodated. An older woman says of her robot dog, \u201cIt is better than a real dog. . . . It
\nwon\u2019t do dangerous things, and it won\u2019t betray you. . . . Also, it won\u2019t die suddenly and abandon
\nyou and make you very sad.\u201d10
\nThe elderly are the first to have companionate robots aggressively marketed to them, but
\nyoung people also see the merits of robotic companionship. These days, teenagers have
\nsexual adulthood thrust upon them before they are ready to deal with the complexities of relationships.
\nThey are drawn to the comfort of connection without the demands of intimacy. This
\nmay lead them to a hookup\u2014sex without commitment or even caring. Or it may lead to an online
\nromance\u2014companionship that can always be interrupted. Not surprisingly, teenagers are
\ndrawn to love stories in which full intimacy cannot occur\u2014here I think of current passions for
\nfilms and novels about high school vampires who cannot sexually consummate relationships
\nfor fear of hurting those they love. And teenagers are drawn to the idea of technological communion.
\nThey talk easily of robots that would be safe and predictable companions.11
\nThese young people have grown up with sociable robot pets, the companions of their
\nplayrooms, which portrayed emotion, said they cared, and asked to be cared for. 12 We are
\npsychologically programmed not only to nurture what we love but to love what we nurture. So
\neven simple artificial creatures can provoke heartfelt attachment. Many teenagers anticipate
\nthat the robot toys of their childhood will give way to full-fledged machine companions. In the
\npsychoanalytic tradition, a symptom addresses a conflict but distracts us from understanding
\nor resolving it; a dream expresses a wish. 13 Sociable robots serve as both symptom and
\ndream: as a symptom, they promise a way to sidestep conflicts about intimacy; as a dream,
\nthey express a wish for relationships with limits, a way to be both together and alone. 14
\nSome people even talk about robots as providing respite from feeling overwhelmed by
\ntechnology. In Japan, companionate robots are specifically marketed as a way to seduce
\npeople out of cyberspace; robots plant a new flag in the physical real. If the problem is that
\ntoo much technology has made us busy and anxious, the solution will be another technology
\nthat will organize, amuse, and relax us. So, although historically robots provoked anxieties
\nabout technology out of control, these days they are more likely to represent the reassuring
\nidea that in a world of problems, science will offer solutions.15 Robots have become a twentyfirst-century
\ndeus ex machina. Putting hope in robots expresses an enduring technological
\noptimism, a belief that as other things go wrong, science will go right. In a complicated world,
\nrobots seem a simple salvation. It is like calling in the cavalry.
\nBut this is not a book about robots. Rather, it is about how we are changed as technology
\noffers us substitutes for connecting with each other face-to-face. We are offered robots and a
\nwhole world of machine-mediated relationships on networked devices. As we in-
\nstant-message, e-mail, text, and Twitter, technology redraws the boundaries between intimacy
\nand solitude. We talk of getting \u201crid\u201d of our e-mails, as though these notes are so much
\nexcess baggage. Teenagers avoid making telephone calls, fearful that they \u201creveal too much.\u201d
\nThey would rather text than talk. Adults, too, choose keyboards over the human voice. It is
\nmore efficient, they say. Things that happen in \u201creal time\u201d take too much time. Tethered to
\ntechnology, we are shaken when that world \u201cunplugged\u201d does not signify, does not satisfy.
\nAfter an evening of avatar-to-avatar talk in a networked game, we feel, at one moment, in
\npossession of a full social life and, in the next, curiously isolated, in tenuous complicity with
\nstrangers. We build a following on Facebook or MySpace and wonder to what degree our followers
\nare friends. We recreate ourselves as online personae and give ourselves new bodies,
\nhomes, jobs, and romances. Yet, suddenly, in the half-light of virtual community, we may feel
\nutterly alone. As we distribute ourselves, we may abandon ourselves. Sometimes people experience
\nno sense of having communicated after hours of connection. And they report feelings
\nof closeness when they are paying little attention. In all of this, there is a nagging question:
\nDoes virtual intimacy degrade our experience of the other kind and, indeed, of all encounters,
\nof any kind?
\nThe blurring of intimacy and solitude may reach its starkest expression when a robot is
\nproposed as a romantic partner. But for most people it begins when one creates a profile on a
\nsocial-networking site or builds a persona or avatar for a game or virtual world.16 Over time,
\nsuch performances of identity may feel like identity itself. And this is where robotics and the
\nnetworked life first intersect. For the performance of caring is all that robots, no matter how
\nsociable, know how to do.
\nI was enthusiastic about online worlds as \u201cidentity workshops\u201d when they first appeared,
\nand all of their possibilities remain.17 Creating an avatar\u2014perhaps of a different age, a different
\ngender, a different temperament\u2014is a way to explore the self. But if you\u2019re spending
\nthree, four, or five hours a day in an online game or virtual world (a time commitment that is
\nnot unusual), there\u2019s got to be someplace you\u2019re not. And that someplace you\u2019re not is often
\nwith your family and friends\u2014sitting around, playing Scrabble face-to-face, taking a walk,
\nwatching a movie together in the old-fashioned way. And with performance can come disorientation.
\nYou might have begun your online life in a spirit of compensation. If you were lonely
\nand isolated, it seemed better than nothing. But online, you\u2019re slim, rich, and buffed up, and
\nyou feel you have more opportunities than in the real world. So, here, too, better than nothing
\ncan become better than something\u2014or better than anything. Not surprisingly, people report
\nfeeling let down when they move from the virtual to the real world. It is not uncommon to see
\npeople fidget with their smartphones, looking for virtual places where they might once again
\nbe more.
\nSociable robots and online life both suggest the possibility of relationships the way we
\nwant them. Just as we can program a made-to-measure robot, we can reinvent ourselves as
\ncomely avatars. We can write the Facebook profile that pleases us. We can edit our messages
\nuntil they project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) the self we want to be. And we can keep things short and sweet. Our
\nnew media are well suited for accomplishing the rudimentary. And because this is what technology
\nserves up, we reduce our expectations of each other. An impatient high school senior
\nsays, \u201cIf you really need to reach me, just shoot me a text.\u201d He sounds just like my colleagues
\non a consulting job, who tell me they would prefer to communicate with \u201creal-time texts.\u201d
\nOur first embrace of sociable robotics (both the idea of it and its first exemplars) is a window
\nonto what we want from technology and what we are willing to do to accommodate it.
\nFrom the perspective of our robotic dreams, networked life takes on a new cast. We imagine
\nit as expansive. But we are just as fond of its constraints. We celebrate its \u201cweak ties,\u201d the
\nbonds of acquaintance with people we may never meet. But that does not mean we prosper
\nin them.18 We often find ourselves standing depleted in the hype. When people talk about the
\npleasures of these weak-tie relationships as \u201cfriction free,\u201d they are usually referring to the
\nkind of relationships you can have without leaving your desk. Technology ties us up as it
\npromises to free us up. Connectivity technologies once promised to give us more time. But as
\nthe cell phone and smartphone eroded the boundaries between work and leisure, all the time
\nin the world was not enough. Even when we are not \u201cat work,\u201d we experience ourselves as
\n\u201con call\u201d; pressed, we want to edit out complexity and \u201ccut to the chase.\u201d
\nAlone Together<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
check out the attachment, it has prompt, use the 4 website to quote AND paraphrase (both are required) that i pasted on there. 800 words.\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10601,10596,10882,479,537,172,478,10597,10599,10595],"tags":[10524,10522,10890,10561,10883,10889,10515,10521,10696,10518,10888,10887,10886,10885,10884,10525],"class_list":["post-124382","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-assignment-help-by-uks-no-1-writing-service","category-assignment-writers-canada-university-cost","category-free-ai-english-assignment-writers-china","category-nursing-course-hero","category-nursing-essay-pro","category-nursing-study-bay","category-nursing-study-pool","category-professional-assignment-writers-usa","category-uae-1-cheap-assignment-writing-service","category-write-a-word-essay","tag-apa-citation-format-assignment","tag-assignment-writers-australia-college-student","tag-best-nursing-case-study-writing-services","tag-buy-essay-usa","tag-case-study-nursing-writing-services-for-care-plans","tag-free-nursing-case-study-writing-services","tag-help-write-a-page-assignment","tag-i-need-someone-to-do-my-assignment-within-hours","tag-need-assistance-completing-the-assignment","tag-need-to-write-an-essay","tag-nursing-case-studies-with-answers","tag-nursing-case-study-paper-example","tag-nursing-case-study-template-examples-of-case-studies-nursing","tag-pharmacology-case-study","tag-soap-note-case-study","tag-write-pages"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124382","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=124382"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124382\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}