This week, Mike Huckabee confirmed that he is considering a much running mate who can reach out to young people,

This week, Mike Huckabee confirmed that he’s considering a running mate who can reach out to young people.


  • Japan is extraordinarily comfortable with robots.
  • Sebastian Thrun would like Udacity to double the world’s GDP. Uh, wow.
  • The Asch Experiments may not have proved utter conformity, but still.
  • The technology needed to automate trucking is already here.
  • Not every shopping center will become a ghost mall

A system based on prefabricated modules has allowed Zhang Yue to construct skyscrapers in heretofore unimaginably quick times. They might not be beautiful, but they are green and relatively inexpensive. As the buildings grow taller, the developer’s dreams grow wider. From Finn Aberdein at the BBC:

The revolution will be modular, Zhang insists. Mini Sky City was assembled from thousands of factory-made steel modules, slotted together like Meccano.

It’s a method he says is not only fast, but also safe and cheap.

Now he wants to drop the “Mini” and use the same technique to build the world’s tallest skyscraper, Sky City.

While the current record holder, the 828m-high Burj Khalifa in Dubai, took five years to “top out”, Zhang says his proposed 220-storey “vertical city” will take only seven months – four for the foundations, and three for the tower itself.

And it will be 10m taller.

But if that was not enough, Zhang Yue wants nothing less than to reimagine the whole urban environment.

He has a vision of a future where his company makes a third of the world’s buildings – all modular, all steel, and all green.

“The biggest problem we face in the world right now isn’t terrorism or world war. It’s climate change,” he says.•

Tags: ,

As I stated recently, humanoid robots aren’t likely to experience the head-spinning progress driverless cars have enjoyed because they’re more complicated machines that need to move in every direction, not just forward and reverse, and they require smart limbs as well as rolling wheels. But having numerous multibillion dollar corporations working on these hard problems is also an incredible force for improvement.

An Economist report of the recent DARPA Robotics Challenge notes the promise but also the frustrations of the field:

Running Man, the Atlas robot with which IHMC won second place, showed what the platform was capable of—though after completing its winning round it did rather let the side down by falling over as it struck a sequence of victorious poses. Jerry Pratt, who led the IHMC team, argues convincingly that, in principle, walking has huge advantages—a human can quite easily make progress along a discontinuous track no wider than a single foot, taking in its stride obstacles big enough to pose a problem to the wheels of anything short of a monster truck. But on the evidence of the DRC, the software and hardware needed to match that ability remain far off. For the time being, a robot designed for responding to DRC-style disasters looks likely to need an alternative to legs.

Getting a handle on how long that time being might be was another of the points of the DRC. Gill Pratt, who ran the programme at DARPA (and is no relation to IHMC’s Mr Pratt, though he did supervise his doctoral research) saw it as a way not just to stimulate progress in the field but also to gauge how quickly such progress could be made. Everyone involved in the DRC remembers the startling improvement between the first of DARPA’s “Grand Challenges” for autonomous vehicles—which, in 2004, saw the winning car travel just 11.8km of a 240km route—and the second, in 2005, in which five teams went the whole distance. That demonstration of rapidly expanding capabilities played a role in convincing people, such as the bosses of Google, that self-driving cars were a practical possibility in the not-too-distant future.

The progress between the first real-world DRC trials, in late 2013, and the finals this month was less spectacular. Humanoid robots are not yet at the ready-for-take-off point autonomous cars were at ten years ago. The teams using the Atlases knew that less than two years of working with their charges gave them time to implement little more than a simple ability to walk—one expert says that developing robust locomotion from the ground up and debugging it is more like a five-year job. There were also limitations with the hardware. Atlas’s arms were not strong enough to lift its 150kg bulk back up if it fell down.•

In an insightful and highly entertaining Business Insider profile of Elon Musk by Wait But Why writer Tim Urban, the technologist and journalist spend lunch discussing all manner of ideas: genetic engineering, superintelligence, consciousness, etc. Musk says he steers clear of genetic engineering because of its Nazi connection, and of course, he speaks of his desire to launch us into becoming a multi-planet species. An excerpt:

This guy has a lot on his mind across a lot of topics. In this one lunch alone, we covered electric cars, climate change, artificial intelligence, the Fermi Paradox, consciousness, reusable rockets, colonizing Mars, creating an atmosphere on Mars, voting on Mars, genetic programming, his kids, population decline, physics vs. engineering, Edison vs. Tesla, solar power, a carbon tax, the definition of a company, warping spacetime and how this isn’t actually something you can do, nanobots in your bloodstream and how this isn’t actually something you can do, Galileo, Shakespeare, the American forefathers, Henry Ford, Isaac Newton, satellites, and ice ages.

I’ll get into the specifics of what he had to say about many of these things in later posts, but some notes for now:

— He’s a pretty tall and burly dude. Doesn’t really come through on camera.

— He ordered a burger and ate it in either two or three bites over a span of about 15 seconds. I’ve never seen anything like it.

— He is very, very concerned about AI. I quoted him in my posts on AI saying that he fears that by working to bring about Superintelligent AI (ASI), we’re “summoning the demon,” but I didn’t know how much he thought about the topic. He cited AI safety as one of the three things he thinks about most—the other two being sustainable energy and becoming a multi-planet species, i.e. Tesla and SpaceX. Musk is a smart motherf—er, and he knows a ton about AI, and his sincere concern about this makes me scared.

— The Fermi Paradox also worries him. In my post on that, I divided Fermi thinkers into two camps—those who think there’s no other highly intelligent life out there at all because of some Great Filter, and those who believe there must be plenty of intelligent life and that we don’t see signs of any for some other reason. Musk wasn’t sure which camp seemed more likely, but he suspects that there may be an upsetting Great Filter situation going on. He thinks the paradox “just doesn’t make sense” and that it “gets more and more worrying” the more time that goes by. Considering the possibility that maybe we’re a rare civilization who made it past the Great Filter through a freak occurrence makes him feel even more conviction about SpaceX’s mission: “If we are very rare, we better get to the multi-planet situation fast, because if civilization is tenuous, then we must do whatever we can to ensure that our already-weak probability of surviving is improved dramatically.” Again, his fear here makes me feel not great.•

Tags: ,

While it shocks me that test subjects in psychologist Solomon Asch’s experiments on conformity were at all swayed to ridiculous conclusions by groupthink, economist Tim Harford finds a silver lining in the cloud in his latest Financial Times column: Participants were independent more often than influenced. That’s true, but if a few minutes of suggestion can alter beliefs to a significant degree, what can longer term and more subtle social pressures do?

From Harford:

Asch gave his subjects the following task: identify which of three different lines, A, B or C, was the same length as a “standard” line. The task was easy in its own right but there was a twist. Each individual was in a group of seven to nine people, and everyone else in the group was a confederate of Asch’s. For 12 out of 18 questions they had been told to choose, unanimously, a specific incorrect answer. Would the experimental subject respond by fitting in with the group or by contradicting them? Many of us know the answer: we are swayed by group pressure. Offered a choice between speaking the truth and saying something socially convenient, we opt for social convenience every time.

But wait — “every time”? In popular accounts of Asch’s work, conformity tends to be taken for granted. I often describe his research myself in speeches as an example of how easily groupthink can set in and silence dissent. And this is what students of psychology are themselves told by their own textbooks. A survey of these textbooks by three psychologists, Ronald Friend, Yvonne Rafferty and Dana Bramel, found that the texts typically emphasised Asch’s findings of conformity. That was in 1990 but when Friend recently updated his work, he found that today’s textbooks stressed conformity more than ever.

This is odd, because the experiments found something more subtle. It is true that most experimental subjects were somewhat swayed by the group. Fewer than a quarter of experimental subjects resolutely chose the correct line every time. (In a control group, unaffected by social pressure, errors were rare.) However, the experiment found that total conformity was scarcer than total independence. Only six out of 123 subjects conformed on all 12 occasions. More than half of the experimental subjects defied the group and gave the correct answer at least nine times out of 12. A conformity effect certainly existed but it was partial.•

_____________________________

An iteration of the Asch Experiment:

Tags: ,

Only Marlon Brando could lure little people, Samoan wrestlers, Philippe Petit, Leonardo DiCaprio, Sean Penn, Whoopi Goldberg, Robin Williams and Michael Jackson to the same acting workshop, and that’s what what he did near the end of his life, presiding over a Fellini-esque 10-day symposium displaying the type of leadership John E. du Pont utilized when coaching wrestlers–though thankfully there were no casualties at the Hollywood warehouse rented for the gathering. Brando agreed to teach the class to make money after abandoning a get-rich-quick scheme earthquake-proofing houses.

Benjamin Svetkey has an eye-popping piece in the Hollywood Reporter about the mad scene. An excerpt:

About 20 young acting students and a dozen established stars — including Sean Penn, Nick Nolte, Edward James Olmos, Whoopi Goldberg and Harry Dean Stanton — had gathered to learn at the feet of the greatest thespian of the 20th century. He didn’t disappoint. When the doors flung open, the 78-year-old Brando appeared wearing a blond wig, blue mascara, a black gown with an orange scarf and a bodice stuffed with gigantic falsies. Waving a single rose in one hand, he sashayed through the warehouse, plunked his 300-pound frame onto a thronelike chair on a makeshift stage and began fussily applying lipstick.

“I am furious! Furious!” Brando told the group in a matronly English accent, launching into an improvised monologue that ended, 10 minutes later, with the actor turning around, lifting his gown and mooning the crowd.

And that, it turned out, would be one of the more decorous moments of “Lying for a Living,” the wild 10-day symposium — as much a 1960s- style “happening” as it was an acting course — that Brando organized and led in November 2002, less than two years before his death. The event is little recalled today — and even back then it slipped mostly under the radar — but those daylong classes, where movie stars mingled with midgets, Madonna’s ex-boyfriend nearly caused a riot and an Osama bin Laden look­alike almost gave Jon Voight a coronary, was a never-to-be-repeated moment of Hollywood letting its freak flag fly.

It also featured some of the strangest, and some would say finest, performances of Brando’s later years.•

Tags: ,

From the November 30, 1902 Brooklyn Daily Eagle:

If the heart is a lonely hunter, then the brain is a game of William Tell. It’s tough to hit the target, and sometimes missing can lead to horrible consequences.

From Tim Adams’ Guardian piece about neuroscientist Dr. Suzanne O’Sullivan’s new book concerning imaginary illnesses, It’s All in Your Head:

Some of its more avant-garde subjects have faced O’Sullivan in her treatment room. Her experience of this type of patient began when she was just qualified as a junior doctor, watching a woman she calls Yvonne being questioned by her consultant. Yvonne, after an accident in which she had been sprayed in the face with window-cleaning fluid, had convinced herself and her family that she was blind. After six months of tests doctors had found nothing wrong with her eyes. She was by this time on disability benefits with a full-time carer, unable to get around her house. O’Sullivan and her fellow junior doctors, certain she could see, found it hard not to suppress giggles as Yvonne described her condition. They were reprimanded by the consultant. The cause of Yvonne’s blindness was psychological rather than physical – a response, it later seemed, to unbearable tensions in her marriage. It was to her no less real, however: she had subconsciously persuaded herself that she had lost her sight. After six months of psychiatric help and family counselling, O’Sullivan reports, Yvonne’s vision was restored.

It is O’Sullivan’s contention that “psychosomatic disorders are physical symptoms that mask emotional distress”. In the 19th century sufferers of such conditions were paraded by the celebrated neurologist Jean-Marie Charcot, who revealed to sold-out audiences how such states could be induced by suggestion and hypnosis. Even with fMRI scans and advances in neural imaging, the means by which thought alone can conjure physical pain is an unfathomable mystery. “One day a woman loses the power of speech entirely and the next she speaks in the voice of a child. A girl has a lump in her throat and becomes convinced she cannot swallow. Eyes close involuntarily and no amount of coaxing will open them.” Each of O’Sullivan’s patients is different; however, buried trauma or stress (itself an undefined cause and effect) seems often to be a trigger.

Tags: ,

At the London Review of Books, Chris Lehmann has written one of his customarily excellent pieces, this time about the elephantine field of GOP hopefuls, all of whom could be described as the embodiment of the Horatio Alger myth, a bunch of ragged Dicks. As bad as any might be nominal frontrunner Jeb Bush, who has thus far shown in public and private life that being the “brighter Bush brother” doesn’t suggest a significant difference in wattage.

Lehmann’s opening:

It is a cliché of American electioneering for candidates to advertise their humble beginnings and unstinting ascent in the face of adversity. Even George W. Bush, with his Andover and Skull-and-Bones East Coast Brahmin pedigree, offered up his own version of the log cabin myth, alluding to his drunken youth and subsequent soul-saving entry into the evangelical fold, and taking self-deprecating potshots at his tricky time as part-owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team. The message was that these episodes were tests of the candidate’s resolve, temporary setbacks in the higher drama of his journey to the Texas governor’s mansion. (It didn’t matter that Bush’s gubernatorial track record was decidedly dismal, since the log cabin myth is about how you attain great office, not what you actually do when you get there.)

But the emerging field of Republican candidates for the 2016 presidential election is something else altogether. Of the dozen or so people who have declared or are thought likely to declare, every one can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way. There is, for starters, George’s younger brother Jeb: not yet a formal candidate, but already on course to raise $1 billion in campaign funds. (He has deliberately delayed his official entry into the field in order to wring every dollar he can from big-money political action committees; once he becomes a runner, the rules forbid him from dealing directly with them.) Jeb has dined out for most of his career on his image as the clever Bush brother, but as his quasi-campaign heated up and the press started to ask questions about actual policies, he immediately undermined this unearned plaudit by saying he would have followed to the letter George’s catastrophic decision to invade and occupy Iraq. After realising that this was a position now seen as insane even by most Republicans, he tried to retreat from it with a series of flailing clarifications.

Jeb Bush’s own track record is terrible.•

 

Tags:

Michael Crichton was a major part of the first wave of very educated Americans weaned on genre entertainments who moved B movies to the A-List and put pulp novels atop the New York Times Bestsellers. All the while, he drew the ire of the science community by putting a spotlight on the Victor Frankenstein side of the laboratory, worrying about the Singularity long before the phrase came into vogue (Westworld), thinking about the value corporations might put on the things inside of us prior to Larry Page’s brain-implant dreams (Coma), and considering the perils of de-extinction (Jurassic Park).

The opening of Michael Weinreb’s terrific Grantland consideration of a bad writer who was also a great writer:

At the heart of nearly every Michael Crichton novel is the simplest of premises: a protagonist in trouble, losing control of his world, facing forces he can no longer contain. It’s not exactly a sophisticated plot device, but while Crichton could be a complex thinker in terms of subject matter and scientific inquiry, especially later in his career, he was also an utterly facile writer as far as sentence structure and characterization go. He wrote page-turners that aspired for dystopic realism, and because of this, he is still a polarizing figure whose literary legacy remains unsettled. He once said that scientists criticized him for co-opting their theories into fiction, and that book critics ripped him for writing bad prose.

But one might also argue that few writers in modern history have married high-concept ideas and base-level entertainment as well as Crichton did. His books are the ultimate union of the geeky and the pulpy. Which is why one of this summer’s surefire blockbusters, Jurassic World, and one of this fall’s signature HBO series, Westworld, are both based on ideas that originated in the mind of a man who died almost seven years ago.

♦♦♦

Start with, say, a handsome doctor lured by a beautiful woman to an island that is actually an experiment in the parameters of human need, run by a shadowy corporation that feeds people a drug that (for reasons unknown) turns their urine a bright and shiny blue. Or start with a vacationing playboy who finds himself trapped at a French villa by a surgeon who wields a scalpel as a weapon, like a James Bond villain. Or start with a heist gone wrong, or a madman wielding nerve gas and threatening to attack the Republican National Convention, or a doctor arrested and thrown in jail on charges of performing an illegal abortion.

Those are a few of the premises of the nine books Crichton wrote in the late 1960s and early 1970s under varied pseudonyms, when he wasn’t yet a full-time writer and was still playing around with what kind he’d want to be if and/or when he became one. In a way, these novels are the most fascinating experiments of his career, because they’re windows into his thought process, into his own angst about technology and humanity. They’re the demos and B-sides that eventually led to his first best-selling book, 1969’s The Andromeda Strain, about a microorganism run amok. And The Andromeda Strain eventually led to 1990’sJurassic Park, the story of the dinosaurs run amok, the story that turned Crichton into one of the most famous writers on the planet.•

Tags: ,

Japan was delivered to ashes by technology and rose from them by the same means, so it’s unsurprising the country arguably has the most complicated relationship with these modern tools–even more than the hyper-wired South Korea. In a world of technophobia, Japan has learned to stop worrying and love the bomb because, you know, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. From a RT piece about a Japanese pro-robot initiative:

Japan is, by popular opinion, the most robot-savvy nation, and it’s no surprise. Since the 1950s, love for machines has engulfed the nation and embedded itself firmly in the Japanese psyche.

And it wasn’t just vacuum cleaners either. Robots were beginning to be imagined as companions as well.

According to the IO9 website, a survey conducted in 2007 revealed that 40 percent of the nation’s women in their 20s and 30s actually talk to their computers. Another 10 percent give them names.

The nation is already crazy about robotic domestic pets, and one Australia-based researcher predicts we’re going to get anything from mechanical dogs to baby seals popping up within the next 10-15 years.

“Pet robotics has come a long way from the Tamagotchi craze of the mid-90s. In Japan, people are becoming so attached to their robot dogs they hold funerals for them when the circuits die,” Dr Jean-Loup Rault of the University of Melbourne wrote in a paper published in the Frontiers in Veterinary Science journal.•

Among other things, Matt Novak’s Paleofuture dispatch from the DARPA Robotics Challenge explains why technology associated with the agency–the Internet, driverless cars–usually pans out even if it initially seems outré. That something to consider since it has more than a passing interest in robotic warfare. An excerpt:

If DARPA has an interest in any particular technology, there’s a reasonable chance that it’ll be a practical reality within your lifetime. DARPA specializes in “high risk, high reward” research and development, which means that it’s pushing the limits of what’s possible. But DARPA isn’t interested in dicking around with impractical nonsense. Or anything that doesn’t have applications that contribute to national defense. “Here at DARPA we don’t do science for science’s sake,” Steven Walker, deputy director of DARPA, says in a video at the expo. Walker goes on to explain that one of the reasons DARPA was created was to create “technological surprise.”

The agency was founded in 1958 (then known as ARPA) on the heels of the Soviet Union’s successful launch of Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, into orbit. It was a national embarrassment for the United States — especially the Cold Warriors who insisted that American style capitalism would produce the best goods, services, and technologies. So the Eisenhower administration decided that it wouldn’t be surprised again.

Just one of many technologies developed by DARPA is the driverless car. Americans have been waiting on the fully automated driverless car for decades. In fact, scifi visions of the driverless car are nearly as old as the automobile itself. And with each passing day, we inch closer and closer to driverless cars becoming a mainstream reality on America’s roads.

Today we associate companies like Google with driverless car development. But DARPA has been working on driverless cars since before Google even existed.•

Tags: ,

Despite choosing the dangerous profession of mountain climber, Annie Smith Peck somehow made it to the end of her life in one piece, even surviving accidents involving street cars and mules. The apex of her adventurous career was probably her 1903 ascent of Illampu in Bolivia, which she made with geologist Dr. W.G. Tight and two guides, a treacherous scaling reported on in the September 2, 1903 Brooklyn Daily Eagle.

Tags:

Private enterprise endeavoring to start a new Space Race isn’t merely about cashing in–it’s also about the survival of a variant of our species–but the rich asteroid belt near Mars has certainly caught the attention of billionaire explorers. We want to mine up there to build new colonies but perhaps they’ll be a little something left over so that our first trillionaire can be minted. It would be the least pleasing result of space exploration, but it’s undoubtedly a driving force.

Sometimes during a gold rush people lose their manners. It’s important then to begin thinking now about how we’ll treat our hosts, whether they be microbial or what have you. At Aeon, Lizzie Wade has written a smart essay about what could become a next-level land grab–Manifest Destiny meeting Space Odyssey. She suggests that perhaps the Antarctic Treaty System could be used as a template for curbing our worst impulses. An excerpt:

There are two forms the discovery of alien life could realistically take, neither of them a culture clash between civilisations. The first is finding a ‘biosignature’ of, say, oxygen, in the atmosphere of an expolanet, created by life on the exoplanet’s surface. This kind of long-distance discovery of alien life, which astronomers are already scanning for, is the most likely contact scenario, since it doesn’t require us going anywhere, or even sending a robot. But its consequences will be purely theoretical. At long last we’ll know we’re not alone, but that’s about it. We won’t be able to establish contact, much less meet our counterparts – for a very long time, if ever. We’d reboot scientific, philosophical and religious debates about how we fit into a biologically rich universe, and complicate our intellectual and moral stances in previously unimaginable ways. But any ethical questions would concern only us and our place in the Universe.

‘First contact’ will not be a back-and-forth between equals, but like the discovery of a natural resource
If, on the other hand, we discover microbial or otherwise non-sentient life within our own solar system – logistics will be on our side. We’d be able to visit within a reasonable period of time (as far as space travel goes), and I hope we’d want to. If the life we find resembles plants, their complexity will wow us. Most likely we’ll find simple single-celled microbes or maybe – maybe – something like sponges or tubeworms. In terms of encounter, we’d be making all the decisions about how to proceed.

None of this eliminates the possibility that alien life might discover us. But if NASA’s current timeline holds water, another civilisation has only a few more decades to get here before we claim the mantle of ‘discoverer’ rather than ‘discovered’. With every passing day, it grows more likely that ‘first contact’ will not take the form of an intellectual or moral back-and-forth between equals. It will be more like the discovery of a natural resource, and one we might be able to exploit. It won’t be an encounter, or even a conquest. It will be a gold rush.

This makes defining an ethics of contact necessary now, before we have to put it into practice.•

Tags:

Somebody finally found that hermit Neil deGrasse Tyson in the cave where he hides from public attention and convinced him to conduct an Ask Me Anything at Reddit. 

Tyson, who’s written the forward to several books that study the intersection of art and science, answered questions on both topics. An exchange on each follows.

_______________________________

Question:

Which three works of art would you choose to give to an alien species that you feel best expresses the human experience?

Neil deGrasse Tyson:

Mmmmm.

I think I would have them visit the Rothko Chapel, in Houston. Obviously, there’s more than one work of art there, but it emanates from the same soul of creativity. That would be one of them, if I would be allowed to group that as one work of art.

Another group of art, I would say the Sistine Chapel, the ceiling. That captures the height of our artistic expression, triggered by religious emotion. And religion is a big part of what civilization has been. The Rothko Chapel is a path to your inner solitude.

And the fact that art can get you there – in a space, I think – matters.

And I would say third, again it’s a space – the Waterlily Room, in Paris, where you have the Waterlilies, where as Impressionist Art, you don’t think Waterlilies by seeing the artwork, you feel them. And it’s a way to have art convey a feeling more than a visual.

And this would tell the aliens that we, as a species, do much more than think.

We feel.

And then they’d have to contend with that.

Maybe they’d vaporize us, haha! I don’t know any force operating in our culture but art to capture that fact.

_______________________________

Question:

Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk have expressed their worries about the creation of an artificial intelligence. What do you think about it?

Neil deGrasse Tyson:

The people who worry about artificial intelligence – I’m not. I’m cool with it.

We already have artificial intelligence. It’s just where you draw the line. Where you say “This is something beyond the limit.” We have computers that beat us in chess, they even beat us in Jeopardy! We have a car that can drive itself. A car that can brake faster than you can. Airplanes that REQUIRE computers to fly because the pilot cannot control all the surfaces that are necessary for it to fly stably.

We have artificial intelligence around us at all times.

If they’re worried that there will be a robot invented that will come out of the box that will start stabbing us? If that happened, I’ll just unplug the robot. Or if it’s Texas, I’ll start shooting it.

I’m not worried, okay?

Nobody will put you on trial for shooting your own robot.

So I’m not worried. Really.

Plus if I programmed the damn thing – I can re-program you! So I’m good with putting as much intelligence as possible. Robots build our cars – not people! We can argue it, but it’s a fact.

And I’m old enough to remember – in the morning, there was a good reason that your car might not start for a dozen reason. And now cars start. Robots built that car. Gimme more robots.

Next!•

 

Tags:

It’s not easy for driverless cars to navigate tiny side streets that are barely mapped. Autos will have to communicate with one another, sharing information about unplanned detours and such. But that’s something corporate trucking need not worry about, its vehicles transporting via highways. As Scott Santens points out at Quartz, many of the nearly nine million workers in the sector could be unemployed as soon as it’s legally allowed. The technology is already there. An excerpt:

Any realistic time horizon for self-driving trucks needs to look at horizons for cars and shift those even further towards the present. Trucks only need to be self-driven on highways. They do not need warehouse-to-store autonomy to be disruptive. City-to-city is sufficient. At the same time, trucks are almost entirely corporate driven. There are market forces above and beyond private cars operating for trucks. If there are savings to be found in eliminating truckers from drivers seats—which there are—these savings will be sought. It’s actually really easy to find these savings right now.

Wirelessly linked truck platoons are as simple as having a human driver drive a truck, with multiple trucks without drivers following closely behind. This not only saves on gas money (7% for only two trucks together), but can immediately eliminate half of all truckers if, for example, two-truck convoys became the norm. There’s no real technical obstacles to this option. It’s a very simple use of present technology.

Basically, the only real barrier to the immediate adoption of self-driven trucks is purely legal in nature, not technical or economic. With self-driving vehicles currently only road legal in a few states, many more states need to follow suit unless autonomous vehicles are made legal at the national level. And Sergey Brin of Google has estimated this could happen as soon as 2017. Therefore…

The answer to the big question of “When?” for self-driving trucks is that they can essentially hit our economy at any time.•

Tags:

Google, the search AI company founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, has brought aboard Dan Doctoroff, who was not universally loved in New York City when serving as the Balbo to Bloomberg’s Mussolini, as the leader of Sidewalk Labs, which aims to reimagine and reorganize urban areas with technology. Interesting that Google recently has hired not only Doctoroff but also Ray Kurzweil, both of whom are Methuselah-esque compared to the average Silicon Valley employee. Perhaps it’s a new market inefficiency? Or maybe when you’re immortal like Kurzweil, 67 years old is toddler age?

From Miguel Helft at Forbes:

In a press release on its own site, Sidewalk Labs, which is based in New York, said:

While there are apps to tell people about traffic conditions, or the prices of available apartments, the biggest challenges that cities face — such as making transportation more efficient and lowering the cost of living, reducing energy usage and helping government operate more efficiently have, so far, been more difficult to address. Sidewalk Labs will develop new products, platforms and partnerships to make progress in these areas.

“At a time when the concerns about urban equity, costs, health and the environment are intensifying, unprecedented technological change is going to enable cities to be more efficient, responsive, flexible and resilient,” Doctoroff wrote in the press release. “We hope that Sidewalk will play a major role in developing technology products, platforms and advanced infrastructure that can be implemented at scale in cities around the world.”

Page credited Googler Adrian Aoun with bringing Doctoroff on board. Aoun, an entrepreneur who sold his last company, Wavii, to Google, has been working on special projects at the company. On his Facebook page, Aoun wrote: “I’m proud to announce a project I’ve been working on, Sidewalk Labs, with my good friend Dan Doctoroff!”

Tags: ,

It seems that drivers may surrender the wheel, but will they concede ownership as well? “We don’t think people will give up their own cars,” asserts Mercedes-Benz futurist Eric Larsen in a New York Times Q&A with Quentin Hardy. That isn’t nearly the most disputed thing he said during the interview.

When asked about electric vehicles, Larsen says that internal-combustion model “isn’t broken for most people,” since fracking has kept gas prices low and refueling with gasoline requires of the owner only five minutes weekly. I suppose in a lower-case sense, the model isn’t broken, but in the much bigger one, the one in which we’re putting ourselves in a very precarious position environmentally, the model seems hopelessly broken for everyone. 

An excerpt about changes to the automobile interior, which touches on another thorny issue–privacy:

Question:

What has changed inside the car itself?

Eric Larsen:

Screens have become more important. Will a driver’s screen get lots of upgrades like a phone app? If you have a five-year-old car now, people know it by looking at the sound system and the screen. Leased vehicles may be refurbished more often, as dealers look to make them seem newer. Cars may become more modular that way, and there won’t be model years in American cars the way there were.

There is more awareness in the controls. You can’t input long addresses into a navigational system while you’re driving. When a car knows it is at rest, it may allow you to put the seat back further, letting you work, sleep or watch TV from the driver’s seat.

But there’s also a tightrope of personalization and privacy. Companies can know how fast you drive, how tight you corner. We’ve already seen start-ups that tell how fast you’re driving and how you are braking by using the sensors in your phone. It can be a capability in the car itself. As you get into “pay as you drive” car businesses, that will become an issue. There are legal points that have to be worked out.•

 

Tags: ,

Transhumanist Party Presidential candidate Zoltan Istvan wants to radically extend life with the aid of organ printing, brain implants, etc. But won’t that lead to a dangerously crowded planet? That was one question asked of the fledgling politician in a smart Q&A conducted by Sarah Fecht of Popular Science. The exchange:

Popular Science:

How can the planet support an immortal population?

Zoltan Istvan:

There’s a very strong chance that within 10 years, most of us will be using IVF techniques and designing our babies. We’ll still probably be using the uterus for another 10 years, but giving birth is something that’s medically dangerous. Eventually there will be artificial wombs. There won’t be such a natural family as we see it now. In 25 or 30 years, making a family will be very much something where you sit in front of a computer, and you decide how you want to do this, and then probably they’ll have something–an aquarium or something in your living room or at the hospital, similar to the Matrix. Again that might be 35 years out, and it’s all dependent upon whether this kind of technology is ethically passed. But I do believe the future of having children will change dramatically, and that will also impact the population levels. You’ll find that people won’t necessarily want to have children if they can spend 100 years in great health.•

 

Tags: ,

From the February 17, 1934 Brooklyn Daily Eagle:

 

Tags:

Taking performance-enhancing drugs is a serious health risk, though that’s not why it seems to bother us when it comes to sports. For some reason–the shaky idea that competition should be pure?–we don’t want athletes using PEDs even though it doesn’t seem to upset that such usage is prevalent in many other competitive fields.

A paragraph from a 2012 Vanity Fair article about HGH use in Hollywood:

A business in Hollywood is small potatoes until it’s known by three letters: CAA, MGM, PMK, SAG, UTA, WME. These days, though, nothing is hotter than Hollywood’s latest health-and-fitness craze: H.G.H. therapy. Just ask any major-league Hollywood player. Earlier this year, following a game of tennis at a swank Beverly Hills country club, a prominent movie producer sat nursing a sore knee. “Just take this,” one of the club members said, offering a vial of H.G.H. A former studio executive recalls a recent dinner out with one of his colleagues. “He’s a family man with a wife and kids,” the executive says. “And he just starts talking about using H.G.H. I was like, ‘Are you crazy?! You’re fucking shooting yourself up?!’ But he said, ‘No, it’s great. And I feel great in the morning. And it’s invigorating.’ ”

All these people are searching for a “cure” for aging, the look of it and the biology of it also, a pursuit that will never end as long as there are humans. In a Vice piece, Seung Lee writes of drugs aimed not at defeating death but rather certain geriatric diseases that lead to it. An excerpt:

Private funds has been on the rise for anti-aging research, especially among Silicon Valley venture capitalists and tech giants looking for the next frontier to conquer. One of the most active donors has been PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, who donated $35 million to an anti-aging researcher in Cambridge Universtiy in 2006 and $500,000 to a biotech start-up in 2010.

Google has joined the fray last year with the foundation of Calico. Described as mysterious and Google’s mad science project, Calico revealed plans to build an anti-aging research facility in the San Francisco Bay Area with a cost of up to $1.5 billion.

So far, the Alk5 kinase inhibitor has yet to draw any funds from firms and investors some forty-odd miles away, even though [Irina] Conboy considered these discoveries “low-hanging fruit.”

The researchers remain hopeful that the drug will continue to move forward in pace with the explosive growth of the larger anti-aging research community.

“I look at it as more promising than anything,” said Hanadie Yousef, the lead author of the Oncotarget study and currently a postdoctoral scholar at Stanford University. “When I was starting graduate school five years ago, there was absolutely nothing known about how aging actually happened. The field is growing so rapidly that I would bet within the next decade we’ll see effective anti-aging therapeutic methods.”

With the probability of anti-aging therapy on the horizon, death may take a different shape in the future. Death, as Conboy’s team hoped to accomplish, would no longer come with pain or suffering at some hospital with wires and machines keeping the body alive.

Instead, death will come by more natural causes such as cardiac arrest or a stroke—a relatively quick way to die than fighting years against cancer or similar diseases.•

 

Tags: , ,

Deciding to become a woman is the first normal thing Bruce Jenner has done since the decathlon.

I do feel a bit the way I would if Sarah Palin had become the first female American President, back when that bullshit seemed possible: Well, great, but did it have to be her? Jenner has long been your typical ex-jock conservative who never spoke up once when his party consistently sold discrimination in the U.S. to achieve its political ends. But pioneers are pioneers, so good for Caitlyn on her transition. Much happiness to her.

Some un-bylined writer at the Economist has given voice to something that’s true of both parties in the U.S.: They can only move as far Left or Right as the moment will allow. Despite being the standard-bearer of the GOP, President Richard Nixon pursued universal heath care and guaranteed basic income because those things were in the air at the time. Similarly, when it comes to Jenner, even the sweater-vest wing of the GOP has had to be restrained in its comments because the conversation about LGBT issues has so seriously shifted. 

From the Economist:

“I can only imagine the torment that Bruce Jenner went through,” offered Lindsey Graham, a senator from South Carolina. “I hope he’s—I hope she has found peace.” Though Mr Graham affirmed that he is a “pro-life, traditional marriage kind of guy”, he added that “If Caitlyn Jenner wants to be a Republican, she is welcome in my party.”

“If he says he’s a woman, then he’s a woman,” said Rick Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator not known for his open-mindedness. “My responsibility as a human being is to love and accept everybody. Not to criticise people for who they are.” As an outspoken critic of gay relationships, Mr Santorum has long reserved the right to criticise people for what they do, but he refrained from knocking all that Ms Jenner has done to make herself womanly.

This combination of silence and accommodation has unsettled some conservative commentators. “A surgically damaged man appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair, and the applause is mandatory,” writes David French of the National Review. He then argues that the “sexual selfishness and radical personal autonomy” of the transgender movement “shares the same logic as such cultural catastrophes as no-fault divorce and abortion on demand”, which are naturally to blame for “poverty, depression, and increasing inequality between two-parent families and the transient remainder”. Mr French contends that conservatives are being bullied into a dangerous silence by left-leaning cultural arbiters. “By refusing to speak,” he writes, “we contribute to the notion that even conservatives understand that something is wrong—something is shameful—about our own deepest beliefs.”

Steve Deace, a syndicated radio host based in Iowa, offered a similar but more practical warning: “If we’re not going to defend as a party basic principles of male and female, that life is sacred because it comes from God, then you’re going to lose the vast majority of people who’ve joined that party.” 

It is surprising that a warning like this needs to be issued at all. Until recently, Republican politicians have been brash culture warriors.•

Tags: , , , ,

Martin Ford has written a New York Times op-ed explaining why “China could well turn out to be ground zero for the economic and social disruption brought on by the rise of the robots.” Outsourcing used to mean moving jobs out of country, but more and more it will mean shifting them out of species. And no matter what the official line is, better jobs don’t necessarily await the displaced. The opening:

OVER the last decade, China has become, in the eyes of much of the world, a job-eating monster, consuming entire industries with its seemingly limitless supply of low-wage workers. But the reality is that China is now shifting its appetite to robots, a transition that will have significant consequences for China’s economy — and the world’s.

In 2014, Chinese factories accounted for about a quarter of the global ranks of industrial robots — a 54 percent increase over 2013. According to the International Federation of Robotics, it will have more installed manufacturing robots than any other country by 2017. 

Midea, a leading manufacturer of home appliances in the heavily industrialized province of Guangdong, plans to replace 6,000 workers in its residential air-conditioning division, about a fifth of the work force, with automation by the end of the year. Foxconn, which makes consumer electronics for Apple and other companies, plans to automate about 70 percent of factory work within three years, and already has a fully robotic factory in Chengdu.

Chinese factory jobs may thus be poised to evaporate at an even faster pace than has been the case in the United States and other developed countries. That may make it significantly more difficult for China to address one of its paramount economic challenges: the need to rebalance its economy so that domestic consumption plays a far more significant role than is currently the case.•

Tags:

When you’ve been one of the leading minds behind getting cars to drive themselves, you tend to shoot for the moon. Sebastian Thrun certainly is with Udacity, his education start-up which currently offers nanodegrees in things like Data Analyst and Android Developer. Not exactly a Stanford or Harvard or even community college curriculum, but Thrun believes he’s just at the beginning of reimagining higher ed. From a Smithsonian Q&A Roger Catlin conducted with the Google X lab founder:

Question:

What is your dream for Udacity?

Sebastian Thrun:

If I could double the world’s GDP, it would be very gratifying to me, measuring it not by the company itself but by the impact it would have. We are launching an education system that Google has undersigned, a joint education for entrepreneurship. It’s a niche to some extent, but if you bring this to the Middle East, if you bring this to Africa, if you bring this to Bangladesh, to developing countries, to China and India, I think it can have a huge impact on their ability to participate constructively in the creation of wealth and prosperity. Specifically the Middle East, at this point, suffers from the fact there is no path for young people to participate constructively, so some of those, as a result, may choose other paths, like terrorism.

Question:

What are the greatest obstacles of reaching that goal?

Sebastian Thrun:

Eventually, it will take broadening the course catalog. We work with computer science and software stuff, but not everyone wants to be a software engineer.

Where should I start? Obviously we are iterating the student experience, and in some courses we managed to get the finishing rate from about 2 percent to over 90 percent. And that was really hard work to make it really good. So think about it as a car that in the beginning drives about 10 mph, but with relentless engineering you get it to about 100 mph. That’s the product quality. The quality of the experience. The second one, honestly, is that education is such a slow growing field, so there is a trust element. Like, do you trust a new player? And to some extent education is owned by the degree-granting universities that have an efficient delivery model. So to gain the trust of our students means we’ll be placing them in jobs, showing the job records, to show how the teaching really empowers them. That will bring new students, but that’s going to take some time.•

Tags: ,

The heart is a lonely hunter. Also it’s the organ in your chest that pumps blood through your veins and arteries.

An old metaphor ran up against new medicine in 1982 when Dr. William DeVries performed the first artificial-heart transplant on patient Barney Clark, who lived 112 days with the battery-powered pumper. A stunning media circus ensued, with the Frankenstein factor riling many Americans, as cutting-edge technology was introduced before old dreams and superstitions had been put to rest.

“I was surprised that people think it’s as big a deal as they think it is,” DeVries said later in the year. The same questions will arise should a greater understanding of genetics allow us to drive evolution. Let’s hope that debate is more rational.

Seven years before the first AHT occurred at the University of Utah Medical Center, Dr. Willem Kolff and his colleagues there were already eager to perform the procedure, as evidenced by Ronald B. Scott’s article in the February 17, 1975 People magazine. An excerpt:

Sometime this year doctors at the University of Utah Hospital in Salt Lake City will implant an artificial heart in a human—and for the first time the chances for success are very high. If the atomic battery-powered heart does work, it will be the capstone of one of modern medicine’s most illustrious careers for Dr. Willem Kolff, 64, who directed the project. In 35 years of remarkable innovation, beginning with a machine that does the work of the human kidney, Kolff has pioneered in the field of artificial organs. And in just seven years as director of Utah’s Division of Artificial Organs, he has almost single handedly created the foremost research team of its kind in the world.

Kolff says the work at the school is aimed only at making life more bearable for the physically handicapped, but if TV’s artificial Six Million Dollar Man were ever to become a reality, doubtless it would be the work of the Utah group. In addition to an artificial heart that kept a calf alive for 94 days, the researchers have created artificial eyes—actually miniaturized television cameras implanted in the eye sockets—which transmit pictures to the brain. The “eyes” were implanted in a totally blind Vietnam veteran, who was able to perceive blurry shapes.

Kolff’s team is now working on an artificial ear and on limbs that will attach not only to the skeleton of the patient but also to his central nervous system. With such prostheses or artificial members, an amputee could recover both motor functions and a sense of touch.

As a young man in Holland, Kolff was repulsed by suffering and death, which he witnessed more frequently than most boys because his father was a physician. “The thought of having a career where I would have to watch people die troubled me,” he recalls, “so much so that I once seriously considered becoming a good zoo keeper.”

Nevertheless, his father’s intense dedication to the profession impressed young Willem, and in 1930, at the age of 19, he enrolled at the University of Leyden Medical School. During postgraduate work at the hospital of the University of Groningen, the 29-year-old doctor was given charge of four patients—one a young man of 22 who was dying slowly from kidney failure. “I had the awful task,” Kolff recalls, “of telling this sobbing peasant woman that her only son could not be saved. I thought if we could only remove some of the waste products from his blood he might survive and live a normal life.”

Kolff dug obsessively through medical libraries searching for a clue that might lead him to a method for cleansing blood, and he began laboratory experiments on the problem. He found that waste materials in the bloodstream, which are normally removed by the kidneys, would seep through extremely thin cellophane casings (such as those used to wrap sausage) when the casings were submerged in a saline bath. Blood cells would not, being too large to pass through the porous membrane.

Kolff’s work in Groningen was interrupted by the Nazi invasion in 1940, and he removed to Kampen to continue it. In his laboratory there, he wrapped cellophane tubing around a horizontal drum, which had been partially immersed in saline solution. When the blood of the kidney patient passed through the tubing, as the drum rotated, the impurities percolated through the cellophane membrane while the purified blood could be returned to the patient’s system. Kolff had effectively built an artificial kidney.

His Rube Goldberg-looking dialysis machine alarmed many of Kolff’s conservative peers, and they were reluctant to refer their own failing-kidney patients to the brash young doctor. He was able to work only with patients thought to be terminally ill. Although most of the 16 of these showed marked improvement immediately after being hooked up to Kolff’s artificial kidney, all died. Then, finally, in 1944 the seventeenth patient, Sofia Schafstadt, survived.

While Kolff’s remarkable mechanical kidney did not arouse much interest in postwar Europe, physicians from the United States beat a path to his laboratory door. In 1950 he was invited to join the prestigious Cleveland Clinic, where he eventually became the scientific director of the artificial organs program.

“He was one of those men,” recalls Dr. Yukihiko Nosé, who replaced Kolff when he left for Utah, “who can completely overpower you in the beginning. He is a typical European, paternalistic and demanding. On their first day in the lab Kolff gave all new foreign doctors a three-page memo on how to survive in America. It told us how many times to bathe each week, what deodorant to use and how to dress. Until he believes in you, he expects everything to be done his way. He can be very difficult to work with at first.”

In Cleveland Kolff became something of a medical and social maverick. “They were all Republicans there. I was about the only Democrat,” he recalls laughing. “They were very suspicious of government grants—they thought if government money was withdrawn from a project, the clinic would be obliged to keep funding it.” Kolff was used to getting his own way and could be quite imaginative about it. He blithely circumvented the chain of command at the clinic whenever it served his purposes. “It seemed there was a constant state of siege between Kolff and the board of governors over which patients should be hooked onto the dialysis machine,” another former associate says. “Naturally the clinic wanted to limit the number of indigent patients. Kolff didn’t give a damn whether patients could pay or not—he thought rich and poor should be treated alike.” …

By 1967 Kolff had become increasingly impatient with the bureaucracy and politics at the Cleveland Clinic. In his 17 years there he had pressed the development of the heart-lung machine and the inter-aortic balloon pump, which had helped diminish the risk of heart surgery. But Kolff’s ways had offended some superiors, who had retaliated by clamping a tighter rein on his research projects. When Dr. Keith Reemtsma, now at Columbia, offered to create a division for Kolff at Utah, with improved funding and virtual autonomy, Kolff quickly accepted, even though the post paid only $26,000 a year—considerably less than what he earned in Cleveland. He is permitted to supplement his income as a consultant, but turns over most of the income to the university and charity.

At Utah Kolff remains an unorthodox operator—on occasion making appeals directly to the governor for support of his projects. So far no one seems to mind—least of all Governor Calvin Rampton. He is only too pleased at the publicity Kolff has brought the state, not to mention his growing, pollution-free small industry in artificial organs and spare mechanical parts.

Now Kolff’s department boasts more than 100 employees. A scientific Pied Piper, he collects machinists, veterinarians or chemists if he thinks they can help solve his problems. Distinctions between professional ranks and the skilled but less-educated staff members bore him. He is fond of saying, “I’ll take a good technician over a mediocre doctor any day.” The oftentimes dour Dutchman inspires fierce loyalty in his associates. Says one, “If a guy has a good idea, Kolff will go to the wall for him—he gives credit where credit is due.”

The designer of the artificial heart (which is made of silicone rubber) is a brilliant third-year medical student, Robert Jarvik, who seems destined for a career as remarkable as his chief’s. Recently, Levi Porter, a sophomore engineering student whose own defective kidney requires dialysis treatment, was instrumental in developing parts for a kidney machine small enough to be carried by the patient.

In stark contrast to the flamboyant life-styles of such other heart researchers as Christiaan Barnard and William DeBakey, Kolff leads an austere life outside the laboratory. A conservative dresser, preferring the same brown coat and striped tie, he spends most of his evenings at home with Janke, his wife of 37 years, sipping tea and gazing out at the Salt Lake Valley, which unfolds beneath the bay window in his living room. He has become a generous backer of the Utah Symphony Orchestra and holds season tickets for two of the best seats in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, where the orchestra performs. All of his five children—Jack, daughter Adriana, Albert, Kees, Therus—are grown now: three of his sons are doctors and one is an architect who designs medical facilities. The oldest, Jack, recently joined his father’s research team.•

 

Tags: , , , ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »