Science/Tech

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

“Merchants of doom emphasize fears of molecular Frank­enbots instead of benefit.” (Image by Monsterteeth.)

From Delthia Ricks’ Discovery argument in favor of unloosing synthetic biology experimentation, which has been held back by legitimate concerns but also by some outlandish sci-fi scenarios:

“Off-the-shelf molecular parts could allow synthetic biologists to create new medications and biofuels or to make microbes with the capacity to destroy pollutants and other nui­sances. Researchers have built a potential malaria medication, and students have developed a prototype of a new vaccine to stop ulcers.

Shamefully, accolades that resounded a generation ago for biotechnology advances—for instance, recombining DNA to develop human-derived insulin, which is much safer than the animal-derived products that came before—have been drowned out by a misinformed coalition of 114 organizations, including ETC Group and Friends of the Earth. They argue the research must stop until enforceable regulations specific to synthetic biology are in place, and they insist that all alternatives to synthetic biology be considered before an experiment can advance. These demands could halt projects like those of J. Craig Venter, the biotechnologist who built the first self-replicating synthetic bacterium. He is now working on microbes that eat pollution, excrete biofuels, and more. If the coalition has its way, the world will never find out whether these organisms can help us generate energy or clean the air.

There is no documented danger from synthetic biology, yet merchants of doom emphasize fears of molecular Frank­enbots instead of benefits like new drugs and energy sources. Worries about monster species are particularly absurd. It is extraordinarily difficult to construct novel organisms, and countless attempts to do so have failed.”

Tags:

At his blog, futurist Ray Kurzweil asks questions about “the hypothesis that chemical brain preservation may inexpensively preserve the organism’s memories and mental states after death.” An excerpt:

“Would you choose chemical brain preservation at death if it was widely available, validated, and inexpensive? If not, why not? Would you do it to donate your brain to science? Your memories to your children or others who might want them? Would you be willing to come back in person, if that turns out to be possible? If it is sufficiently inexpensive, would it be best to preserve your brain at death, and let future society decide if either your memories or your identity are ‘worth’ reanimating?”

Tags:

Rust never sleeps and organic matter is apt to eventually decay. But sometimes that’s not a bad thing. From Jeff Gordinier’s New York Times piece about the growing popularity of fermented foods in fine dining:

“SAY this about Sandor Ellix Katz: the man knows how to get you revved up to eat bacteria.

‘Oh, this is nice kimchi,’ he said on a summer afternoon at Momofuku Noodle Bar, using chopsticks to pull crimson-coated knuckles of Napa cabbage from a jar. ‘I like the texture of the sauce. It’s kind of thick.’

Kimchi, like sauerkraut, is one of the world’s great fermented foods, andMr. Katz, a resident of Tennessee, was curious to see what David Chang’s team of cooks in the East Village would do with it. Lately Mr. Katz has become for fermentation what Timothy Leary was for psychedelic drugs: a charismatic, consciousness-raising thinker and advocate who wants people to see the world in a new way.

A fermented food is one whose taste and texture have been transformed by the introduction of beneficial bacteria or fungi.”

Tags: ,

Baxter, from the thoughtful people at Rethink Robotics, has come to relieve you of your toil–and your paycheck. In the long run, it’s for the best. Have a nice day.

Tags:

I recently posted a classic article about telepresence by MIT’s Marvin Minsky. Here’s the opening of a 1982 AI Magazine piece by the cognitive scientist, which considers the possibility of computers being able to think:

“Most people think computers will never be able to think. That is, really think. Not now or ever. To be sure, most people also agree that computers can do many things that a person would have to be thinking to do. Then how could a machine seem to think but not actually think? Well, setting  aside the question of what thinking actually is, I think that most of us would answer that by saying that in these cases, what the computer is doing is merely a superficial imitation of human intelligence. It has been designed to obey certain simple commands, and then it has been provided with programs composed of those commands. Because of this, the computer has to obey those commands, but without any idea of what’s happening.

Indeed, when computers first appeared, most of their designers intended them for nothing only to do huge, mindless computations. That’s why the things were called “computers”. Yet even then, a few pioneers — especially Alan Turing — envisioned what’s now called ‘Artificial Intelligence’ – or ‘AI.’ They saw that computers might possibly go beyond arithmetic, and maybe imitate the processes that go on inside human brains.

Today, with robots everywhere in industry and movie films, most people think Al has gone much further than it has. Yet still, ‘computer experts’ say machines will never really think. If so, how could they be so smart, and yet so dumb?

Indeed, when computers first appeared, most of their designers intended them for nothing only to do huge, mindless computations. That’s why the things were called ‘computers.’ Yet even then, a few pioneers –especially Alan Turing — envisioned what’s now called ‘Artificial Intelligence’ – or ‘AI.’ They saw that computers might possibly go beyond arithmetic, and maybe imitate the processes that go on inside human brains.

Today, with robots everywhere in industry and movie films, most people think Al has gone much further than it has. Yet still, ‘computer experts’ say machines will never really think. If so, how could they be so smart, and yet so dumb?”

Tags:

Prototype of gloves that can say aloud what deaf people are signing. From Singularity Hub“With the motto ‘We’re giving a voice to movements,’ Team QuadSquad came in first place for their glove prototype in the Software Design Competition of the 2012 Microsoft Imagine Cup, winning $25,000 and garnering interest across the world, including developers anxious to bring their expertise to the project. Now the Ukranians have launched Enable Talk, a website that openly shares their ambitious vision, design documentation, and a business plan for how to bring the device to market. Furthermore, the team is looking into the possibility of enabling the same technology to allow cell phone conversations using the system. That could mean a new way for about 70 million people with hearing and speech impairment to verbally communicate and connect to people around them.”

“Your mother’s a filthy whore”:

A proposed workaround solution for global warming from the Philosopher’s Beard, which stresses pragmatism over moralizing:

“The science of climate change does set the parameters of the problem, even though it doesn’t dictate the correct solution. The greenhouse gas build-up cannot be wished away by the kind of pragmatic, social choice guided exercise I have been recommending. It must be dealt with in the medium term, but through the structural transformation of our carbon economy rather than global austerity. That will include both developing scalable technologies for removing CO2 from the atmosphere (such as genetically modified algae and trees) and reducing the carbon intensity of our high energy life-styles (for which we already have some existing technologies, such as nuclear power). But note that such innovations require no prior global agreement to set in train, but can be developed and pioneered by a handful of big industrial economies acting on the moral concerns of their own citizens.

A high price on carbon in a few large rich countries (preferably via a non-regressive carbon tax) supplemented with regulations where market forces have less bite (e.g. to force the construction industry to develop more energy efficient methods and materials) and research subsidies would provide the necessary incentives. Nor would these innovations require global agreement for take-up since they will be attractive on their own merits (clean, efficient, cheap). Developing countries burn dirty coal because it is cheap and their people need electricity. They don’t need a UN treaty to tell them to use cleaner technology if it is cheaper; but neither would they sign up to such a treaty if it were more expensive.

The pragmatic approach does not depend on reaching an impossible global agreement on a perfect solution requiring moral or political coercion. Instead it offers feasible paths through the moral storm while respecting the existing interests and values of the human beings concerned.” (Thanks Browser.)

The opening of Don Troop’s new Chronicle article about the ethics of roboticized warfare:

“The dawn of the 21st century has been called the decade of the drone. Unmanned aerial vehicles, remotely operated by pilots in the United States, rain Hellfire missiles on suspected insurgents in South Asia and the Middle East.

Now a small group of scholars is grappling with what some believe could be the next generation of weaponry: lethal autonomous robots. At the center of the debate is Ronald C. Arkin, a Georgia Tech professor who has hypothesized lethal weapons systems that are ethically superior to human soldiers on the battlefield. A professor of robotics and ethics, he has devised algorithms for an ‘ethical governor’ that he says could one day guide an aerial drone or ground robot to either shoot or hold its fire in accordance with internationally agreed-upon rules of war.”

Tags: ,

Pretty impressive graphics from Bell Labs considering the era.

“They could create a laser from silk.” (Image by Gerd A.T. Müller.)

From a report about progress in creating biodegradable (even edible) electronics from silk, by Philip Ball at the BBC:

“Electronic waste from obsolete phones, cameras, computers and other mobile devices is one of the scourges of this information age. The circuitry and packaging is not only non-biodegradable but is laced with toxic substances such as heavy metals. Imagine, then, a computer that can be disposed of by simply letting soil bacteria eat it – or even, should the fancy take you, by eating it yourself.

Biodegradable information technology is now closer to appearing on the menu following the announcement by Fiorenzo Omenetto of Tufts University in Massachusetts, United States, and co-workers that they could create a laser from silk.”

Tags: ,

The opening of “Telepresence,” Marvin Minsky’s 1980 Omni think-piece which suggested we should bet our future on a remote-controlled economy:

“You don a comfortable jacket lined with sensors and muscle-like motors. Each motion of your arm, hand, and fingers is reproduced at another place by mobile, mechanical hands. Light, dexterous, and strong, these hands have their own sensors through which you see and feel what is happening. Using this instrument, you can ‘work’ in another room, in another city, in another country, or on another planet. Your remote presence possesses the strength of a giant or the delicacy of a surgeon. Heat or pain is translated into informative but tolerable sensation. Your dangerous job becomes safe and pleasant.

The crude ‘robotic machines of today can do little of this. By building new kinds of versatile, remote‑controlled mechanical hands, however, we might solve critical problems of energy, health, productivity, and environmental quality, and we would create new industries. It might take 10 to 20 years and might cost $1 billion—less than the cost of a single urban tunnel or nuclear power reactor or the development of a new model of automobile.”

Tags:

From Ashlee Vance’s well-rounded Businessweek portrait of Elon Musk, a brilliant and difficult man who is currently the most ambitious industrialist in the world:

“On the assumption that people will be living on earth for some time, Musk is cooking up plans for something he calls the Hyperloop. He won’t share specifics but says it’s some sort of tube capable of taking someone from downtown San Francisco to Los Angeles in 30 minutes. He calls it a ‘fifth mode of transportation’—the previous four being train, plane, automobile, and boat. ‘What you want is something that never crashes, that’s at least twice as fast as a plane, that’s solar powered and that leaves right when you arrive, so there is no waiting for a specific departure time,’ Musk says. His friends claim he’s had a Hyperloop technological breakthrough over the summer. ‘I’d like to talk to the governor and president about it,’ Musk continues. ‘Because the $60 billion bullet train they’re proposing in California would be the slowest bullet train in the world at the highest cost per mile. They’re going for records in all the wrong ways.’ The cost of the SF-LA Hyperloop would be in the $6 billion range, he says.

Musk is also planning to develop a new kind of airplane: ‘Boeing just took $20 billion and 10 years to improve the efficiency of their planes by 10 percent. That’s pretty lame. I have a design in mind for a vertical liftoff supersonic jet that would be a really big improvement.’

After a few hours with Musk, hypersonic tubes and jets that take off like rockets start to seem imminent. But interplanetary travel? Really? Musk says he’s on target to get a spacecraft to the red planet in 10 to 15 years, perhaps with him on board. ‘I would like to die on Mars,” he says. ‘Just not on impact.'”

Tags: ,

Eventually you’ll have the implant, but right now monkeys get it first. From Benedict Carey in the New York Times:

“In the study, researchers at Wake Forest trained five rhesus monkeys to play a picture-matching game. The monkeys saw an image on a large screen — of a toy, a person, a mountain range — and tried to select the same image from a larger group of images that appeared on the same screen a little while later. The monkeys got a treat for every correct answer.

After two years of practice, the animals developed some mastery, getting about 75 percent of the easier matches correct and 40 percent of the harder ones, markedly better than chance guessing.

The monkeys were implanted with a tiny probe with two sensors; it was threaded through the forehead and into two neighboring layers of the cerebral cortex, the thin outer covering of the brain.”

Tags:

From the UCSD site, a release about researchers discovering a way to print blood vessels:

“Nanoengineers at the University of California, San Diego have developed a novel technology that can fabricate, in mere seconds, microscale three dimensional (3D) structures out of soft, biocompatible hydrogels. Near term, the technology could lead to better systems for growing and studying cells, including stem cells, in the laboratory. Long-term, the goal is to be able to print biological tissues for regenerative medicine. For example, in the future, doctors may repair the damage caused by heart attack by replacing it with tissue that rolled off of a printer.” (Thanks Next Big Future.)

Economists have their hands full merely trying to figure out what just happened–and what the hell just happened?!? Izabella Kaminska of the Financial Times, whom I referred to earlier today, wonders whether they’re also unprepared for the brave new world of the next few decades. But who isn’t? An excerpt from her post:

“To get a bit more Kurzwelian on the matter — let’s consider for a moment that the world really is on the verge of a technological revolution equal to, if not greater than, the industrial revolution of the 19th century. The singularity, if you will.

We’re talking epic sci-fi mega trends.

Looking at just a few of the technologies futurists tell us might be common place by the time today’s 50-year US Treasury bonds gilts mature…

…let’s start with the one that would undoubtedly have the most striking impact on conventional economics — life extension.

We’re talking about a world where every child born will have the potential to live for at least 200 years, if not more. A world where medical advances crossed with developments in biological nano technology, bionic limbs and robotics mean life expectancy becomes limitless.

Now imagine a world where the human brain has been reverse engineered in such detail that all memory content can be routinely downloaded and backed up, and eventually re-uploaded to new synthetic bodies, time and time again. Eternal life, ortranshumanism, for want of a better word.

Plausibility of the latter aside, life extension of no more than 10 years alone would have dramatic enough consequences on pension funds. Anything more, especially in the current low yield environment, and the pension model starts to be threatened.

So, imagine managing pension liabilities in a world where everyone lives forever?”

Tags:

From historian Roger Launius (via Alexis Madrigal at the Atlantic), a reminder of the unpopularity of the U.S. space program of the 1960s:

“For example, many people believe that Project Apollo was popular, probably because it garnered significant media attention, but the polls do not support a contention that Americans embraced the lunar landing mission. Consistently throughout the 1960s a majority of Americans did not believe Apollo was worth the cost, with the one exception to this a poll taken at the time of the Apollo 11 lunar landing in July 1969. And consistently throughout the decade 45-60 percent of Americans believed that the government was spending too much onspace, indicative of a lack of commitment to the spaceflight agenda. These data do not support a contention that most people approved of Apollo and thought it important to explore space.”

Tags: ,

The Swumanoid, from the Tokyo Institute of Technology.

I would guess somewhere in this world there will always be a sweatshop with people toiling in dangerous conditions for little gain because sadly it’s actually better than the life they know. But sweat equity will decline markedly in the next few decades, as robotics replace human capital at the most basic level. The assembly line will assemble itself and then assemble the products. Those countries that excel at 3D printers and bot builders will win the race. That probably bodes well for the U.S. and not so much for China. Some thoughts from economist Antoine van Agtmael provided by Izabella Kaminska at the Financial Times:

“The US technological lead in advanced, top-end manufacturing, smartphones and smartpads, and its capacity to create smart companies, is already starting to pay off. Whether these particular products – lifestyle changing as they are – will accelerate US growth is a moot point.

But they may be the cutting edge of the coming global manufacturing revolution provided by additive manufacturing technology, or so-called 3D printing. This revolution is expected to tilt economic advantage back towards the US, and to other Western companies.

Localised and customised manufacturing won’t employ much labour, though in ageing societies, labour supply will fall, or stagnate anyway. It will, however, increase the importance of being close to one’s market, resources, and centres of technological excellence, and diminish the significance of long global manufacturing supply chains, and large-scale process manufacturing, both of which characterise Asia’s and China’s functions in the global economy.” (Thanks Browser.)

Tags: ,

“Some scientists have published a plan to transform a part of the Sahara desert into a lush forest.” (Image by Luca Galuzzi.)

If we want to keep Earth livable for as long a span of time as possible, our best bet would be to switch as soon as possible to alternative fuels and halt meat production. Or we could go the riskier route and try to terraform parts of the planet, maybe turning our deserts into rain forests. But that could cause complications since networks are interconnected. From Stuart Fox at PopSci:

“Now that scientists agree that humans have profoundly changed the Earth’s climate, many have begun asking if we can use our globe-altering power to simply change it back. Geoengineering, essentially terraforming on Earth, has been floated as a cure for global warming a number of times over the past year, but now some scientists have published a plan to transform a part of the Sahara desert into a lush forest, and in the process, absorb enough carbon to offset the world’s current fossil fuel use. The catch: it will cost $2 trillion a year, and possibly destroy the Amazon jungle while unleashing giant swarms of locusts across Africa.”

At Public Books, Lawrence Weschler and Errol Morris discuss the latter’s obsession with the meaning of photographs, most recently 1855 pictures of the Crimean War taken by Roger Fenton. An excerpt:

Errol Morris: 

It seems to me that we’ve forgotten a very important fact about photography. That photographs are physically connected to the world. And part of the study of photography has to be recapturing, recovering, that physical connection with the world in which they were taken. Something which has rarely been part of the enterprise of studying photographs. Take a photograph of Einstein, for instance. The point is, it doesn’t matter who I think it’s a photograph of. What matters is, was Einstein in front of the lens of the camera? That man. Was that man in front of the lens of the camera? Is there a physical connection between the image on that photographic plate or the digital device, whatever, and the man standing there? It doesn’t matter what’s in my head. It matters what that physical connection is.

Lawrence Weschler: 

What actually happened. But the question remains, why do you care? Or rather, why do you care so much? Because I think you really do care.

Errol Morris: 

Ultimately, why do people care about reference? Because… let’s put it this way. If you care what our connection is to the world around us, then you care about basic questions. Questions of truth. Questions of reference. Questions of identity. Basic philosophical questions. So go back to the [Roger] Fenton photographs for a moment. I want to know what I’m looking at. I think photographs have a kind of subversive character. They make us think we know what we’re looking at. I may not know what I’m looking at, even under the best of circumstances here and now. But I have all this context available to me. I know you’re Ren Weschler. I’ve met you before. We actually are friends. And I have this whole context of the world around me. But photographs do something tricky. They decontextualize things. They rip images out of the world and as a result we are free to think whatever we want about them.”

Tags: , ,

The opening of “When Networks Network,” Elizabeth Quill’s excellent Science News article about the interaction of networks, the ones inside the human body and the numerous external ones we navigate each day:

“Half a dozen times each night, your slumbering body performs a remarkable feat of coordination.

During the deepest throes of sleep, the body’s support systems run on their own timetables. Nerve cells hum along in your brain, their chitchat generating slow waves that signal sleep’s nether stages. Yet, like buses and trains with overlapping routes but unsynchronized schedules, this neural conversation has little to say to your heart, which pumps blood to its own rhythm through the body’s arteries and veins. Air likewise skips into the nostrils and down the windpipe in seemingly random spits and spats. And muscle fluctuations that make the legs twitch come and go as if in a vacuum. Networks of muscles, of brain cells, of airways and lungs, of heart and vessels operate largely independently.

Every couple of hours, though, in as little as 30 seconds, the barriers break down. Suddenly, there’s synchrony. All the disjointed activity of deep sleep starts to connect with its surroundings. Each network — run via the group effort of its own muscular, cellular and molecular players — joins the larger team.

This change, marking the transition from deep to light sleep, has only recently been understood in detail — thanks to a new look at when and how the body’s myriad networks link up to form an übernetwork.” (Thanks Browser.)

Tags:

You might think roboticist Hans Moravec has been playing with wires and dials too long when he talks about Artificial Intelligence being able to manipulate humans by the middle of this century, but he was absolutely right about Roombas and bomb-defusing bots–actually, his timeline was conservative. From a 1997 interview he did with NOVA about the first four generations of robots:

NOVA: 

Can you envision a robot understanding the psychology of a terrorist better than a human being?

Hans Moravec:

Well, ultimately. Now we’re talking 40 or 50 years from now, when we have these fourth generation machines and their successors, which I think ultimately will be better than human beings, in every possible way. But, the two abilities that are probably the hardest for robots to match, because they’re the things that we do the best, that have been life or death matters for us for most of our evolution, are, one, interacting with the physical world. You know, we’ve had to find our food and avoid our predators and deal with things on a moment to moment basis. So manipulation, perception, mobility – that’s one area. And the other area is social interaction. Because we’ve lived in tribes forever and we’ve had to be able to judge the intent and probable behavior of the other members of our tribe to get along. So the kind of social intuition we have is very powerful and probably uses close to the full processing power of our brain—the equivalent of a hundred trillion calculations per second—plus a lot of very special knowledge, some of which is hard-wired, some of which we learned growing up. This is probably where robots catch up last. But, once they do catch up, then they keep on going. I think there will come a time when robots will understand us better than we understand ourselves, or understand each other. And, you can even imagine the time in the more distant future when robots will be able to host a very detailed simulation of what’s going on in our brains and be able to manipulate us. 

NOVA: 

Wow.”

••••••••••

See also:

Tags:

Palestinian cabbie builds Gaza’s first electric vehicle using recycled parts.

Tags:

I put up a post in May about CITE, the insta-ghost town to be built in Hobbs, New Mexico. The billion-dollar project, planned by Pegasus Holdings was to simulate a city that could hold (but wouldn’t hold) 35,000 people and be a testing ground for all sorts of technological innovations. But land acquisition and other factors has proven difficult, and the project seems more and more merely a pipe dream and a press release. It’s just hard to build a ghost town these days. From Wren Abbott in the Santa Fe Reporter:

“Part of Pegasus’ vision for CITE includes testing of driverless cars, but the company has yet to announce a partnership with the country’s forerunner in that industry, Google, Inc.. Google is already testing its cars in California, with drivers sitting behind the wheel to intervene in case of emergency. Legislation passed in Nevada allows Google to do the same thing there.

Pegasus’ plan also seems to now include power generation, despite the significant obstacles it would have faced with an alternate location it considered for CITE. If Pegasus had chosen a site near Las Cruces, the city would have had to build $40 million of infrastructure in order to begin alternative energy production, [Las Cruces Mayor Ken} Miyagishima says.

‘The land they were looking at has no infrastructure at all—it’s just desert,’ Miyagishima says. ‘It would have taken awhile to get infrastructure out there.'”

Tags: ,

An excerpt from “Today’s Computers, Intelligent Machines and Our Future,” an essay by roboticist Hans Moravec from 1978, before Deep Blue was beating Kasparov in chess and Watson was wowing Trebek on Jeopardy!: 

“In the thirty years since then computers have become vastly more capable, but the goal of human performance in most areas seems as elusive as ever, in spite of a great deal of effort. The last ten years, in particular, has seen thousands of people years devoted directly to the problem, referred to as Artificial Intelligence or AI. Attempts have been made to develop computer programs which do mathematics, computer programming and common sense reasoning, are able to understand natural languages and interpret scenes seen through cameras and spoken language heard through microphones and to play games humans find challenging.

 There has been some progress. Samuel’s checker program can occasionally beat checker champions. Chess programs regularly play at good amateur level, and in March 1977 a chess program from Northwestern University, running on a CDC Cyber-176 (which is about 20 times as fast as previous computers used to play chess) won the Minnesota Open Championship, against a slate of class A and expert players. A ten year effort at MIT has produced a system, Mathlab, capable of doing symbolic algebra, trigonometry and calculus operations better in many ways than most humans experienced in those fields. Programs exist which can understand English sentences with restricted grammar and vocabulary, given the letter sequence, or interpret spoken commands from hundred word vocabularies. Some can do very simple visual inspection tasks, such as deciding whether or not a screw is at the end of a shaft. The most difficult tasks to automate, for which computer performance to date has been most disappointing, are those that humans do most naturally, such as seeing, hearing and common sense reasoning. 

A major reason for the difficulty has become very clear to me in the course of my work on computer vision. It is simply that the machines with which we are working are still a hundred thousand to a million times too slow to match the performance of human nervous systems in those functions for which humans are specially wired. This enormous discrepancy is distorting our work, creating problems where there are none, making others impossibly difficult, and generally causing effort to be misdirected.”

Tags: , ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »