Shakespeare in the Digital Age

Simply considering how scientifically and technologically advanced our society is, I (and many others) would have expected works like Shakespeare to become obsolete. With books becoming digitalized, who knows how long it'll be before even E-books are old news? Maybe we'll implant microchips inside our brain that allow us to instantly absorb knowledge. For now, however, Shakespeare has persevered and made it all the way to my English class.

What kind of effects has technology had on Shakespeare (that's the question)? And following that question, why is Shakespeare still such a big presence in English classes? The latter is easier to answer, however, so we'll start with that one. The world is run by demand. That is, if people like and can relate to something, it'll be popular. Because of how timeless and easily relatable Shakespeare's works are, they have lasted and will last for ages.

When I say relatable, I don't mean that everyone has been through the tragedies of Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet. Rather, I am referring to the subtle themes that are almost exaggerated in Shakespeare's works: betrayal, greed, forbidden love, and so on. Everyone can empathize, or at least sympathize, with Shakespeare's characters, thus making the play itself more accessible (more on that here).

Speaking of access, the most important and noticeable effect of technology on Shakespeare has been to make it more accessible. Although we can still go and watch actors perform Shakespeare, we can also easily find it in print, or even online. Not only can more people access Shakespeare's works, they can also use them more easily as well. Without technology, doing my English project on a word from Shakespeare would be difficult, as I would have to go through the entire book all over again looking for the word "dream."

In essence, technology has not harmed Shakespeare's works; rather, it has helped them by exposing more and more people to the works.

The Infinite Monkey Theorem

The Age of Artificial Intelligence

As long as I can remember, artificial intelligence has fascinated me. It is a strange idea, that we, who had no control over our own creation, can replicate the beauty of life (or at least, parts of it) in machines. What really got interested in AI is how similar computers are to us. Many of the chips in our computers are made of silicon, which is right below carbon on the periodic table. And of course, carbon is the magical element that makes life for us and countless other organisms possible. Hard drives store memory, and the central processing unit (CPU), well, processes. That seems awfully reminiscent of the human brain. As much as we know about the brain, however, I would dare to say that there is even more that we don't know.

It is undeniable how far technology has come. Communication across the globe takes seconds. We have supercomputers that can beat masters at chess. Wolfram Alpha, Siri, and Google Translate are simply mind-blowing. We've come a long way since the wheel, but just how much farther can we go? In more recent times, more and more people are debating the issue of whether artificial intelligence is possible. It is a question that only the future can tell, but it seems to me that we shouldn't rule out the possibility quite yet. After all, no one in the Middle Ages would've believed that humans would invent something that could fly.

But before I get into the arguments for the possibility of artificial intelligence, let's define this term. Interestingly enough, much of the debate of AI deals with what we define AI to be. Merriam-webster defines AI as "the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior." The definition leaves room for a great deal of interpretation. For example, there is no mention as to whether the machine would be autonomous or not. Could it survive by itself, obtaining the resources it requires to survive? Could it reproduce, which would ultimately make it an actual living organism?

Unfortunately, those questions require much more probing (more than we can do on this post), so we'll return to those questions possibly in a later post. For now, we will focus on the central argument of AI, which has always been, "Can computers think?" In other words, can we artificially create intelligence? There are many who believe that such a feat is impossible, that humans are unique because of their intelligene and reason. A book I once read, Ishmael, spoke of how humans perceive themselves as the superior species, similar to how we see ourselves as more beautiful than we actually are.

We tout the human species for having the "reason" that is lacking in other animals. Yet computers have a logic superior to our own. Their only flaw is that they lack the emotions, feelings, or intuition that we supposedly have. But what are these emotions that we feel except a bunch of nerves sending signals to each other in our brain? And as for any arguments for intuition, rather than "feeling," intuition is more like utilizing what we know as data to (perhaps unconsciously) arrive to a reasonable conclusion.

In an attempt to avoid controversy, I will leave this final question unanswered: do humans have souls? If not, what is it about computers that makes them so different from humans? Atoms are atoms, and they compose you, me, and computers.

Why Flappy Bird?

Everyone has heard about the game that has swept through the App Store and Google Play: Flappy Bird. But why was it so popular? And if it was so popular, why did the creator choose to remove it from the store today? 

First, let's consider the aspects of Flappy Bird. There aren't many. You tap on a screen, and the bird jumps up. You try to make it between two pipes. If you make it through, you continue "flapping." If you don't, you lose. How did such a simple game gain so much popularity that it rivaled more complex games like Angry Birds and Candy Crush?

Dong Nguyen, creator of this frustrating and popular game, claims that "people prefer imperfect things." Flappy Bird, in all its popularity, has been the subject of criticisms (and much more). I am inclined to agree with Nguyen, for imperfection is a reality we can all relate to. A perfect game is never as exciting as one with a few flaws, because with an imperfect game, the players can feel as though they are contributing to the game.

Another factor that led to Flappy Bird's success is its simplicity. As fun as intricate games like League of Legends are, on a smartphone, simple games tend to be more popular. That way, the average person doesn't have to invest countless hours understanding and honing their skills. Its simplicity, combined with how quick each "round" is, makes it a great game to play on the go when there's nothing to do for a few minutes.

Finally, there is the challenge. It seems to me that the difficulty of the game is the main reason why it is so popular. There's a theory in game developing that goes like this: when a novice (or as gamers have affectionately termed it, noob) plays a game for the first time, they should be rewarded for picking up the game. This can and has been done in many ways. Whether it's Modern Warfare and the "noob tube" (a powerful weapon that requires little skill) or League of Legends and Lux (an overpowered champion that again requires little skill), there are incentives to continue playing.

In Flappy Bird, the "reward" is different. During the first few tries, the game can seem impossible. Gradually, however, the game makes more sense, and a pattern appears. The people who don't give up eventually hit scores of 100 or 200, while those that do not invest the time get lower scores. Doesn't seem like much of a reward? That's because the real reward is the competition. It doesn't matter if you get to level 1000 on Candy Crush if no one else plays it. Because the game is so popular and easy to learn (albeit being insanely hard to master), friends are motivated to continue playing. 

We have established the fact that Flappy Bird is a cleverly made game with multiple factors that led to its success. Ironically, those very factors have led to its downfall. Many players have become disillusioned by the simple but difficult game, leading to widespread criticism. "Haters" sent him angry tweets and even death threats. Despite this, Nguyen held steady. He responded to countless of the tweets of his players, making his case that this game was created to make players laugh, not cry in distress. 

On February 9, 2013, Nguyen announced that in 22 hours' time, he would be pulling the plug on Flappy Bird. As of now, it is no longer available for download. 

With this blog post, I would like to pay my respects to a person I can understand well. As a programmer, I can say with certainty that there is no developer in the world who wishes his or her games to cause players to cry. This is a sad tale of a developer, whose game, by chance, became so popular it attracted the worst kind of crowd. Whether it was out of jealousy (complaining that the pipe sprites were stolen from Mario and the like) or outright anger due to their own inadequacy, players have destroyed the very object meant to make them laugh and enjoy themselves.

You can read more on this story here and find fascinating Flappy Bird statistics here.

The Impact of Games: Part Two

You can find part one of this series of posts here.

In part one, I discussed the benefits of gaming, ranging from stress relief to hand-eye coordination. It is undeniable that games can have positive effects. But like all things, games must be played in moderation. A few hours a week theoretically can help children relieve stress, build friendship and teamwork, and improve their coordination. However, as the comments on the previous post have mentioned, playing too much can be detrimental to the person's health.

To give an example, I will return to League of Legends. In Season Two of League of Legends (2012, essentially), TPA Toyz was considered the best mid laner in the world, and possibly the best player in the game. His mechanics were praised as unbeatable, and when he retired, the League of Legends world was indubitably shocked. However, this was actually to be expected. To become the best in the world, practice is key. As a professional gamer, he practiced over 10 hours a day in order to outperform his competition. As a result, he was soon diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome, causing him to retire. More about it here.

League of Legends Season Two World Champions: Taipei Assassins (TPA)

There are other health effects correlated with gaming. Similar to Toyz, I have felt some pain in my wrists when I played too much at once. Accompanying that sensation were my rapidly blinking eyes. Staring at the computer screen for so long (League of Legends games are almost always 20 minutes at the least, often stretching to 40 minutes) had caused my eyes to become terribly dry and eventually red.

Beyond health, there are other problems with gaming; one of the most frequently cited is addiction. As far as I know, games are meant to be addicting. When I lose, I am motivated the continue playing until I win. When I win, I feel euphoric and want to continue playing. As you can see, if the player is not careful, he or she can easily fall into the temptation of games. I won't lie: I have my moments when I procrastinate and play games instead of finishing my homework. This especially applies, since I am a second semester senior. 

And so, I believe that games are not for the weak-willed. People seem to believe that gamers are stupid, aggressive, and incapable of taking care of themselves (the third one sort of applies). There is that stigma. But true gamers are not those who spend 10 hours a day playing a game mindlessly while procrastinating (professional gamers are exceptions since playing games is their job). True gamers are the people who can balance work (or school), games, and their social lives while riding a unicycle and juggling countless other activities.

In a later post, I will discuss one final negative effect associated with gaming: violence. In that post, I will also address what we are able to conclude from this set of posts.

Part three of this series can be found here.