Week 8

Evaluation of Fantastic4: Digital Immorality

I honestly really liked both of the videos. They didn’t feel like school projects at all—they felt more like short documentaries. You can tell the group really put in effort, not just in editing or visuals, but in how everything came together overall. The first video, made for a general audience, was kept straightforward and easy to follow. The part when they mentioned talking to someone you’ve lost really stood out to me. They didn’t go heavy on the tech side, which I think worked well for the kind of audience they had in mind.

The second video stood out even more. It felt thoughtful and filled with solid examples. They talked about laws, tools, and companies—some I hadn’t heard of—and broke it down in a way that made sense. I was pretty surprised they were able to include so much without overloading it. Everything made sense and felt well put together. You could tell they didn’t just throw it together—they really put thought into it. It came off like they wanted the message to mean something to whoever watched it.

Evaluation of Group 8

The group did a strong job covering the topic of drones in both videos. The first video, which was for a general audience, was pretty easy to get through. They didn’t use too much technical stuff, which helped. It felt casual, not like a lecture or anything. They mentioned both the positives and negatives—like drones being useful in emergencies or just for fun stuff like shows. What I really noticed was how they explained things in a clear order. They gave a little history, added examples, then talked about the problems. It just made sense. It felt fair overall, and the visuals helped support what they were saying. Some lines came off a bit stiff in the delivery, but it still worked for the audience they had in mind.

The second video was more in-depth and clearly geared toward a technical or professional crowd. They went deeper into how drones work and even explained tech like YOLO V3 and how it’s used to recognize things in real time. You could tell the research was solid—they added history, technical terms, and examples from things like agriculture and delivery services, even military uses. The pacing and explanations were strong overall, though I did feel it dragged a little when it got really technical. Still, it stayed clear and well-structured throughout. You could tell they put a lot of time into writing the script and collecting accurate info. It felt more academic and carefully planned than the first one, and both videos complemented each other well.

Evaluation of Software Solutions: AI Agents:Digital Workers

This group chose a timely and important topic: AI agents. The first video was clearly made for a general audience, and I think they did a pretty good job making the topic easy to follow. I liked how they connected it to familiar things—like Roombas, Google Nest, or even characters in games. That part made it easier for me to picture how AI agents actually work day to day. The way they explained things felt pretty laid-back, kind of like just chatting, which helped—especially for folks who aren’t all that into tech. It shared useful info without overloading you, though now and then it did sound a bit like they were just reading their script. Even so, it matched the audience pretty well and stayed interesting without getting too heavy.

The second video stepped things up for a more technical audience. It explained not only what AI agents are, but how they work in stages—planning, tool usage, and reflection. The video dove into technical frameworks like reasoning-and-action models versus reasoning-only models, and it clearly showed the difference between older AI systems and these newer, more autonomous agents. I thought the examples across fields—like GitHub Copilot, healthcare diagnostics, and emergency response—were well-chosen and backed up the explanation effectively. The tone was much more formal, and the vocabulary was fitting for computer science students. It did get dense in parts, especially during the longer descriptions, but it stayed well-organized throughout. Overall, it showed a solid level of research and understanding, and the team clearly worked hard to adjust the depth and tone depending on the audience.

Part 2: 

 

I really liked this class. This class wasn’t really about learning a bunch of computer science stuff for me. What stood out more was just working with a group again. I hadn’t worked with a group in a long time, the last couple years I’ve mostly just done everything on my own. So jumping into a team again felt kind of weird at first.

But once we started talking and figuring stuff out together, I realized how much easier it gets when everyone’s just checking in and kind of on the same page.

Our group mostly used Discord and shared docs to stay connected. Things went okay overall, but I think we could’ve improved how we organized early on. We waited a bit too long to figure out who was doing what, which made the end kind of hectic. Something that could make this kind of project better would be if we got the assignments on Mondays instead of midweek. That extra time up front would’ve made it easier to split tasks and plan things out, especially for group projects.

 

Videos: