• Conti’s “enhanced” and intuitively driven design programs
• Dugan’s yet-to-be-tasked hummingbird drones
and
• the ways in which technologies have and are interacting with people with disabilities
Have we become the mere means for technological evolution? Are we even capable of understanding and guiding the technology that we are bringing forth? If not, say exactly why not. If so, say exactly how.)

Before answering the question, make sure to read the attached materials by Anders (3-5), the videos by Dugan, Conti, and Brashear as well as the Pdf, and lectures videos. YOU HAVE TO USE THESE SOURSECS, and answer the question based on them. Here are the video lectures as well as other videos to be used:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_LurJfOSiA (Dugan)
https://www.ted.com/talks/maurice_conti_the_incredible_inventions_of_intuitive_ai?language=en (Conti)
https://wichita.kanopy.com/product/fixed (Brashear)

After that, cite them using the following format (based on whether it is a video, an article, etc. :
For direct quotations where it is obvious what work is being cited:
Mill claims, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness” (7).
For videos, cite the minute and second the citation points to:
Aravena claims that “Evidence shows that people are better off in cities” (0:43).
For paraphrases drawing from separated pages from a single source:
Mill claims that only happiness is intrinsically valuable (7, 15-16).
For citations of class slides from lectures:
Utilitarianism evaluates the rightness of actions by their consequences to aggregate happiness (Wk5 Slide 8).
For citations of recorded class lectures:
Matteson claims virtue ethics helps to understand moral justification (Wk5 Lecture 3, 5:37).
For citations that require clarification about which author is being cited, use author and page(s):
Mill rejects Kant’s a priori methodology (Mill 3-4).
For citations involving multiple, separate materials being cited:
Mill considers the “Doctrine of Swine Objection” raised against Utilitarianism (Mill 7; Timmons 121-2).

Also, Here are some claims that you should do your absolute best to avoid in your posts:
A. Peoples’ views are subjective. It’s all just opinion. It’s all relative. Who’s to say?
B. People always disagree. Everyone is different. Everyone thinks differently from everyone else (about everything).
C. People “nowadays” think differently than they used to.
D. Some other people will stubbornly resist changing their minds or behavior.
E. Some people are awful. People should be overall smarter, less selfish, or morally better.
F. As a ___, I believe ___. Because my personal identity is ___, I believe ___.

Here are a few of the conventions often found in better philosophical writing. I suggest you aspire to them as you construct and revise your discussion posts.
A. Favor paraphrasing over quotes. If an author you are discussing puts a point clearly and succinctly, then use a direct quote. But if you want to talk about an idea that an author does not express clearly, or if it is an idea you can express more clearly and succinctly yourself, then do so in a paraphrase. Constructing paraphrases of your own is a very good skill to develop. It is also a help welcomed by your readers.
B. Favor the present tense for ideas. The convention in philosophy is to discuss ideas and arguments in the present tense. For example, even though Aristotle is long dead,
Aristotle argued that “….”
should (almost always) be revised to
Aristotle argues that “….”
There are exceptions to this convention, but you should only use a non-present tense to discuss an idea if you have a very clear reason to do so.
C. Get right to the point. It is perfectly acceptable in philosophy to begin writing this way:
Mill claims that ().
You are encouraged to write this way. Be direct about the ideas. You do not need to remind anyone that people have been discussing some topic for a long time. Unless the context of a claim matters to the philosophical substance of that claim, you do not need to provide its context—especially for compositions like discussion posts, where presumably everyone is looking at the same materials together.
D. Clear the clutter. Avoid awkward constructions like this:
Smith, whose first name was Adam, in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, first published in 1776 by Strahan and Cadell, argues from pages 34 to 99, and then again on page 105, that “….”