Week 8: CST 300 Final

This is the eighth week of the CSUMB computer science program. 

This is the last week for the CST300 course, which started off with reviewing three different team's final video projects. The teams I picked were Replicant Collective, Prime Solutions, and CIGN Consulting.

Replicant Collective - Final Video Project:

General Audience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UVoTGU2Sz8

• Is the topic well covered? Yes, the presentation effectively went over biomimicry by using examples like robotic bees. It also went over future applications, while being comprehensive and engaging.
• Is the presentation clear? The language was simple and easily understood, which also had imagery and questions to get the audience's attention. The presentation was straightforward and not complicated to follow.
• How is the quality of the research? The research appeared to be well done given the examples that dealt with the applications of biomimicry. However, there were no references going over the research on biomimicry. Therefore, it would be best to include credits that go over the research through references, as the information in the presentation could become plagiarized if not attributed to the individuals.
• How is the quality of the video production? There were video clips that went over the examples presented in the presentation. The visuals were engaging alongside the music being played in the background. Therefore, the quality of the production was good, although it would have been better to have more detail when giving information to an audience (e.g. slides).
• Is the video engaging and interesting? Yes, the presentation is engaging, as they use examples and questions to keep the audience's attention throughout the presentation.
• Is the teamwork evident? Yes, everyone seems to have contributed to the script used within the presentation, while also contributing to the audio by being speakers.
• Is the video appropriate to the audience? Yes, the video is great for a general audience presentation, as it provided examples, along with a tone tailored for the audience and ensured that it wouldn't overwhelm the audience through technical words.

The general audience presentation introduced biomimicry through engaging the audience with video clips and questions, while providing great examples on how biomimicry can solve human problems. The presentation was certainly good, although the transitions between speakers and a lack of references for credibility somewhat took away from the presentation, as without a way to differentiate speakers (which would cause confusion in the audience) and way to back up credibility (having research references supporting what you say) somewhat made the presentation unsupported and unprofessional. In the end, adding transitions between who is speaking and supporting the presentation with research through references, will make it far more appealing and research driven.

Professional Audience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukOhBReFl5k

• Is the topic well covered? Yes, the presentation is well covered, as it goes over biomimicry's history, science, and technological aspects, while providing examples through video clips, presentation slides, and future through a comprehensive presentation.
• Is the presentation clear? The language used throughout the presentation was clear, as it targeted a professional audience. The presentation used technological terms appropriately and included historical context. However, there was no professional introduction of the individuals presenting nor was there any transitions between speakers, thus the introduction of speakers and transition between speakers would have made the presentation more professional.
• How is the quality of the research? The research appeared to be well done and had examples with slides to support the visuals provided. However, there was no references on the research done, thus the research could very well be considered plagiarized if they don't give credit to the individuals.
• How is the quality of the video production? The visuals, music, and slides were really great in providing a way to engage with the audience and keep their attention. Furthermore, the presentation was well structured in content, design, and in introducing the topics for biomimicry appropriately.
• Is the video engaging and interesting? Yes, the examples, historical context, and the futuristic analysis was both stimulating and relevant, which made the presentation engaging and interesting.
• Is the teamwork evident? Yes, the transcript appears to have been made by all of them, while also being voiced by everyone within the group. Although, there isn't any indication on who does what part of the script until they speak, which required a transitional sentence before each speaker spoke.
• Is the video appropriate to the audience? Yes, the presentation was appropriate as it used technical and detailed examples that were relevant to a professional audience.

The professional audience presentation was good, as it provided a comprehensive understanding of biomimicry through technical terms, history, and future applications. In the end, the presentation can be improved with having transitions between speakers and having a references page for the research done, as they may not seem like much in the whole presentation, but they are vital in presenting everything through research, while being professional about it.

Prime Solutions - Final Video Project:

General Audience: https://youtu.be/uMosL8QPaTo

• Is the topic well covered? Yes, the presentation effectively goes over AI companionship, providing examples of AI assistants (e.g. Siri, Google Assistant. etc.), while detailing the organization, productivity, and emotional support that AI companionship provides.
• Is the presentation clear? Yes, the language is simple and easy to follow. Furthermore, the examples and scenarios given throughout the presentation allow others to follow along, while connecting with the speakers.
• How is the quality of the research? Based on what was said and given through the presentation, I believe that they did research given the examples provided. However, there is a lack of references to support the information provided, thus adding citations within the slides and having references at the end of the presentation, would have been a good way to showcase research.
• How is the quality of the video production? The visuals, sound, and animations were certainly engaging and well thought out; However, having the speakers become AI voices throughout the presentation takes away the engagement with the audience.
• Is the video engaging and interesting? Yes, the presentation was both engaging and interesting, but the decision to use AI voice for every speaker took away from the presentation. The idea was great, providing a good example on how AI companionship works; However, this took away from the engagement with the audience, as there isn't any human involved throughout the presentation.
• Is the teamwork evident? Yes, there was organization and teamwork behind the creation of the presentation.
• Is the video appropriate to the audience? Yes, as the tone, language, and examples were all very well suited for a general audience.

The general audience presentation was certainly creative in its implementation of visuals and the use of AI for the presentation's speaker. However, there wasn't transitions between speakers, references to support research, and the AI voice for the speakers took away the engagement with the audience. In the end, it would be best to add transitions on who is speaking, along with a reference page and citations on each slide to support information, and have actual speakers instead of AI voice, as this takes away the engagement you would normally have with the audience.

Professional Audience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF2iOZ3S0ws

• Is the topic well covered? Yes, the presentation goes over the history, applications, and foundations of AI companionship. The presentation also goes over ethical considerations, while giving an overview on any considerations or concerns dealing with the use of AI.
• Is the presentation clear? Yes, the language is professional and precise, explaining through technical terminology that the professional audience would understand, as they went over natural language processing, affective computing, and multimodal AI.
• How is the quality of the research? The research seems thorough, as they provide different technologies and real-world examples. However, there isn't anything supporting that research, as there are no citations or reference slide detailing where this information came from.
• How is the quality of the video production? The audio for this presentation was very low, to the extent that I required headphones to fully hear the speakers. Otherwise, the presentation had good visuals and transitions between speakers.
• Is the video engaging and interesting? Yes, the presentation was engaging, as it provided technical insights, examples, and ethical questions. 
• Is the teamwork evident? I believe that everyone contributed to the development of the slides, while having only two individuals become speakers for the presentation. Therefore, there is some evidence to teamwork, but there isn't any indication of it.
• Is the video appropriate to the audience? Yes, the presentation was in a professional tone, along with technical explanations, and focused on ethical considerations tailored to a professional audience.

The professional audience presentation was very informative and gave an overview on the ethical considerations of AI companionship. However, the presentation had issues with audio, along with having no supporting research through references, and there wasn't any clarification on who contributed to what on the slides. In the end, it would be best to address the audio issue, provide citations for each slide as to support them with references, and provide some form of text on who edited what slide.

CIGN Consulting - Final Video Project:

General Audience: https://youtu.be/2n71AXy3teg

• Is the topic well covered? Yes, the presentation effectively went over reusable rockets and satellite connectivity. The presentation went over bridging the digital divide, while going over some history, applications, and challenges associated with this concept.
• Is the presentation clear? Yes, the language is simple, while effectively explaining complex ideas through simple explanations like low-earth orbit satellites and reusable rockets.  
• How is the quality of the research? I believe that there was research done, as there are examples and technological explanations. However, there isn't any citations for the slides, thus there isn't any supporting evidence through references on how they researched.
• How is the quality of the video production? The quality of the presentation was good, as there weren't any issues with audio, while the visuals properly supported the topics discussed.
• Is the video engaging and interesting? Yes, the presentation was both engaging and interesting; although, there wasn't any transition from speaker to speaker, which can throw the general audience off.
• Is the teamwork evident? Yes, there is a clear indication on teamwork done through the names at the beginning of the slide, along with the transcript used by the speakers, and the speakers themselves.
• Is the video appropriate to the audience? Yes, as the tone, simple explanations, and focus on global connectivity made it very suitable for a general audience.

The general audience presentation went over key topics that provided a well-grounded discussion, while making them simplistic for the audience. However, the presentation lacked references to support information and transitions for speakers. In the end, this can be improved by providing the citations to the slides (as to showcase credibility) and adding transitions between who is speaking.

Professional Audience: https://youtu.be/zbHw68x0-vQ

• Is the topic well covered? Yes, the presentation provided a comprehensive understanding of reusable rockets and satellite connectivity. The presentation went over historical advancements, technological innovations, future challenges, and astronomical interference.
• Is the presentation clear? Yes, the language used to explain each part of the presentation was well-suited for a professional audience. 
• How is the quality of the research? I believe that research was done, given the historical advancements and explanations going over innovations and future challenges. However, there isn't any citations for this information, thus they aren't supported by something credible through a reference page.
• How is the quality of the video production? The quality of the presentation was good, as they had visuals for terminology, while giving an ambience through the background of the slides.
• Is the video engaging and interesting? Yes, the presentation was engaging through historical context and technical insights.
• Is the teamwork evident? Yes, there is evidence of teamwork though the names at the beginning of the slide and the speakers going over the discussion. However, there isn't a proper transition for each speaker.
• Is the video appropriate to the audience? Yes, the presentation is appropriate for a professional audience, as it goes into technical evaluations, while discussing global and societal implications.

The professional audience presentation went over a very detailed summary on the history, challenges, innovations and future of reusable rockets and satellite connectivity. However, the transitions between speakers and the lack of a reference page took away from the professional presentation. In the end, a professional presentation needs to have transitions on who is speaking, while having supporting information through citations and a reference page. 

The last thing we did this week was go over our final thoughts and what we learned, while providing our own final video project over quantum computing within this journal.

The collaboration on the final video project took a lot more time than me and my team initially planned for in module 7, as we needed to make meetings outside of our planned days to meet. The extra days were mostly for recordings and final confirmations on the videos, as the day prior we worked together to finalize the slides collectively, while assigning roles on who accomplishes what. 

Even though we completed the final video project, it left me somewhat unsatisfied with our planning; although, we did make time for extra meetings through discord either through the meeting or general discussion board, the initial organization behind the creation of the project went haywire. I'm not saying that my team wasn't capable of getting things on time or couldn't effectively get things done outside of our meetings, as we collectively decided to finalize the slides during the meeting, while correcting any mistakes others made throughout their portion of the work. It simply took more time than we initially planned for, thus I learned that one needs to account for all variables whether that is teammate schedules or how much time it could take to complete a project.

Besides the communication with my teammates, which was fantastic through discord, I learned the most effective way to lead a project, while learning how to manage time, along with collaborating effectively though meetings. In the end, for the next collaboration I would like to account for all possibilities throughout a project, as there needs to be a more detailed plan on what needs to be done each meeting, while accounting for all possible situations that could prevent the project getting completed in time. 

This is the final week for this course, and I'm excited for the next subject we are going to cover for the CSUMB program. Also, the following videos below are our presentations for the final video project.

Quantum Computing: WEBCRAFT Solutions - Final Video Project:

General Audience:

Professional Presentation: