Science/Tech

You are currently browsing the archive for the Science/Tech category.

From Amy Chozick’s New York Times Magazine interview with Jared Diamond in which the scientist defends his recent book, The World Until Yesterday, from criticism:

NYT:

On the other hand, the book has been criticized for saying traditional societies are very violent.

Jared Diamond:

Some people take a view of traditional society as being peaceful and gentle. But the proportional rate of violent death is much higher in traditional societies than in state-level societies, where governments assert a monopoly on force. During World War II, until Aug. 14, 1945, American soldiers who killed Japanese got medals. On Aug. 16, American soldiers who killed Japanese were guilty of murder. A state can end war, but a traditional society cannot.

NYT:

People have called the book racist, saying it suggests third-world poverty is caused by environmental factors instead of imperialism and conquests.

Jared Diamond:

It’s clearly nonsense. It’s not as if people in certain parts of the world were rich until Europeans came along and they suddenly became poor. Before that, there were big differences in technology, military power and the development of centralized government around the world. That’s a fact.”

Tags: ,

P.W. Singer, author of Wired for War, has a new book about cybersecurity and sat for an interview on the topic with Alyson Sheppard of Popular Mechanics. An excerpt:

Question:

How are countries coming to terms with the ethics of using digital weapons in a military context?

P.W. Singer:

It’s a new realm of international competition and conflict and it’s very much on its way to becoming an arms race. I mean the worst aspect of arms races in the past, where countries spend a lot of money competing with each other but end up all less secure. We explore in the book the role of international negotiations and the potential of new laws and arms control. It’s going to be really difficult, but that doesn’t mean there’s not value in trying.

You also have this issue to be worked out on the national level. You have more than 100 countries building cyber military command equivalents. The civilian side needs to better understand the ramifications. This is most definitely a concern in both the U.S. and China, particularly right now when there’s a buildup of capabilities and military doctrines that are not well understood by the civilian leaders.

It’s not just our role as citizens of these countries and netizens of the Internet itself, but it’s all affecting this online world that we depend on. Cyberwar is not something that will take place in a far-off realm. It’s something that will happen on the Internet that we all use. It’s not just that we might be targeted—it’s that it will go through us.”

Tags: ,

The real shift in our time isn’t only that we’ve stopped worrying about surveillance, exhibitionism and a lack of privacy, but that we’ve embraced these things–demanded them, even. There must have been something lacking in our lives, something gone unfulfilled. But is this intimacy with technology and the sense of connection and friendship and relationship that attends it–often merely a likeness of love–an evolutionary correction or merely a desperate swipe in the wrong direction?

The opening of Brian Christian’s New Yorker piece about Spike Jonze’s Her, a film about love in the time of simulacra, in which a near-future man is wowed by a “woman” who seems to him like more than just another pretty interface:

“In 1966, Joseph Weizenbaum, a professor of computer science at M.I.T., wrote a computer program called Eliza, which was designed to engage in casual conversation with anybody who sat down to type with it. Eliza worked by latching on to keywords in the user’s dialogue and then, in a kind of automated Mad Libs, slotted them into open-ended responses, in the manner of a so-called non-directive therapist. (Weizenbaum wrote that Eliza’s script, which he called Doctor, was a parody of the method of the psychologist Carl Rogers.) ‘I’m depressed,’ a user might type. ‘I’m sorry to hear you are depressed,’ Eliza would respond.

Eliza was a milestone in computer understanding of natural language. Yet Weizenbaum was more concerned with how users seemed to form an emotional relationship with the program, which consisted of nothing more than a few hundred lines of code. ‘I was startled to see how quickly and how very deeply people conversing with DOCTOR became emotionally involved with the computer and how unequivocally they anthropomorphized it,’ he wrote. ‘Once my secretary, who had watched me work on the program for many months and therefore surely knew it to be merely a computer program, started conversing with it. After only a few interchanges with it, she asked me to leave the room.’ He continued, ‘What I had not realized is that extremely short exposures to a relatively simple computer program could induce powerful delusional thinking in quite normal people.’

The idea that people might be unable to distinguish a conversation with a person from a conversation with a machine is rooted in the earliest days of artificial-intelligence research.”

Tags: , , ,

Looking to reconfigure nature to organically do the job of man-made chemicals–and do it better–Monsanto, that worrisome Big Agra entity, has entered in earnest the field of microbials. From Sam Brasch at Modern Farmer:

“Monsanto’s partner in the new BioAg Alliance is Novozymes, a Danish company which knows a thing or two about putting microbes to work. They already offer farmers products like JumpStart, a strain of bacteria that grows along crop roots to help the plants take full advantage of phosphorus in the soil. Other agricultural biologicals – the umbrella terms for all living things that could protect plant health and productivity — include fungi that parasitically kills pests and bacteria that promotes root growth.

Each company has something to offer the other when it comes to making biologicals. Nozozymes has the experience and facilities to mass produces single microbes; Monsanto has the infrastructure to field test those products, which is crucial. Many microbes work great in the sterile conditions of the laboratory only to fail in the complex soils of real farms. Novozymes also gets a nice $300 million dollar bonus for opening a joint pipeline with Monsanto.

Such living pesticides and crop enhancers hold enormous promise for worldwide agriculture. A report from the American Academy of Microbiologists (A.A.M.) estimates that engaging the living world in and around plants could increase yields 20 percent in the next 20 years while at the same time reducing pesticide use by 20 percent. Right now, biopesticides only make up a 2.3 billion dollar industry — only 5 percent of the 44 billion dollars supporting chemical pesticides.”

Tags:

If you’re fascinated by all things bees, including Colony Collapse Disorder, Russ Roberts conducted a recent interview on EconTalk with Wally Thurman on the subject. Many questions are answered, though I’m still not sure how much I should be worried about the great bee die-off interrupting the food supply in the U.S., where wild bees aren’t a factor. A Guardian article by Damian Carrington states its a paramount concern in the UK. The opening:

“The UK faces a food security catastrophe because of its very low numbers of honeybee colonies, which provide an essential service in pollinating many crops, scientists warned on Wednesday.

New research reveals that honeybees provide just a quarter of the pollination needed in the UK, the second lowest level among 41 European countries. Furthermore, the controversial rise of biofuels in Europe is driving up the need for pollination five times faster than the rise in honeybee numbers. The research suggests an increasing reliance on wild pollinators, such as bumblebees and hoverflies, whose diversity is in decline.

‘We face a catastrophe in future years unless we act now,’ said Professor Simon Potts, at the University of Reading, who led the research.”

Tags: , ,

The wonderful 3 Quarks Daily pointed me to a Telegraph article by Matthew Sparkes about an algorithm which is said to have better than 80% success predicting which books will be bestsellers. In short: Use conjunctions, avoid cliches and favor nouns and adjectives over verbs. The opening:

“Scientists have developed an algorithm which can analyse a book and predict with 84 per cent accuracy whether or not it will be a commercial success.

A technique called statistical stylometry, which mathematically examines the use of words and grammar, was found to be ‘surprisingly effective’ in determining how popular a book would be.

The group of computer scientists from Stony Brook University in New York said that a range of factors determine whether or not a book will enjoy success, including ‘interestingness,’ novelty, style of writing, and how engaging the storyline is, but admit that external factors such as luck can also play a role.”

Tags:

In 1957, four years before he died, inventor Lee de Forest, who created the Audion radio tube and competed with Marconi and others in a race to bring remote sounds to the masses, appeared on This Is Your Life.

Tags:

Depiction of Quetzalcoatlus by Mark Witton and Darren Naish.

Depiction of Quetzalcoatlus by Mark Witton and Darren Naish.

In promoting his new film, naturalist Sir David Attenborough conducted an Ask Me Anything at Reddit. A few exchanges follow.

_______________________

Question:

What are your views on the thought that we are currently entering a “sixth mass extinction”? Do you think it is possible humans can reverse some of the damage that has already been done? Thank-you so much for everything!

David Attenborough:

Yes, I’m afraid we are. It’s not possible to reverse the damage we’ve done. We are undoubtedly exterminating species at a speed which has never been known before.

_______________________

Question:

Do you belieive it is ok to keep animals in captivity? Are there circumstances when animals should be taken from their natural habitat? I ask because I have morally struggled with the concept of zoo’s for most of my life.

David Attenborough:

There are some animals which have been kept happily in captivity, most of them are very small with small requirements. Big animals, unfortunately can’t be kept in captivity satisfactorily- predators most of all.

_______________________

Question:

Other than The Origin of Species which book do you think changed the scientific world most?

David Attenborough:

Probably in recent times, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring.

_______________________

Question:

What’s one natural phenomenon that you still cannot believe is real, despite you knowing the science behind it?

David Attenborough:

The way a venus flower basket sponge puts together its skeleton.

_______________________

Question:

If you could bring just one animal back from extinction, what would it be and why?

David Attenborough:

Quetzal Coatlus – a giant pterosaur.

_______________________

Question:

I wanted to ask what course you think all life on this planet will take eventually? Do you see us surviving long?

David Attenborough:

We have many millions of years to go if we are to match the longevity of many species. Yes, I think we will get there, but perhaps our civilisation may actually become impoverished.″•

Tags:

Personalization, not a great thing for a democracy, was always for me one of the least-interesting aspects of Web 1.0. I don’t want to learn what I already know but what’s unfamiliar. 

Netflix abandoned its drive to improve personalization for a couple of reasons: 1) Streaming made it less of a priority since a customer could easily switch from unpleasing programming, and 2) Perhaps some others agree with me about desiring novelty instead of familiarity. From Ben Kunz at ThoughtGadgets:

The deeper issue is that personalization is not as exciting as many once believed. In the 1990s, Don Peppers built a consulting business on the concept of “1to1 marketing,” where new computer systems would learn individual preferences and businesses would respond with customized offers. Don’s concept was that personalization would create an unbreakable competitive advantage — because once a consumer trained a company to anticipate her needs, she would be reluctant to go through the same process with a competitor. Don was observant enough to note that such customization wouldn’t be a fit for every business model — but companies that had customers with a wide range of needs (such as Netflix movie watchers) or a wide range in value (say, financial advisors courting investors) would benefit by deploying 1to1 personalization.

Despite the noble dream of giving customers more utility and companies more brand loyalty, personalization never took off. Amazon was really the best case study … but it struggles still to offer truly relevant personal recommendations on its website (the core challenges being it cannot easily recognize multiple users on the same Amazon account, or differentiate between your modality as you shop for your spouse one day and yourself the next). Twitter has a personalization engine behind its “Discovery” tab to push news or links to you based on your observed Twitter profile. That site section has so little utility, most Twitter users don’t use it. And Facebook, which arguably has the greatest trove of data on human personal interests, is really at the mercy of the advertisers who wish to target you; this is why you, guys, get ads for men’s underwear whether you really want them or not.

Why is personalization so difficult? Why is it so hard to anticipate what people want, and use that for business advantage? The challenge is personalization is at odds with a core driver of consumer purchase behavior — novelty. Consumers are constantly hungry for something new, something improved, something that will stimulate their endorphins in a manner unseen before.”

Tags:

A beautiful Charles and Ray Eames long-form ad for the Polaroid SX-70, a great camera by Edwin Land. (Thanks Open Culture.)

Tags: , ,

Even Stanford’s new passion for the arts has to do with hatching better products and apps. From an Economist article about the university/tech incubator attempting to create Hewletts and Packards who are also Hockneys and Picassos:

California’s famous innovation factory, which counts Sergey Brin and Larry Page of Google, Reed Hastings of Netflix, Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger of Instagram, and Peter Thiel of PayPal among its alumni, has discovered that arts are the future. ‘Stanford is aware that it’s educating leaders,’ explains Stephen Hinton, a professor of music and the director of the Stanford Arts Initiative. ‘And leadership isn’t just about having technical skills and economic savvy, but about having a broad range of skills.’

In other words, Stanford wants its future Brins and Pages to know not just how to code but also how to decode Mozart symphonies. From last September, all undergraduates have had to take a compulsory class in ‘Creative Expression’. Among the 161 courses they can choose from are Laptop Orchestra and Shakespeare in Performance.

The Palo Alto-based university is trying to help answer one of the questions that haunts our ‘knowledge society’: where will new ideas come from?”

Tags:

The opening of “The Robots Are Coming,” Gavin Kelly’s smart and sober-minded Guardian piece about the rise of the machines and what that will mean for job markets in automated societies:

“Whether it’s our humdrum reliance on supermarket self-service tills, Siri on our iPhones, the emergence of the drone as a weapon of choice or the impending arrival of the driverless car, intelligent machines are woven into our lives as never before.  

It’s increasingly common, a cliche even, for us to read about the inexorable rise of the robot as the fundamental shift in advanced economies that will transform the nature of work and opportunity within society. The robot is supposedly the spectre threatening the economic security not just of the working poor but also the middle class across mature societies. ‘Be afraid’ is the message: the march of the machine is eating into our jobs, pay rises and children’s prospects. And, according to many experts, we haven’t seen anything yet. 

This is because the power of intelligent machines is growing as their cost collapses. They are doing things reliably now that would have sounded implausible only a few years ago. By the end of the decade, Nissan pledges the driverless car, Amazon promises that electric drones will deliver us packages, Rolls-Royce says that unmanned robo-ships will sail our seas. The expected use of machines for everyday purposes is already giving rise to angst about the nascent problem of ‘robot smog‘ as other people’s machines invade ever more aspects of our personal space.

Tags: , , ,

Brief doc about the then-futuristic offices of the Miami Herald in 1961, a time of typewriters, pneumatic tubes and typesetters, when the era of print seemed limitless, before technological efficiency began to destroy the economic model.

A live commercial on a 1956 episode of I’ve Got a Secret from Remington Rand’s computer center featuring a demo of the weather-prediction abilities of the UNIVAC. At the 4:00-minute mark.

If the lithe Wendy’s Girl actually ate at Wendy’s with any frequency, she would be overweight and unhealthy. There are very large corporations determined to sell us as much cheap, lousy food as possible, strategizing how to best trigger our impulsive behaviors and undermine sound diets. On this topic, Deborah Cohen, RAND Corporation scientist and author of A Big Fat Crisis, conducted an Ask Me Anything at Reddit. A few excerpts.

_______________________

Question:

Do you think that “big is beautiful” and “plus size models” encourage obesity rather than discourage?

Deborah Cohen:

No, I don’t think this encourages obesity. It is a way to cope with the current situation of high rates of obesity, but it fails to point out the true causes of the epidemic. What we need to do is the shatter the myth that body size has anything to do with moral character. The fact is that the obesity epidemic is more about irresponsible business practices than irresponsible people.

Question:

You state that the “obesity epidemic is more about irresponsible business practices than irresponsible people”, and I agree that many businesses promote unhealthy attitudes. However, at the end of the day, what about personal responsibility? Shouldn’t we focus on strengthening the will power versus removing the temptation?

Deborah Cohen:

Over the past few decades many people have tried to strengthen their willpower and have invested billion is the diet industry. Yet few are successful. That’s because willpower is limited and fatigues like a muscle. Willpower is also a genetic trait and most people cannot improve their capacity for self-control. Some studies have followed people over 40 years and they found that the children who lacked self-control at age 4 still had low levels of self control compared to their peers at age 44. That’s why most New Year’s resolutions fail. We want to improve, yet the biggest barrier to controlling food intake is the environment. We can’t change people’s genes, but we can change business practices.

_______________________

Question:

Your book recommends that the government limit “the amount and choice of food items supermarkets would be allowed to sell to individual customers,” according to the Boston Globe. Americans would march in the streets if that law was implemented (at least until we got winded). How do you see ideas like yours not ending the careers of any politician who proposes them?

Deborah Cohen:

The Boston Globe reviewer misunderstood. What I recommend are limits on impulse marketing strategies, by which I mean not placing candy at the cash register or chips and sodas on the end-of-aisle displays. I recommend putting items that increase the risk of chronic diseases in places like the middle of an aisle on the bottom shelf, so those who want to buy them can still do so, and people who want to avoid them will be able to. Lots of people want candy-free check out aisles, but most supermarkets prefer to tempt people and manufacturers pay them for this shelf space.

_______________________

Question:

Do you think anything needs to be done about the relentless airings of fast food commercials on television? The only ones that don’t make me hungry are the Hardee’s commercials where scantily clad super models pretend to eat burgers larger than their heads.

 Deborah Cohen:

Yes, I think that instead of banning these commercials we should have counter-advertising that points out how these commercials are duping us. It worked for tobacco control and I believe it would be successful to control obesity. Under the Fairness Doctrine, TV stations were mandated to provide free air time for anti-tobacco ads if the stations were airing pro-tobacco ads. The tobacco companies wised up and stopped showing tobacco ads so there was no more free air time for counter ads.

_______________________

Question:

I have personally never been sold on the “fat gene” idea. We almost never saw fat people until the second half of the 20th century when it became common; previously it was only the very wealthy that could even get fat. Nowadays with cheap fatty food available for all it just makes sense that people can get big fast. Now obviously some people have better metabolism than others, but the idea that someone can claim they’re fat because of their genes always seems like a cop out for someone that loves fast food and no working out.

Not having read your book, can you reinforce our counter my claim that genetics does not play a large role in weight gain/health?

Deborah Cohen:

You are right! Obesity rates doubled between 1980 and 2000, a time period too short for genetics to play a role. The increase in obesity, I believe, is solely due to the change in the food environment. As I argue in my book, our country has been turned into a food swamp, inundating us with too much food, too much food advertising, and easy, convenient access to calories 24/7.

_______________________

Question:

What do you think of a South Beach-type diet for long-term weight control?

Deborah Cohen:

Most diets work if you can follow them. The problem is that most people cannot stay on a diet because they are continually undermined by all the cues that tempt people to eat more than they need. People are wired to feel hungry when they see or smell tempting food. If humans were like cars, and could only fill up a limited tank when it was empty, we would not have survived over the millenia. Dieting in and of itself can backfire for some people and lead them to gain more weight than if they hadn’t been on a diet in the first place. That’s because once we try to forget about food, that’s all we can think of. We become even more sensitive to food cues and if we are stressed, we can find ourselves binging. Willpower fatigues like a muscle, and most of us face limits in our capacity for self-control.•

Tags:

Moore’s Law won’t apply to anything–even integrated circuits–forever. And it doesn’t apply to many things at all. Growth has its spurts, but other things get in the way: entropy, priorities, politics, etc. So I think the near-term questions regarding machines aren’t about transhumanism and other such lofty ones but rather more practical considerations. You know, like a highly automated society creating new jobs and 3-D printers making the manufacturing of firearms uncontrollable and undetectable. In a Commentary broadside, David Gelernter, that brilliant and perplexing thinker, takes aim at the approach of today’s technologists and what he sees as their lack of commitment to humanism. An excerpt about Ray Kurzweil:

The voice most strongly associated with what I’ve termed roboticism is that of Ray Kurzweil, a leading technologist and inventor. The Kurzweil Cult teaches that, given the strong and ever-increasing pace of technological progress and change, a fateful crossover point is approaching. He calls this point the ‘singularity.’ After the year 2045 (mark your calendars!), machine intelligence will dominate human intelligence to the extent that men will no longer understand machines any more than potato chips understand mathematical topology. Men will already have begun an orgy of machinification—implanting chips in their bodies and brains, and fine-tuning their own and their children’s genetic material. Kurzweil believes in ‘transhumanism,’ the merging of men and machines. He believes human immortality is just around the corner. He works for Google.

Whether he knows it or not, Kurzweil believes in and longs for the death of mankind. Because if things work out as he predicts, there will still be life on Earth, but no human life. To predict that a man who lives forever and is built mainly of semiconductors is still a man is like predicting that a man with stainless steel skin, a small nuclear reactor for a stomach, and an IQ of 10,000 would still be a man. In fact we have no idea what he would be.

Each change in him might be defended as an improvement, but man as we know him is the top growth on a tall tree in a large forest: His kinship with his parents and ancestors and mankind at large, the experience of seeing his own reflection in human history and his fellow man—those things are the crucial part of who he is. If you make him grossly different, he is lost, with no reflection anywhere he looks. If you make lots of people grossly different, they are all lost together—cut adrift from their forebears, from human history and human experience. Of course we do know that whatever these creatures are, untransformed men will be unable to keep up with them. Their superhuman intelligence and strength will extinguish mankind as we know it, or reduce men to slaves or dogs. To wish for such a development is to play dice with the universe.” (Thanks Browser.)

Tags: ,

Mathematician Janet Norman from the Foster Wheeler company appearing on I’ve Got a Secret in the 1950s to play computer music with the aid of a Bendix G-15.

Tags:

In 1979, J.G. Ballard believed the future was shifting from mobile to home-based, especially the way we entertain ourselves. That’s happened, largely. Going to the game is not so important now because there are so many ways for the game to come to us. From Kevin Clark and Jonathan Clegg in the WSJ

“The NFL enters the first round of playoff games this weekend with soaring television ratings, billions of dollars in network TV contracts in their pocket and a nation of football fans who can’t wait to hop on their couch and watch a weekend of games.

The league has never been a more popular viewing option. There’s just one problem: Fewer people want to actually attend the games.

In the latest evidence that the sports in-home viewing experience has possibly trumped the in-stadium one, ticket sales were slow for the first week of the National Football League’s marquee stretch of games.

Three teams hosting games this weekend asked the league for extensions to sell more tickets for the games to avoid a television blackout in local markets, which is imposed by NFL policy if a game isn’t sold out. The teams, the Green Bay Packers, Indianapolis Colts and Cincinnati Bengals, needed large corporate assistance to ensure the sellouts.”

_________________________________________

Walter Cronkite in 1967: “We could watch a football game.”

Tags:

The opening of “Is Life a Ponzi Scheme?” Mark Johnston’s Boston Review piece about how to learn to stop worrying and love–or at least stop fixating on–the bomb, or whatever else it is that wipes out humanity:

“Who knows what form the end of humanity will take? Will it come by extraterrestrial invasion, or by the erosion of the ozone layer, or by a large asteroid impacting the earth, or by mass starvation during a long nuclear winter, or by a bacterium running amok in the post-antibiotic age, or by a nomadic black hole sucking up everything in its path as it wanders toward us, or by a gamma ray burst from any one of the host of supernovas destined to occur within three thousand light years of the earth, or by the eruption of the massive volcano that now sits, waiting, under Yellowstone National Park? Or will it be as the apocalyptic literature of Judaism and Christianity describes it, with the last days consisting of the terrifying separation of the sheep from the goats? Even if humanity somehow avoids all this, and even if we escape the solar system before the inevitable heat death of the sun, eventually the universe will come to consist of a subatomic soup so thin that nothing recognizably human will be able to exist.

So we are doomed. There is no way around itThe hope is that doom is far enough away for humanity to flourish individually and collectively. The lights will eventually go out; the issue is just how brightly they will burn in the interim.

Here ignorance is not exactly bliss, but it is helpful.”

Tags:

The Sports Gene by David Epstein. 

The SI writer looks at the role of genetics in sports, never discounting the hard work athletes do, but making a strong case that you probably have to be born with the “right parents” if you want to be a superstar at highly competitive athletics. 

So many topics are considered in this compact 290-page book, including how genetic mutations, race, region, poverty, disease, PEDs, customs and culture determine the development of the elite athlete. It really looks at the question from every angle imaginable.

In doing so, the volume directly defeats foolish narratives we like to attach to sports, even one doozy perpetrated by the magazine Epstein works for, a jaw-dropping 2010 article that asserted that Bulls center Joakim Noah, one of the most ridiculously lucky people on the planet in the sports gene pool, a near seven-footer with a tremendous wingspan and a tennis-champion father, was somehow not “gifted” and had to overcome his “lack of talent” with a “strong will.” The display copy for the story actually read: “Bulls center Joakim Noah doesn’t have the incandescent talent of his NBA brethren. But he brings to the game an equally powerful gift.” Um, really???

Also covered is the idea that someday (probably not soon) we’ll be able to test babies to see if they have the genetic makeup to be great athletes and to guide them into sports that favor explosiveness or stamina depending on whether they will develop more fast-twitch or slow-twitch muscle. That, of course, leads the mind to wonder how such tests would work if expanded beyond sports: Would newborn Robert Zimmerman (later to be known as Bob Dylan) be persuaded from music because he didn’t have the gene for a great singing voice?

Epstein’s book is a brilliant and probing work that’s given me enough ideas to return to for years and years.

And now my ears will bleed even more when people lazily refer to the “10,000-hour rule” as if that standard fits everyone who achieves mastery in some field. Sure, practice is good, but it’s not everything.•

Tags:

There’s a price to pay for living longer: Diseases that never had time to grow within us in the past now reach “maturity.” In our favor, though, fewer people perish now due to the birth of twins. From “How We Used to Die,” a post at Priceonomics:

“They say that nothing is certain but death and taxes, but how we die is far from certain. What kills us these days? By a wide margin, cancer and heart disease. This is very different from how we used to die in the United States.

In a study by the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers compared causes of death from the past hundred years. They found that, in 1900, while heart disease and cancer were still major killers, they were less lethal than a host of other ailments. Pneumonia/influenza, tuberculosis, and gastrointestinal infections each claimed more lives per 100,000 people than did heart disease. On average, more people died by accident than by cancer.”

I don’t anticipate human-level AI at any time in the near future if at all. Silicon does some things incredibly well and so does carbon, but they’re not necessarily the same things. Even when they both successfully tackle the same problem successfully, it’s executed differently. For instance: Machines haven’t started writing great film reviews but instead use algorithms that help people choose movies. It’s a different process–and a different experience. 

I would guess that if machines are to ever to truly understand in a human way, it will be because there’s been a synthesis of biology and technology and not because the latter has “learned” the ways of the former. In a New Yorker blog  item, NYU psychologist Gary Marcus offers a riposte to the recent New York Times article which strongly suggested we’re at the dawn of a new age of human-like smart machines. An excerpt:

There have been real innovations, like driverless cars, that may soon become commercially available. Neuromorphic engineering and deep learning are genuinely exciting, but whether they will really produce human-level A.I. is unclear—especially, as I have written before, when it comes to challenging problems like understanding natural language.

The brainlike I.B.M. system that the Times mentioned on Sunday has never, to my knowledge, been applied to language, or any other complex form of learning. Deep learning has been applied to language understanding, but the results are feeble so far. Among publicly available systems, the best is probably a Stanford project, called Deeply Moving, that applies deep learning to the task of understanding movie reviews. The cool part is that you can try it for yourself, cutting and pasting text from a movie review and immediately seeing the program’s analysis; you even teach it to improve. The less cool thing is that the deep-learning system doesn’t really understand anything.

It can’t, say, paraphrase a review or mention something the reviewer liked, things you’d expect of an intelligent sixth-grader. About the only thing the system can do is so-called sentiment analysis, reducing a review to a thumbs-up or thumbs-down judgment. And even there it falls short; after typing in ‘better than Cats!’ (which the system correctly interpreted as positive), the first thing I tested was a Rotten Tomatoes excerpt of a review of the last movie I saw, American Hustle: ‘A sloppy, miscast, hammed up, overlong, overloud story that still sends you out of the theater on a cloud of rapture.’ The deep-learning system couldn’t tell me that the review was ironic, or that the reviewer thought the whole was more than the sum of the parts. It told me only, inaccurately, that the review was very negative. When I sent the demo to my collaborator, Ernest Davis, his luck was no better than mine. Ernie tried ‘This is not a book to be ignored’ and ‘No one interested in the subject can afford to ignore this book.’ The first came out as negative, the second neutral. If Deeply Moving is the best A.I. has to offer, true A.I.—of the sort that can read a newspaper as well as a human can—is a long way away.”

Tags: ,

Colonel (Retired) Peter Mansoor, who served under Colonel David Petraeus during the surge in Iraq and has been an outspoken critic of Donald Rumsfeld, just did an Ask Me Anything at Reddit. Two exchanges below, one about history and one the future.

___________________

Question:

What would you say are the top 3 most important battles in the known history of man?

Colonel Mansoor:

Tough question, since there are at least a dozen that significantly impacted the course of history. But here are three:

  • Salamis (480 BC) – The Athenian navy defeats the Persians at sea, turning back the Persian invasion of Western Europe. What would our world look like today without Greek civilization?
  • Saratoga (1777) – The American victory over the British brought France and Spain into the war against Britain, and globalized what had been a regional conflict. The world today would look a lot different had the British defeated the colonists.
  • Moscow (1941) – The Red Army turns back Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union and turns WWII into a two front struggle in Europe that Germany had no hope of winning from that point onward. The world today would be a dark place indeed had the Wehrmacht succeeded in defeating the Soviet Union.

___________________

Question:

What do you think the next big evolution in warfare will be (apart from drones)?

Colonel Mansoor:

Drones are actually part of an ongoing trend that will impact war dramatically in the future – robotics. We will witness that evolution on the ground as well as in the air. If you look at drones, as advanced as they might seem, we are actually at the point where nascent air forces were in 1916 during WWI. Aircraft were first used for reconnaissance, then someone figured out how to drop bombs from them, then fighter aircraft were developed to attain air superiority, then aircraft were used for transport and strategic bombing. The same evolution will occur with drones, and we are at the leading edge of that evolution.

Robotic ground vehicles will also be developed in the future, as well as exo-skeletal suits that will dramatically improve the capabilities of infantrymen. It sounds like sci-fi, but it will happen.•

Tags:

Critic Evgeny Morozov rightly thinks we should distrust brands like Google and Facebook, but we should probably also save some skepticism for his brand: the techno town crier, the self-styled cassandra, the one who sees the Google Glass as half empty. He makes his way in the world by telling us that if the sky isn’t falling then it’s at least not as high as we think. And when someone raises money and esteem from a consistent stance, we probably should question the rigidity of the pose. His articles range from the marvelous to the meh, though that isn’t surprising for a 29-year-old writing at a breakneck pace. I like him; I question him.

From a new profile of Morozov by Michael Meyer in the Columbia Journalism Review:

“As Morozov watched the cyber-utopian fad grow, his distrust of it began to harden into a cyber-pessimism that could at times be just as dogmatic. After leaving Transitions, Morozov eventually ended up as a fellow at OSF (a funder of Transitions), which brought him to New York in August 2008. The following year Morozov gave—wait for it—a TED talk in Oxford called, ‘How the Net Aids Dictatorships.’ This was sort of a coming-out party for Evgeny the skeptic, and an important step in turning that skepticism into a brand. It’s another video worth watching and quite a contrast to his enthusing about crowdsourcing just two years before. In the video, he stands in the middle of the stage wearing a wrinkled blue shirt open at the neck. There is a humble, self-effacing air about him, as if he barely expects to be listened to. His only gesture is to move his hands up and down, often in unison, as he emphasizes his points about how all the digital tools and ideas the audience is so excited about are enabling surveillance and targeting of dissidents by thugs and autocrats worldwide.

“Evgeny becomes attached to particular ideas that he believes, for the good of the thinking public, need to be debunked,” says OSF’s Benardo. He compares Morozov to social critics like Karl Kraus and Dwight MacDonald, professional buzzkills who “felt almost divinely anointed” in their efforts to tear down false hopes and received wisdom.”

Tags: ,

It’s not surprise, I suppose, that top tech companies have economics departments of their own, hoping to carve behavioral patterns into data mountains. From a Bloomberg article by Aki Ito about Silicon Valley competing with academia, government and Wall Street for newly minted PhDs:

“It’s this real-world impact that drew economist Michael Bailey to Menlo Park, California-based Facebook in 2012. Managers across the social-networking company come to his team of data scientists with various problems, and Bailey’s group runs experiments to find solutions.

Their goal is to have the findings be used to make the social-networking site a better platform for both advertisers and the now more than 1 billion users worldwide, he said.

Bailey said he didn’t even consider a career outside academia until Facebook asked him to join full-time after a stint there as a research intern. Even then, he was unsure: the point of enduring five grueling years of graduate school was to become a professor. Only after he returned to Stanford to complete his dissertation did he realize life in Silicon Valley was the better choice for him.

‘The pace is just so much faster here and I’m much happier solving a lot of different problems than focusing on one problem for seven years,’ said Bailey, 30.

Besides, he says, ‘the data’s just so awesome. It’s an economist’s dream.’

The rise of the Internet company economist can be traced to Hal Varian, who started consulting with Google in 2002 as a UC Berkeley professor. He became the company’s chief economist in 2007 and has helped hone the design of the company’s search advertising auctions, central to the $50 billion business.

Other experts in microeconomics have since made similar moves. Preston McAfee joined Yahoo! Inc.’s research arm in 2007 and left for Google in 2012. Susan Athey, then a professor at Harvard and now at Stanford, started consulting for Microsoft in 2007. Patrick Bajari has led Amazon’s team of economists since 2010.”

Tags: ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »