You hear less about Jeff Bezos’ ambitions for space pioneering than you do Elon Musk’s or Richard Branson’s, perhaps because his core business, that mom-and-pop store Amazon, is such a lightning rod, sucking up all the oxygen. From a report about his work on Blue Origin from Lisa Eadicicco at Business Insider:

“Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has an ambitious vision for the future of humanity.

When asked about why space exploration appears to be a common interest among tech entrepreneurs such as himself, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, and Virgin Group founder Richard Branson, Bezos replied with the following:

‘We are really evolved to be pioneers,’ Bezos told Business Insider CEO Henry Blodget at this year’s Ignition conference. ‘And for good reason. New worlds have a way of saving old worlds… And that’s how it should be. We need the frontier. My vision is I want to see millions of people living and working in space.’

Bezos’ private spaceflight company Blue Origin is currently working with the United Launch Alliance to build a new liquid rocket engine called the BE-4. The United Launch Alliance is said to be one of the biggest rivals to Musk’s commercial spaceflight company SpaceX.”

Tags: ,

I think the argument that technological progress has stalled, perhaps permanently plateaued, is a mismeasurement of what is and what will be, though I grant that the U.S. dropped the ball on space exploration soon after we touched down on the moon. While the cleverness of the Sharing Economy and utility of Weak AI are not giant leaps for humankind, I think work being done now in transportation, space exploration and medicine is setting us up for a new dawn, despite the extraordinary pettiness of our political system. At any rate, Michael Hanlon makes an interesting argument in favor of ours being a stagnant era in a new Aeon piece, “The Golden Quarter,” in which he anoints 1945-1971 as tech’s golden age. The opening:

We live in a golden age of technological, medical, scientific and social progress. Look at our computers! Look at our phones! Twenty years ago, the internet was a creaky machine for geeks. Now we can’t imagine life without it. We are on the verge of medical breakthroughs that would have seemed like magic only half a century ago: cloned organs, stem-cell therapies to repair our very DNA. Even now, life expectancy in some rich countries is improving by five hours a day. A day! Surely immortality, or something very like it, is just around the corner.

The notion that our 21st-century world is one of accelerating advances is so dominant that it seems churlish to challenge it. Almost every week we read about ‘new hopes’ for cancer sufferers, developments in the lab that might lead to new cures, talk of a new era of space tourism and super-jets that can fly round the world in a few hours. Yet a moment’s thought tells us that this vision of unparalleled innovation can’t be right, that many of these breathless reports of progress are in fact mere hype, speculation – even fantasy.

Yet there once was an age when speculation matched reality. It spluttered to a halt more than 40 years ago. Most of what has happened since has been merely incremental improvements upon what came before. That true age of innovation – I’ll call it the Golden Quarter – ran from approximately 1945 to 1971. Just about everything that defines the modern world either came about, or had its seeds sown, during this time. The Pill. Electronics. Computers and the birth of the internet. Nuclear power. Television. Antibiotics. Space travel. Civil rights.

There is more. Feminism. Teenagers. The Green Revolution in agriculture. Decolonisation. Popular music. Mass aviation. The birth of the gay rights movement. Cheap, reliable and safe automobiles. High-speed trains. We put a man on the Moon, sent a probe to Mars, beat smallpox and discovered the double-spiral key of life. The Golden Quarter was a unique period of less than a single human generation, a time when innovation appeared to be running on a mix of dragster fuel and dilithium crystals.

Today, progress is defined almost entirely by consumer-driven, often banal improvements in information technology.•

Tags:

Nick Bostrom’s book Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies is sort of a dry read with a few colorful flourishes, but its ideas have front-burnered the existential threat of Artificial Intelligence, causing Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk and other heady thinkers to warn of the perils of AI, “the last invention we will ever need to make,” in Bostrom-ian terms. The philosopher joined a very skeptical Russ Roberts for an EconTalk conversation about future machines so smart they have no use for us. Beyond playing the devil’s advocate, the host is perplexed by the idea of superintelligence can make the leap beyond our control, that it can become “God.” But I don’t think machines need be either human or sacred to slip from our grasp in the long-term future, to have “preferences” based not on emotion or intellect but just the result of deep learning that was inartfully programmed by humans in the first place. One exchange:

“Russ Roberts: 

So, let me raise, say, a thought that–I’m interested if anyone else has raised this with you in talking about the book. This is a strange thought, I suspect, but I want your reaction to it. The way you talk about superintelligence reminds me a lot about how medieval theologians talked about God. It’s unbounded. It can do anything. Except maybe created a rock so heavy it can’t move it. Has anyone ever made that observation to you, and what’s your reaction to that?

Nick Bostrom:

I think you might be the first, at least that I can remember.

Russ Roberts: 

Hmmm.

Nick Bostrom: 

Well, so there are a couple of analogies, and a couple of differences as well. One difference is we imagine that a superintelligence here will be bounded by the laws of physics, and which can be important when we are thinking about how we are thinking about how it might interact with other superintelligences that might exist out there in the vast universe. Another important difference is that we would get design this entity. So, if you imagine a pre-existing superintelligence that is out there and that has created the world and that has full control over the world, there might be a different set of options available across humans in deciding how we relate to that. But in this case, there are additional options on the table in that we actually have to figure out how to design it. We get to choose how to build it.

Russ Roberts:

Up to a point. Because you raise the specter of us losing control of it. To me, it creates–inevitably, by the way, much of this is science fiction, movie material; there’s all kinds of interesting speculations in your book, some of which would make wonderful movies and some of which maybe less so. But to me it sounds like you are trying to question–you are raising the question of whether this power that we are going to unleash might be a power that would not care about us. And it would be the equivalent of saying, of putting a god in charge of the universe who is not benevolent. And you are suggesting that in the creation of this power, we should try to steer it in a positive direction.

Nick Bostrom: 

Yeah. So in the first type of scenario which I mentioned, where you have a singleton forming because the first superintelligence is so powerful, then, yes, I think a lot will depend on what that superintelligence would want. And, the generic [?] there, I think it’s not so much that you would get a superintelligence that’s hostile or evil or hates humans. It’s just that it would have some goal that is indifferent to humans. The standard example being that of a paper clip maximizer. Imagine an artificial agent whose utility function is, say, linear in the number of paper clips it produces over time. But it is superintelligent, extremely clever at figuring out how to mobilize resources to achieve this goal. And then you start to think through, how would such an agent go about maximizing the number of paper clips that will be produced? And you realize that it will have an instrumental reason to get rid of humans in as much as maybe humans would maybe try to shut it off. And it can predict that there will be much fewer paper clips in the future if it’s no longer around to build them. So that would already create the society effect, an incentive for it to eliminate humans. Also, human bodies consist of atoms. And a lot of juicy[?] atoms that could be used to build some really nice paper clips. And so again, a society effect–it might have reasons to transform our bodies and the ecosphere into things that would be more optimal from the point of view of paper clip production. Presumably, space probe launchers that are used to send out probes into space that could then transform the accessible parts of the universe into paper clip factories or something like that. If one starts to think through possible goals that an artificial intelligence can have, it seems that almost all of those goals if consistently maximally realized would lead to a world where there would be no human beings and indeed perhaps nothing that we humans would accord value to. And it only looks like a very small subset of all goals, a very special subset, would be ones that, if realized, would have anything that we would regard as having value. So, the big challenge in engineering an artificial motivation system would be to try to reach into this large space of possible goals and take out ones that would actually sufficiently match our human goals, that we could somehow endorse the pursuit of these goals by a superintelligence.”

Tags: ,

Is the world ending?

We’re working on an art project & need your help. The project uses a toll free hotline as a means of communicating with one another around a specific topic.

The topic “How It Ends” is meant to be a conversation about the end of the world. We are collecting as many thoughts, visions, claims, etc., that come up for people around the idea of humanity or Earth’s end. This is completely open to interpretation. Once there are enough collected recordings, we will post any that are of note on to the phone system itself for all to listen to while still collecting recorded contributions from new callers. If there are enough responses, we’ll collect them all & make a podcast for all to listen to.

It will only take a minute of your time. It’s quite simple, just call toll free show contact info & share how you think the world will end, if at all.

I love you, New York City, but you smell. It’s not just the tourists urinating on skyscrapers or the all-around body funk of people pressed into crowded subway cars but also the mountains of rotting food discarded wherever. Just imagine how stanky it would be if there weren’t armies of insects gobbling up the the crumbs, crusts and cores we toss aside. In Mike Jeffries’ new piece at the Conversation, the ecologist charts the results of an experiment into the startling powers of voracious vermin in Manhattan. An excerpt:

“To audit the pavement biodiversity, the team collected insects from among the leaf litter, with additional forays into other areas in search of ants. The rate of food clear-up was measured by putting out potato chips, cookies and hot dogs and seeing how much was left the following day.

Some of the food was protected by wire mesh, others not – so that larger creatures such as rats and pigeons could get in too, to allow for their impact. The precise brands of crisp, cookie and hot dog are detailed, each cut up into more appetising chunks. …

The speed with which food was removed proved startling. In the first run of the experiment using small chunks of food, 59% was gone within 24 hours. A second run using larger portions resulted in a 32% loss within a day. Whole cookies and chips … gone, chunks of hot dog … vanished.

The insect life on the traffic islands consumed supplies two to three times faster than the inhabitants of the parks. Life in the fast lane perhaps, or maybe the park life was more used to ice creams and sandwiches. In either locality, hot dogs were preferred to the light snacks.

In total the insects from the medians and traffic islands of two long Manhattan streets – Broadway and West St – could remove the equivalent of 600,000 potato chips per year. This could become a standard measure of invertebrate junk food ecosystem services.”

Tags:

Alcor, the cryonics non-profit, isn’t dead or dying, but it’s seen livelier days. Like McDonald’s, it’s seeing surprising market resistance. Immortality by this method is still viewed by most as dubious or creepy or a luxury item, though even the 1% haven’t really embraced the deep freeze. Dr. Max More, the outfit’s CEO, spoke to Daniel Oberhaus of Vice about trying to overcome psychological, financial and technological barriers. The opening:

Question:

So, how’s Alcor doing?

Max More:

It’s growing, but much too slowly. I think it’s just baffling that we’re not massively larger because we’ve been around for 42 years. We’ve had periods of higher growth, so in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s we had a growth rate of 25-30 percent. It’s just dropped after that and gotten into the low single figures. We actually stopped growing a year or two ago and I think it’s because the dues were raised too high and the economy was doing badly. The [Alcor] board wanted to reduce dependence on donations by having higher membership dues, but they went too far. We’ve brought them down since then, we’ve made two reductions and now there are student discounts and discounts for long time members.

Question:

How much does it cost to get frozen indefinitely? 

Max More:

There are the main membership dues which are $530 per year and $180 per year on top of that for the Comprehensive Member Standby plan, which basically means that’s money that you pay into this fund and in turn we guarantee that wherever you are, we’ll be there. We just introduced a new policy which says if you provide $20,000 in addition to the $80,000 or $200,000 [that it takes to cryopreserve your head and body, respectively], then we’ll waive the CMS fee. This really helps younger members because an extra $20,000 in life insurance is really very little for them, whereas $180 per year actually feels a lot worse.

I gave a talk a few years ago called ‘Join the .00004%’ (because that’s how small we are) and that’s ludicrous to me. There are plenty of crazy ideas out there with much less backing that get much more support, and we have actual evidence for what we’re doing! We’ve been around for almost 43 years and only have 1008 members—that’s not very many. So why is that? Obviously, there is some expense to it, but I don’t think that’s the main thing.

Question:

What’s the main hurdle?

Max More:

There are major cultural and psychological barriers that have to be overcome and I think eventually they will be.•

 

Tags: ,

America has a love-hate relationship with Uber, wanting what it offers even if it knows the company is ethically challenged, a Walmart on wheels. (Or perhaps the love-hate relationship is really with ourselves for being addicted to something that we know hurts others.) In “How to Get Away with Uber,” a terribly titled Matter piece, Bobbie Johnson tries to locate the source of our visceral discomfort with the leading ridesharer, thinking it may lie in the unblinkingly brutal nature of its business model–capitalism boiled down to its purest form–and the uncharted path that lies ahead. An excerpt:

“[Uber CEO] Travis Kalanick certainly knows who his heroes are. He rejects the Amazon comparison, but he’s made no secret of his admiration for Bezos (who was, in fact, an early Uber investor), or his envy of Amazon’s relentless march from a mere supplier of services to a business that maintains a choke hold on modern life (Amazon was, in fact, almost called Relentless.com). ‘Amazon was just books and then some CDs, and then they’re like, you know what, let’s do frickin’ ladders,’ Kalanick told Wired earlier this year. ‘We feel like we’re still realizing what the potential is… We don’t know yet where that stops.’

Amazon — more than any other company, more than Google, more than Facebook, more than Apple — taps into what people desire in a terrifyingly primal way: We want a thing, fast and preferably cheap. Not much else matters. We know Amazon’s not a nice company, and that the people who work there are treated poorly. We don’t always like it, but there is absolutely, definitively, nothing we will do to stop it. We are happily addicted.

That same feeling is there with Uber, except one thing: We know where Amazon has ended up, more or less, but we don’t know where Uber’s going to stop. Maybe, for Uber, it doesn’t stop at all. For Kalanick and his team, the means are the end. There is no greater mission. There is only hunger.

Raw, pure, unbridled ambition is an uncomfortable thing to look at. It’s not that it’s ugly, necessarily. It’s just brutally, shockingly honest. Uber does not pretend to have a glorious philosophy—it wants to make transport easy, but there is no aspiration as lofty as ‘organize the world’s information’ or ‘make the world more open and connected.’ And perhaps that’s the way it should be. After all, would it be more offensive if Uber had a mission beyond itself? It certainly feels like less of a betrayal to know that it just wants to be as big, as powerful, as necessary, as it can be.”

Tags: , ,

Jeff Bezos didn’t think the Washington Post is hopeless, not completely, so he decided to buy the company. In a piece by Mike Isaac of the New York Times, which is currently undergoing its latest wave of painful buyouts and layoffs, Bezos explains his reasoning:

“In his telling, which was one of the first candid interviews on the subject since he bought the paper for $250 million last year, Mr. Bezos was approached through an intermediary by Donald E. Graham, then the chairman and chief executive of The Washington Post Company. Aside from his lack of expertise on the newspaper industry, Mr. Bezos was skeptical for other reasons.

‘I went through a few gates before deciding to buy The Post. Is it hopeless? I didn’t want to do it if it was,’ he said. ‘The Internet has radically disrupted traditional newspapers. The world is completely changed, and advertisers have tons of options on how to reach people in local areas.”

Mr. Bezos and the staff of The Post have their work cut out for them. As the newspaper industry undergoes significant change to cope with the rise of digital publishing, The Post has gone throughmultiple rounds of layoffs, and recently announced cuts to employees’ retirement benefits. Similar to The Post, The New York Times is currently going through a round of employee buyouts.

But Mr. Bezos was ultimately convinced that The Post, which he called a national institution, can be brought into the digital age by leveraging the technical expertise and knowledge that he has gained over his decades spent building Amazon into a global technology company.

‘I didn’t know anything about the newspaper business, but I did know something about the Internet,’ Mr. Bezos said. ‘That, combined with the financial runway that I can provide, is the reason why I bought The Post.’

Tags: , ,

When walking in Brooklyn the other day I passed a tall, blond woman in her twenties, crying into her smartphone, who said to her connection, “I was always so happy until I went to law school.” I mean, if the lawyers are crying, what hope is there for the rest of us?

AI may or may not be the end of humanity, but a new report by Jomati Consultants, “Civilisation 2030: The Near Future for Law Firms,” predicts it will greatly disrupt law firms. From Legal Futures:

“The report’s focus on the future of work contained the most disturbing findings for lawyers. Its main proposition is that AI is already close in 2014. ‘It is no longer unrealistic to consider that workplace robots and their AI processing systems could reach the point of general production by 2030… after long incubation and experimentation, technology can suddenly race ahead at astonishing speed.’

By this time, ‘bots’ could be doing ‘low-level knowledge economy work’ and soon much more. ‘Eventually each bot would be able to do the work of a dozen low-level associates. They would not get tired. They would not seek advancement. They would not ask for pay rises. Process legal work would rapidly descend in cost.”

The human part of lawyering would shrink. ‘To sustain margins a law firm would have to show added value elsewhere, such as in high-level advisory work, effectively using the AI as a production tool that enabled them to retain the loyalty and major work of clients…

‘Clients would instead greatly value the human input of the firm’s top partners, especially those that could empathise with the client’s needs and show real understanding and human insight into their problems.’

Jomati pointed out that the managing partners of 2030 are in their 30s today and will embrace the advantages of AI. Alternative business structures (ABSs) in particular will be receptive, it predicted, ‘as it will greatly suit the type of matters they handle.’

It continued: ‘With their external investors able to provide significant capital, they will invest in the latest AI when it becomes available and use it to rapidly increase the volume of matters. This increased efficiency will not harm their model, but rather make the shareholders in their narrow equity model extremely wealthy.’

For associate lawyers, the rise of AI will be a disaster: ‘The number of associates that firms need to hire will be greatly reduced, at least if the intention is to use junior lawyers for billable work rather than primarily to educate and train them ready to become business winners.'”

If we play our cards right, humans might be able to survive in this universe for a 100 billion years, but we’re not working the deck very well in some key ways. Human-made climate change, of course, is a gigantic near-term danger. Some see AI and technology as another existential threat, which of course it is in the long run, though the rub is we’ll need advanced technologies of all kinds to last into the deep future. A Financial Times piece by Sally Davies reports on Stephen Hawking’s warnings about technological catastrophe, something he seems more alarmed by as time passes:

“The astrophysicist Stephen Hawking has warned that artificial intelligence ‘could outsmart us all’ and is calling for humans to establish colonies on other planets to avoid ultimately a ‘near-certainty’ of technological catastrophe.

His dire predictions join recent warnings by several Silicon Valley tycoons about artificial intelligence even as many have piled more money into it.

Prof Hawking, who has motor neurone disease and uses a system designed by Intel to speak, said artificial intelligence could become ‘a real danger in the not-too-distant future’ if it became capable of designing improvements to itself.

Genetic engineering will allow us to increase the complexity of our DNA and ‘improve the human race,’ he told the Financial Times. But he added it would be a slow process and would take about 18 years before human beings saw any of the benefits.

‘By contrast, according to Moore’s Law, computers double their speed and memory capacity every 18 months. The risk is that computers develop intelligence and take over. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete, and would be superseded,’ he said.”

 

Tags: ,

Urban economist Edward Glaeser has a vested interest, of course, but he’s right when he says that the city is humanity’s greatest invention. One of the hallmarks of a healthy metropolis is a very diverse economy that can survive the vicissitudes of any one industry. Silicon Valley has thus far defied that rule. From an interview with Glaeser at Medium:

Question:

What works and doesn’t work about Silicon Valley?

Edward Glaeser:

Now Silicon Valley is, of course, very successful. It is a place that typifies idea creation. And, I think, almost single-handedly makes the case that new technologies do not make face-to-face contact obsolete… Marissa Mayer at Yahoo, right? Instead of saying, “Go telecommute,” she says you’ve got to show up because face-to-face contact really matters. It has lots of examples — these famous stories of people in the early days of Silicon Valley exchanging ideas at Walker’s Wagon Wheel (restaurant) and all that’s great.

There are ways, however, in which Silicon Valley really differs from a traditional city… First, it’s not all that diverse as an urban economy. That’s one of the things that makes you wonder whether or not it can continue to be as innovative as it has been. There’s a question of whether it will manage to have the same level of idea flows that it had in the past, because it is so singularly focused.

Second, the fact that they’ve made it so difficult to build means that these crappy starter homes are over $2 million. It’s insane. This means they are doing a very poor job of providing employment and economic possibilities for middle-income Americans.

Great cities of the past, be it Chicago or New York, when they got successful and they had an economic engine that was running, they built up around it, right? So think about the stockyards in Chicago. They built up around that thing and millions of people came to the city and found economic opportunity…

And the third point, which is related to this, is that the great cities of the past are archipelagos of neighborhoods. So when you think of what you can get in Chicago, for example, you can get living on the Gold Coast in a historic beautiful apartment building. You can live in a glass tower on the lake. You can live in a lower-density apartment area in Lincoln Park. You can get something within the city that feels like a suburban neighborhood. What that means is that as your life changes, and as your tastes change, you can have any number of urban options in which to live.

Silicon Valley kind of has one model. It has slightly higher-density single-family detached housing and slightly lower-density single-family housing… And I think this is what’s going on with the move to San Francisco, especially the ones that specialize in young, hip people. Their employees don’t want that. They don’t want the ranch house in the suburb. They actually want to live in the hip city…”•

Tags:

Carl Sagan waxing philosophically about the need for humans to eventually colonize space, to curl up like newborns on comets and fly like birds on Titan, going on after the sun dies but before the universe does.

Tags:

Are malls dead or just the kind that we have known, geographically distant and not “smart”? In Liat Clark’s Wired UK piece, an industry insider pushes back at the idea that shopping centers will no longer be central. 

In five years time, the word ecommerce will no longer mean what we think it does today. According to J. Skyler Fernandes from Simon Venture Group ecommerce will not be understood as a separate business to offline retail — instead, the line between the two will continue to blur and morph, but the focus will always remain on physical shopping.

“I’m going to break one cliche now,” said Fernandes, who heads up the future of retail investment arm of America’s largest mall owner, Simon. “‘The mall is dead.’ That is not going to happen. The mall is alive. It is at the centre of community, it is the future of conversions and will play an increasingly important role online and off.”

Speaking at WIRED RetailFernandes revealed some staggering figures that show ecommerce is not only no longer in its infancy, it is nowhere near as vital to the retail industry as physical, in-store sales.

Ecommerce conversion rates are a paltry three percent, versus the 20-30 percent conversions of walk-ins to physical stores; basket sizes are 1.5-3 times bigger in-store; ecommerce is worth $304 billion, but traditional retail is worth $4.4 trillion.•

Tags: ,

Robert Reich, complete mensch, asking Peter Diamandis of Singularity University about technological unemployment and how such a thing, if it were to become widespread, would shape political systems. Like a lot of Singularitarians, Diamandis is a Libertarian and capitalist at heart but a realist by nature.

Tags: ,

From the December 8, 1910 Brooklyn Daily Eagle:

Ravenna, Ohio — Addie Potter Chapman and Glenn E. Colton, who live in this place, were married to-day before the open grave of Mrs. Lydia Potter Chapman, mother of the bride. The ceremony was performed by the Rev. Dr. A.D. Palmer, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, who officiated at the funeral, and having performed the last rites over the body of the mother, turned to the young couple at the grave. The body was in the grave and the grave diggers were ready to throw on the dirt, but waited until after the wedding ceremony was performed. Before her death Mrs. Chapman requested that her daughter be wedded at her grave.”

Tags: , , ,

Speaking of human-machine workplace tandems, Brandon Bailey of AP reports of Amazon’s deployment of a fleet of 15,000 robots in its warehouses, which is a great thing for laborers for now but not for long. Eventually, and not too far in the future, one will be employed more and the other less. The opening:

“T (AP) — A year ago, Amazon.com workers like 34-year-old Rejinaldo Rosales hiked miles of aisles each shift to ‘pick’ each item a customer ordered and prepare it for shipping.

Now the e-commerce giant boasts that it has boosted efficiency — and given workers’ legs a break — by deploying more than 15,000 wheeled robots to crisscross the floors of its biggest warehouses and deliver stacks of toys, books and other products to employees.

‘We pick two to three times faster than we used to,’ Rosales said during a short break from sorting merchandise into bins at Amazon’s massive distribution center in Tracy, California, about 60 miles east of San Francisco. ‘It’s made the job a lot easier.’

Amazon.com Inc., which faces its single biggest day of online shopping on Monday, has invested heavily this year in upgrading and expanding its distribution network, adding new technology, opening more shipping centers and hiring 80,000 seasonal workers to meet the coming onslaught of holiday orders. Amazon says it processed orders for 36.8 million items on the Monday after Thanksgiving last year, and it’s expecting ‘Cyber Monday’ to be even busier this year.”

Tags: ,

I can agree with Christopher Mims in his latest WSJ column, “Why We Needn’t Fear the Machines,” that the existential threat of AI may be overstated for the foreseeable future, but I think he’s way too sanguine about the disruption to employment we’re experiencing at the granular level–and will continue to experience for decades. Sure, the human-machine hybrid will be very effective in workplaces as it is in chess, but there will only be a few kings and many pawns. (Actually, the pawns may be completely cleared from the board.) The more potent argument might be that technology will end up creating whole new industries we can’t yet envision, though I doubt that will make up for the shortfall, either. From Mims:

“Often, when pundits talk about the companies building the future, we talk about them as if the world they are creating is an inevitability. Whether it’s big data and artificial intelligence replacing knowledge workers or taxicab drivers giving way to Uber drivers and eventually self-driving cars, the sense is that with time, humans become progressively less necessary.

But I think Turing, widely considered the father of artificial intelligence, would see things differently. He invented the Turing test for determining if a machine was intelligent—you simply interview it and make up your mind for yourself. It’s a surprisingly nonalgorithmic process for determining the truth or falsity of a statement: ‘Is this thing like me?’

Our machines are not like us. We could make them like us if we want, says Prof. [S. Barry] Cooper, by putting them in mechanical bodies and raising them like children. But we already have a much more efficient way to create human-level intelligence, one that has proved robust even in the face of the titanic changes brought about by its own creations.

The future of technology isn’t about replacing humans with machines, says Prof. Cooper—it’s about figuring out the most productive way for the two to collaborate. In a real and inescapable way, our machines need us just as much as we need them.”

Tags: ,

Justice only works if the people implementing it are just, the impulse to protect the most vulnerable among us useful only if there’s a sense of history and proportion. Some who see themselves as noble, who self-identify as put-upon, are not protecting people but merely a sense of privilege.

Two reactions to Ferguson follow, the first from Manny Fernandez and Alan Blinder of the New York Times about an armed militia that’s descended on the embattled town to protect the “weakest” and the second an exchange from an interview conducted by Frank Rich of New York with Chris Rock, who somehow keeps getting more brilliant and perceptive.

_____________________________

FERGUSON, Mo. — When Sam Andrews awoke on Tuesday morning, he found his wife watching a television interview with a woman whose bakery had been vandalized during the violent unrest here on Monday.

“She said, ‘You’ve got to go help her,’ ” Mr. Andrews said in an interview on Saturday morning.

And so Mr. Andrews, a former Defense Department contractor who is now a weapons engineer in the St. Louis area, set to work. Under the auspices of a national group called the Oath Keepers, Mr. Andrews accelerated plans to recruit and organize private security details for businesses in Ferguson, which are receiving the services for free. The volunteers, who are sometimes described as a citizen militia — but do not call themselves that — have taken up armed positions on rooftops here on recent nights.

“It’s really a broad group of citizens, and I’m sure their motivations are all different,” said Mr. Andrews, who is in his 50s. “In many of them, there’s probably a sense of patriotism. But I think in most of them, there’s probably something that they probably don’t even recognize: that we have a moral obligation to protect the weakest among us. When we see these violent people, these arsonists and anarchists, attacking, it just pokes at you in a deep place.”

_____________________________

Frank Rich:

What would you do in Ferguson that a standard reporter wouldn’t?

Chris Rock:

I’d do a special on race, but I’d have no black people.

Frank Rich:

Well, that would be much more revealing.

Chris Rock:

Yes, that would be an event. Here’s the thing. When we talk about race relations in America or racial progress, it’s all nonsense. There are no race relations. White people were crazy. Now they’re not as crazy. To say that black people have made progress would be to say they deserve what happened to them before.

Frank Rich:

Right. It’s ridiculous.

Chris Rock:

So, to say Obama is progress is saying that he’s the first black person that is qualified to be president. That’s not black progress. That’s white progress. There’s been black people qualified to be president for hundreds of years. If you saw Tina Turner and Ike having a lovely breakfast over there, would you say their relationship’s improved? Some people would. But a smart person would go, “Oh, he stopped punching her in the face.” It’s not up to her. Ike and Tina Turner’s relationship has nothing to do with Tina Turner. Nothing. It just doesn’t. The question is, you know, my kids are smart, educated, beautiful, polite children. There have been smart, educated, beautiful, polite black children for hundreds of years. The advantage that my children have is that my children are encountering the nicest white people that America has ever produced. Let’s hope America keeps producing nicer white people.•

Tags: , , , ,

Several excerpts follow from a 1987 issue of Omni, the science magazine published by leathery beaver merchant Bob Guccione, in which Roger Ebert was dramatically right and only a little wrong about the future of film.

____________________________________

We will have high-definition, wide-screen television sets and a push-button dialing system to order the movie you want at the time you want it. You’ll not go to a video store but instead order a movie on demand and then pay for it. Videocassette tapes as we know them now will be obsolete both for showing prerecorded movies and for recording movies. People will record films on 8mm and will play them back using laser-disk/CD technology.

____________________________________

I also am very, very excited by the fact that before long, alternative films will penetrate the entire country. Today seventy-five percent of the gross from a typical art film in America comes from as few as six six– different theaters in six different cities. Ninety percent of the American motion-picture marketplace never shows art films. With this revolution in delivery and distribution, anyone, in any size town or hamlet, will see the movies he or she wants to see. It will be the same as it’s always been with books. You can be a hermit and still read any author you choose.

____________________________________

With the advent of new. cheaper technology, countries that couldn’t afford to make films will begin producing films That express that country’s culture. It’s really an exciting possibility. As a critic, I see moves from Iran. North Vietnam, China, Morocco, Nigeria. But ninety-five percent of all the movies are made in the United States, Japan, Europe, Australia, and India. That means when large portions of the world’s population go to the movies, they see people who don’t speak their language or live in their country. This is going to change in a very big way.

____________________________________

Omni:

There are predictions that computers and robots will one day be used as actors in films and that computers will synthesize deceased film stars, to the delight of their fans. What do you think?

Roger Ebert:

That will be the day. That sounds like the very last thing in the world I would ever want to see. If in the future the technology does become available, there ought to be a law against it.

____________________________________

The cassette and disk revolution will be consolidated within the next fifteen years. That’s a key factor to remember. The use of prints-will be obsolete. Studios won’t send a print to a theater. The movie will be delivered by satellite via high-definition television technology. This will cause a revolution in the economics of motion-picture production because it will be extremely cheap both to film and to distribute a movie. Because a movie will be beamed in for just exactly where and when it is needed, the break-even point will be reduced substantially. I’m sure we’ll still have a blockbuster mentality in the future — movies that one hundred million people want to see. But directors will be able to make a movie that one hundred thousand or ten thousand people might see. Directors will be free to experiment and take on more offbeat and personal projects. By the year 2000 or so, a motion picture will cost as much money as it now costs to publish a book or make a phonograph album.•

Tags:

Wanna hve baby – m4w – 30

Married man my wife cannot hve babies and i love her but also love to hve children can any one do me this favor m not a rich man so…if u want to hve a child like me just email me wit ur info thnk u.

I doubt there’s ever been a bridge built without some money being lost to corruption. So accepted a practice it is that hardly a voice is raised provided the bridge gets built and it’s not a bridge to nowhere. But war isn’t business, or at least it shouldn’t be, and what went on in Iraq wasn’t mere malfeasance on the way to a completed project but a massive defrauding of the American people. In a New York Review of Books piece, Charles Simic reminds that as outrageous as some CEOs and bankers are, war contractors are even worse. An excerpt:

“What makes a career in white-collar crime so attractive is that there are so few risks anymore. Everyone knows about Wall Street bankers having their losses from various scams they concocted over the years covered by taxpayers. But now, even when bankers lose billions for their bank by making bad or reckless deals, or have to pay regulatory penalties, as Jamie Dimon, the current chairman, president, and chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase did earlier this year, they are more likely to get a 74 percent raise, as he did, than to lose their jobs. As for the federal agencies that are supposed to watch over them and the Justice Department that is supposed to haul these hucksters into court, if they so much as bestir themselves to confront the banks, they simply ask them to pay fines, thereby avoiding a judge or a jury and making sure that the details of their swindles can remain secret from the public.

As dishonest as Wall Street is, it doesn’t compare to the kind of thievery that went on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Once upon a time, war profiteers were looked at as the lowest of the low and condemned by presidents. ‘Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the Nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains of the South and their countrymen mouldering in the dust,’ warned Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. ‘I don’t want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster,’ declared Franklin Roosevelt as the United States entered World War II.

Yet today, according to the Commission on Wartime Contracting, an independent, bipartisan legislative commission established to study wartime contracting, somewhere between $31 billion and $60 billion of US government money has been lost through contract waste and fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is now common knowledge that contractors were paid millions of dollars for projects that were never built, that the Defense Department gave more than $400 billion to companies that had previously been sanctioned in cases involving fraud, and that the beneficiaries of such past largesse have not only gotten fabulously wealthy, but continue to be invited to pursue lucrative business opportunities in the new homeland security–industrial complex.”

Tags:

Solar-powered cars have been tried before, but their promise is more realistic now as performance increases and costs fall. You won’t be able to drive long stretches by 2015, but neighborhood trips might be a reality. From Sonia Kolesnikov-Jessop’s New York Times interview with Li Hejun, a renewable-energy executive with the Hanergy Holding Group:

Question:

Do you think one solar technology will dominate others?

Li Hejun:

There are many different types of solar technologies, and that’s fine; we’re like brothers and sisters. The market is big enough for everybody to survive, but thin-film, I think, is the current strategic trend and its production process has the advantage to be very clean. I like to compare crystalline-silicon panel to a black and white TV, and thin-film to an LCD TV. Thin-film is just a much more advanced technology, and I believe it will completely change the way we utilize energy because thin-film allows individuals to use solar energy easily, the way a big plant would with crystalline-silicon panels.

Question:

Can you elaborate on this personal use and its application in our daily life?

Li Hejun:

The two advantages are flexibility and portability. The thin-film is so light you could have it on your jacket, on your hat and it could then power up your phone. It can embrace curves; that’s another big advantage. You can’t do that with a crystal panel. We are currently testing thin-film with Aston Martin Racing on the roof and rear windscreen of the car to power air-conditioning and other electrical functions in the car.

In the future, we’re planning to work with more commercial car manufacturers. Right now, we already have it on the rooftop of some commercial cars in China, and for now, you can help reduce the usage of the gasoline by 20 to 30 percent; but in the coming two to three years, you will be able to replace more. According to our calculations, you need six square miles of our solar module to generate electricity to power an electric car. By the end of next year, the first test cars using 100 percent solar will come out, and you will be able to drive 80 kilometers, or about 18 miles, fully powered.”

Tags: ,

While I’m sure Adolf Hitler’s personal yacht, the Aviso Grille, had some historical value, it probably shouldn’t have been employed as a floating tourist trap, even if the proceeds went to charity. But that’s what happened during the end of the 1940s, soon before the craft was smashed up and sold for scrap. Judging by an article from the June 16, 1949 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, which uses some strangely admiring adjectives to describe one of history’s very worst villains, the Führer was unsurprisingly not a fun cruise director, at least according to his former staff, some of whom sailed with the vessel when it made its voyage to New York. Postscript: When the boat was sold in pieces, Hitler’s shitter wound up in a New Jersey gas-station bathroom.

Tags:

All good citizens must be on alert for injustices, but I don’t think all good artists need be, at least not in their work. Inspiration is what it is, and a thing of beauty shouldn’t be discounted regardless of its topic. But I still enjoyed A.O. Scott’s New York Times roundtable about the role of creative people addressing race and class and other social issues. In the following excerpt, playwright Lisa D’Amour discusses the extreme difficulty of living in a city like New York as a starving artist. The economist Tyler Cowen has predicted that in the future, poorer Americans will be completely priced out of bustling cities, and while I don’t agree with that, I have to admit that many of the most interesting people I’ve met here have moved elsewhere, refusing the shoebox and the second-class status. 

____________________________

A.O. Scott:

How do you think economic and other changes — growing inequality, the recession, digital technology — have affected the way artists work? What new obstacles and opportunities do you see?

Justin Torres:

To pretend that a robust middle class is good for everyone is a convenient justification of entrenched inequality; a robust middle class is good for the middle class. And the further you move up into the higher echelons of the middle class, the less you consider those below in real ways, the more remote the dramas of their lives seem.

Patricia Lockwood:

It would be silly to say that artists are poorer than they used to be. It’s been a hazard for us historically, and it’s a hazard now. However, we have entry now to an infinite library and an infinite community. Artists, too, tend to see where the dollar is strong and drift there. They’re capable of taking scrabbling, small advantage of a rich country’s misfortune, because they live in the cracks.

Justin Simien:

Raising the money to tell stories that are designed to do anything besides strictly entertain masses of people has always been difficult. What I have noticed in my industry is that the degree of distribution and promotion is tied to economic formulas used by studios to evaluate the worthiness of one project over the other. These formulas often function like self-fulfilling prophecies. The belief that a certain kind of film won’t make money leads to limits on its budget, distribution and promotion that will reinforce that belief.

David Simon:

The revenue stream for what I do is less and less guaranteed to the entities that fund my productions. The democratization of the digital age offers notable benefits, but nonetheless poses an equally extraordinary threat to the highest end in a variety of media. “Information wants to be free” is the cry of so many new-media mavens. But I’ve scanned my production budgets — which are far from the most costly outlays for HBO and Time Warner — and, hey, information is not free, at least not the information that I create.

Lisa D’Amour:

It is nearly impossible now to live in a city with a part-time “money job” and the rest of your week to discover your art. If you wake up every morning in a panic about money and security, it shuts down a lot of opportunity for creativity. This sentiment, of course, opens up a whole can of worms about privilege and who is allowed to take the risks of art making. I’m white and grew up middle class (academic dad, high school teacher mom). They rarely supported me financially in my art making, but they always supported me emotionally. I always had a stable home to return to, if the whole art making thing fell apart.”•

Tags: , , , ,

boehner-brine_c0-30-640-403_s561x327

  • John Boehner Shares His Secret Turkey Recipe
  • ‘My Drunken Daughter Will Die If She Doesn’t Stop Drinking Hand Sanitizer’
  • Men Try Sex Toys For The First Time, Hilarity Ensues
  • Why Does This Entire City Smell Like Cat Pee?
  • WHERE’S THE BEEF? Woman Suspected Of Epic Sausage Heist
  • This Cat Learned To Flush the Toilet – Can You?
  • Student Fell Through Bathroom Ceiling Naked, Bit Man’s Ear Off: Cops
  • Woman Eats 2 Large Sponges A Week
  • Man Invents Pill That Makes Farts Smell Like Chocolate
  • Your Cat May Be Trying To Kill You

« Older entries § Newer entries »