Nabokov (2)

In addition to being among the best novels ever written in English, Lolita, Vladimir Nabokov’s story of monstrous love, is, shockingly, the Great American Novel, which at first blush seems absurd. How did a newcomer who’d just begun experiencing the country process so much so soon, so that he could write a work that was of us yet was also able to brutally satirize us? Perhaps it took an immigrant with wide eyes to truly see our immigrant nation.

James Salter turned out some beautiful pieces for People magazine during that publication’s infancy, usually profiling other great writers of earlier generations who’d recused themselves to some state of exile. In 1975, he persuaded a reluctant Nabokov, living in Switzerland two years before his death, to sit for an interview. Salter recorded the writer’s dislike for many things: fame, hippies, Dostoevsky, etc. It’s not a portrait of only one novelist but also of a different time for writers in general, when they could still find a home among the remnants of a less-disposable age. An excerpt:

Novelists, like dictators, have long reigns. It is remarkable to think of Nabokov’s first book, a collection of love poems, appearing in his native Russia in 1914. Soon after, he and his family were forced to flee as a result of the Bolshevik uprising and the civil war. He took a degree at Cambridge and then settled in the émigré colony in Berlin. He wrote nine novels in Russian, beginning with Mary, in 1926, and includingGlory, The Defense, and Laughter in the Dark. He had a certain reputation and a fully developed gift when he left for America in 1940 to lecture at Stanford. The war burst behind him.

Though his first novel written in English, The Real Life of Sebastian Knight, in 1941, went almost unnoticed, and his next, Bend Sinister,made minor ripples, the stunning Speak, Memory, an autobiography of his lost youth, attracted respectful attention. It was during the last part of 10 years at Cornell that he cruised the American West during the summers in a 1952 Buick, looking for butterflies, his wife driving and Nabokov beside her making notes as they journeyed through Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, the motels, the drugstores, the small towns. The result was Lolita, which at first was rejected everywhere, like many classics, and had to be published by the Olympia Press in Paris (Nabokov later quarreled with and abandoned his publisher, Maurice Girodias). A tremendous success and later a film directed by Stanley Kubrick, the book made the writer famous. Nabokov coquettishly demurs. “I am not a famous writer,” he says, “Lolita was a famous little girl. You know what it is to be a famous writer in Montreux? An American woman comes up on the street and cries out, ‘Mr. Malamud! I’d know you anywhere.’ ”

He is a man of celebrated prejudices. He abhors student activists, hippies, confessions, heart-to-heart talks. He never gives autographs. On his list of detested writers are some of the most brilliant who have ever lived: Cervantes, Dostoevsky, Faulkner and Henry James. His opinions are probably the most conservative, among important writers, of any since Evelyn Waugh’s. “You will die in dreadful pain and complete isolation,” his fellow exile, the Nobel Prize winner Ivan Bunin, told him. Far from pain these days and beyond isolation, Nabokov is frequently mentioned for that same award. “After all, you’re the secret pride of Russia,” he has written of someone unmistakably like himself. He is far from being cold or uncaring. Outraged at the arrest last year of the writer Maramzin, he sent this as yet unpublished cable to the Soviet writers’ union: “Am appalled to learn that yet another writer martyred just for being a writer. Maramzin’s immediate release indispensable to prevent an atrocious new crime.” The answer was silence.

Last year Nabokov published Look at the Harlequins!, his 37th book. It is the chronicle of a Russian émigré writer named Vadim Vadimych whose life, though he had four devastating wives, has many aspects that fascinate by their clear similarity to the life of Vladimir Vladimirovich. The typical Nabokovian fare is here in abundance, clever games of words, sly jokes, lofty knowledge, all as written by a “scornful and austere author, whose homework in Paris had never received its due.” It is probably one of the final steps toward a goal that so many lesser writers have striven to achieve: Nabokov has joined the current of history not by rushing to take part in political actions or appearing in the news but by quietly working for decades, a lifetime, until his voice seems as loud as the detested Stalin’s, almost as loud as the lies. Deprived of his own land, of his language, he has conquered something greater. As his aunt in Harlequins! told young Vadim, “Play! Invent the world! Invent reality!” Nabokov has done that. He has won.

“I get up at 6 o’clock,” he says. He dabs at his eyes. “I work until 9. Then we have breakfast together. Then I take a bath. Perhaps an hour’s work afterward. A walk, and then a delicious siesta for about two-and-a-half hours. And then three hours of work in the afternoon. In the summer we hunt butterflies.” They have a cook who comes to their apartment, or Véra does the cooking. “We do not attach too much importance to food or wine.” His favorite dish is bacon and eggs. They see no movies. They own no TV.

They have very few friends in Montreux, he admits. They prefer it that way. They never entertain. He doesn’t need friends who read books; rather, he likes bright people, “people who understand jokes.” Véra doesn’t laugh, he says resignedly. “She is married to one of the great clowns of all time, but she never laughs.”

The light is fading, there is no one else in the room or the room beyond. The hotel has many mirrors, some of them on doors, so it is like a house of illusion, part vision, part reflection, and rich with dreams.•

ai90909

In a smart Gizmodo post, George Dvorsky rifles through numerous myths about AI, separating what he believes fact from fiction. One item particularly caught my eye. It has to do with machines “coming alive,” achieving consciousness.

Working to understand consciousness in humans is a fascinating pursuit, and trying to transfer this state on to machines is a fraught if likewise absorbing business. But is it necessary for machines to be self-aware like we are to surpass us? Probably not.

I think such a passing of the torch is possible in the very long term, but it’s probably no more needed for AI to knock us from atop the food chain than it is for planes to flap their wings like birds to fly. Machines will attain superintelligence long, long before consciousness.

A excerpt: 

Myth: “Artificial intelligence will be conscious.”

Reality: A common assumption about machine intelligence is that it’ll be conscious—that is, it’ll actually think the way humans do. What’s more, critics like Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen believe that we’ve yet to achieve artificial general intelligence (AGI), i.e. an intelligence capable of performing any intellectual task that a human can, because we lack a scientific theory of consciousness. But as Imperial College of London cognitive roboticist Murray Shanahan points out, we should avoid conflating these two concepts.

“Consciousness is certainly a fascinating and important subject—but I don’t believe consciousness is necessary for human-level artificial intelligence,” he told Gizmodo. “Or, to be more precise, we use the word consciousness to indicate several psychological and cognitive attributes, and these come bundled together in humans.”

It’s possible to imagine a very intelligent machine that lacks one or more of these attributes. Eventually, we may build an AI that’s extremely smart, but incapable of experiencing the world in a self-aware, subjective, and conscious way. Shanahan said it may be possible to couple intelligence and consciousness in a machine, but that we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that they’re two separate concepts.

And just because a machine passes the Turing Test—in which a computer is indistinguishable from a human—that doesn’t mean it’s conscious. To us, an advanced AI may give the impression of consciousness, but it will be no more aware of itself than a rock or a calculator.•

Tags:

robotladyjapan8

There’s no doubt that AI can have an amazing positive impact on the world, but it comes with costs. I’m not so concerned with most of the skill-loss we’ll experience since that’s always been a part of the human experience, the shedding of previously primary talents in favor new ones. There’s short-term risk, but I think in the longer run we’re talking about a natural progression. My greater concerns are the ethical ones that might result from software handling formerly human tasks. As sure as there’s prejudice embedded in most of us, there will be some (probably unwittingly) built into smart machines. Will it be more unimpeachable coming from our silicon sisters because they give off the air of indifference?

We also don’t know if we’re headed for a world sans work or one without enough jobs to support our economic systems. The latter, which seems more likely for the foreseeable future, could provoke serious turbulence or even societal collapse if public policy wasn’t nimble enough to deal with the transition. How quickly that changeover should occur will weigh heavily on how significant our response must be.

Two excerpts follow: 1) A paragraph from Ethan Wolff-Mann’s Time article in which a roboticist supports the false idea of robots necessarily being ethical, and 2) Madhumita Murgia of The Telegraph quoting Eric Schmidt, in his AlphaGo afterglow, about the evolutionary nature of job-killing machines.

_______________________

From Time:

It may not be long, for example, until androids replace sales associates. According to Osaka University professor Hiroshi Ishiguro, Japanese men don’t like talking with staff at stores because they might get pressured after they indicate they’re interested in making a purchase. “But they don’t hesitate to talk to the android,”he said at the South by Southwest festival in Austin, adding that a “robot never tells a lie, and that is why the android can sell lots of clothes.”

_______________________

From The Telegraph:

Few company chairmen could justify taking a 10- hour flight to travel 5,638 miles to watch a board game being played. But Eric Schmidt could.

The Alphabet chairman last week took the trip from Google’s holding company’s headquarters in California to Seoul, South Korea, to watch world Go champion Lee Se-dol go head to head with AlphaGo, an algorithm created by Google-owned British artificial intelligence company DeepMind, over five rounds of the ancient east Asian board game. 

“When I was a young computer scientist in the Seventies, there were many claims that we would beat human intelligence. None of it happened,” Schmidt said over a gourmet Chinese meal a few hours before the first Go game. “Now there is a sense that AI [artificial intelligence] has finally arrived.”

Now that a machine has beaten a Go grand master at a game he’s been playing professionally for 20 years, surely there is a concern that AI-fuelled robots will be able to replace humans in other areas, hurting jobs? 

“There’s no question that as [AI] becomes more pervasive, people doing routine, repetitive tasks will be at risk,” Schmidt says. 

“I understand the economic arguments, but this technology benefits everyone on the planet, from the rich to the poor, the educated to uneducated, high IQ to low IQ, every conceivable human being. It genuinely makes us all smarter, so this is a natural next step.”

A natural next step for Alphabet, perhaps, but for those whose jobs may be displaced by robots and the like, Schmidt may yet have to do some convincing.

Tags: , ,

321ragpicker1

From the February 23, 1877 Brooklyn Daily Eagle:

ragpicker67

Tags:

threeheaded3

WTF, Maxim is still in business! Who knew? The other vital question: Why?

Well, whatever the reason for its continued survival, the publication has an article by Brandon Friederich offering five tech prognostications from engineer/inventor Dr. Ian Pearson, who claims 85% accuracy when predicting 10-15 years down the road. He for sure foresaw our text-friendly society back 25 years ago, though I haven’t gone over all of his calls to verify his conversion rate. Fellow futurist Ray Kurzweil, for instance, has touted his precision in seeing the next big thing, though a close inspection of his record reveals some jaw-dropping gaffes. I don’t know if Pearson has similarly gaping potholes in his path to tomorrow, though he’s clearly a colorful thinker.

The following is the first item from the list of visions (which also predicts “talking pets”):

1. INTERCONNECTED BRAINS 

This is exactly what it sounds like. According to Pearson, we’re nearing a point where people will have the ability to communicate telepathically from any where on earth through a sort of global server that interfaces with the brain. That means that instead of using Google or Siri to find answers to life’s trivial questions, you’ll just have to think about it, and the answer will be made available over a network. And the best part is that all of this will be done without any invasive surgery or dramatic changes to the brain.

“It definitely will not be opening up your head and sticking a chip in it,” said Pearson.  “With just an injection… tiny little nanotechnology-based particles will float through your bloodstream across the blood-brain barrier and connect to the neurons themselves. They will be able to pick up electrical signals directly from those neurons and feed them outside into the IT, and your brain basically becomes part of the IT system.”•

Tags: ,

321Polaroid-e1446359363226

Speaking of immortality, some see a side door into forever, which is to essentially capture the “code” of an individual human brain and upload it into a computer, hologram, robot, and perhaps in the long run, a carbon-based “replacement body.” Of course, even if it becomes possible, a personality transferred into a new “container” is changed by the unfamiliar wrapping. It isn’t the same thing but a simulacrum, a xerox copy on a new sheet of paper.

Russian billionaire Dmitry Itskov is someone who hopes to upload himself into eternity and is spending heavily to try to make it happen. From Kate Palmer at The Telegraph:

Web entrepreneur Dmitry Itskov is behind the “2045 Initiative,” an ambitious experiment to bring about immortality within the next 30 years by creating a robot capable of storing human personalities.

The group of neuroscientists, robot builders and consciousness researchers say they can create an android that is capable of uploading someone’s personality.

Mr Itskov, who has made a reported £1bn from his Moscow-based news publishing company, is the project’s financial backer.

They believe that robots can store a person’s thoughts and feelings because brains function in the same way as a computer.

It would work by uploading a digital version of a human brain to an android – effectively rebooting a person’s mind – which would take the form of a robotic copy of a human body or, once technology has developed, a hologram with a full human personality.•

Tags: ,

321hero_TheImmortalists-2014-1

Aubrey de Grey’s wife hasn’t killed him despite the fact that he lives with his two younger girlfriends, so it’s hard to blame the guy for feeling immortal.

In the 2014 documentary The Immortalists, the radical gerontologist’s fascinating personal and professional lives were on display. In that film, de Grey discussed why he feels we’re close to defeating death, which will allow him to frolic forever in his Northern California idyll with his Eves, but I will (regretfully) argue he’s wrong. I’d like him (and the rest of us) to have eternal life, but I doubt those of us breathing today will know an endless summer. There’s nothing theoretically impossible about, at least, extending life significantly, but it will require time, which is the one thing we don’t have. At any rate, it’s a growth industry with ballooning funding.

From Lucy Ingham at Factor-Tech:

It’s an exciting time to be working in ageing research. New findings are coming thick and fast, and although eliminating the process in humans is still some way away, studies regularly confirm what some have suspected for decades: that the mechanisms of ageing can be treated.

“It’s an amazingly gratifying field to be part of,” says biomedical gerontologist Aubrey de Grey, chief science officer and founder of SENS Research Foundation, the leading organisation tackling ageing. “It moves on almost every week at the moment.”

At the start of February, for example, a study was published that had hugely significant findings for the field.

“There was a big announcement in Nature showing that if you eliminate a certain type of cell from mice, then they live quite a bit longer,” says de Grey. “Even if you do that elimination rather late; in other words when they’re already in middle age.”

For those following the field, this was exciting news, but for de Grey, it was concrete proof that ageing can be combated.

“That’s the kind of thing that I’ve been promoting for a long time, and it’s been coming but it’s been pretty tricky to actually demonstrate directly. This was really completely unequivocal proof of concept,” he says. “So of course it motivates lots of work to identify ways to do the same thing in human beings. These kinds of things are happening all the time now.”•

______________________________

“This is not science fiction.”

Tags: ,

Norway --- Woman Looking Out Train Window --- Image by © Julius/CORBIS

If Hyperloops are built and become part of the public infrastructure, they won’t have actual windows but virtual ones. It’s not as horrifying as Sky Deutschland’s “Talking Windows” concept which can beam advertisements inside the heads of travelers using a bone-conduction technology, but the “augmented” scenery we’ll look at will be a step removed from real. It’s a progression of us being even deeper inside the machine.

From Liz Tracy at Inverse:

Any claustrophobe looks at the tube and asks: “Are there are no windows?! How will be breathe?” Well, CEO of Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, Dirk Ahlborn, addressed the issue of “passenger experience” at his “Crowdsourcing the Hyperloop” presentation during South By Southwest Interactive on Sunday in Austin.

Ahlborn announced that though there won’t be actual windows, virtual ones are planned for the hyperloop.

The CEO called them “interactive panels” with which you can “look out” at “motion capture technology.” This will allow you to see what it actually looks like outside. “Based on your position, we’re actually manipulating the image,” Ahlborn said. He showed a short video which defined them as “augmented windows,” which also seem to show how fast you’re going and at which spot you’re at in the loop.

“It’s psychologically really important and great to have the possibility to look out the window,” Ahlborn noted, but also it’s about a generally enhanced customer experience.•

Tags: ,

John_C_Heenan_c1860

In the days before telegraph and Morse code let alone radio, TV and the Internet, reports about events that occurred in Europe wouldn’t reach America for several days. A newspaper in New York came up with a novel (and highly irresponsible) way to bridge the information gap: pay a clairvoyant tell them what happened. A story in the April 19, 1860 Brooklyn Daily Eagle recalls the peculiar stunt which unsurprisingly delivered inaccurate information about one of history’s most pivotal bouts.

clarvoyantboxing7

Most consider the technological changes of the 19th century more foundational than ours but also slower to proliferate, but the latter wasn’t always so. Consider that the Pony Express was established in 1860 and had been made completely obsolete by telegraphy by 1861, a rush from cradle to grave without the benefit of a dotage. That same year the Civil War began and President Lincoln, an early adopter, was soon sleeping in the telegraph office in the War Department next to the White House. Every era had been an Information Age in one way or another, but some fundamental things had changed and they were speed and connectivity.

In an excellent Newsweek article, journalist Kevin Maney looks back at the mid-19th century technological boom and sees a reflection of our own tumultuous political times. He believes wealth inequality has been stoked by the jolting transition from industrialization to digitalization in much the same as it was in the 1850s when we moved from an agrarian economy to one of factories. The North reached for the future with innovative inventions while the South doubled down on a farm-based economy powered by slavery. Soon enough, the center could not hold.

There’s truth to Maney’s theory, though I think there’s more at play and don’t believe the shocking displays of bigotry and xenophobia we’ve recently witnessed can be wholly explained by our puzzling new economic reality. Such sad things predated AI and apps. As he argues, though, great leadership and policy will be necessary to help us traverse unsure terrain before we can arrive at what may be a post-scarcity society.

The opening:

A technological revolution killed the Whig Party in 1850. A new one is blasting the GOP into splinters in 2016.

Amazingly, none of the presidential candidates talk much about technology, yet our software-eats-the-world whirlwind drives everything that’s cleaving the country and throwing its politics into chaos. The parallels to the dynamics of the 1850s are a little scary. After all, the Whigs’ self-destruction was a prelude to the Civil War.

Like today, the technological revolution in the mid-1800s ushered in a disruptive new era of connectivity, and transportation technology was key. Before the 1800s, getting anywhere—or exchanging any information over distance—involved horses, mud roads or boats. Movement was so hard that almost all business in America stayed local and small, and much of it was centered on agriculture.

Then, starting around 1810, the country paved roads and built canals. Robert Fulton invented the steamboat in 1807, and within a couple of decades mountains of goods were flowing upstream. The monster agent of change was the railroads. The country built rail lines with the same alacrity that would go into building the Web during the dot-com boom. By 1860, the U.S. boasted more miles of rail than the rest of the world combined.

Oh, and in the 1830s Samuel Morse invented the telegraph. By 1860, telegraph lines spanned the continent. You couldn’t quite sit in Boston and Skype your dad at the California Gold Rush, but prices and business data could cross states in a flash. It was an information transformation.

All of this changed life and economics in ways we can relate to today.•

Tags:

It’s too early to say if DeepMind’s obliteration of Go champion Lee Se-dol will prove to have wide-ranging applications that go far beyond the board, but it does show the prowess of self-learning AI. AlphaGo played millions of games on its own, and it could easily play billions more and improve further. Practice may not make perfect, but it can seriously diminish mistakes.

As AI expert Stuart Russell says in an AFP article, the triumph “shows that the methods we do have are even more powerful than we first thought.” That means we can move faster sooner, but where we’re headed is undetermined. An excerpt:

Until just five months ago, computer mastery of the 3,000-year-old game of Go, said to be the most complex ever invented, was thought to be at least a decade off.

But then AlphaGo beat European Go champ Fan Hui, and its creators decided to test the programme’s real strength against Lee, one of the game’s all-time masters.

Game-playing is a crucial measure of AI progress — it shows that a machine can execute a certain “intellectual” task better than humans.

Advance for science

A key test was when IBM’s Deep Blue defeated chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov in 1997.

The game of Go is more complex than chess, and has more possible board configurations than there are atoms in the Universe.

Part of the reason for AlphaGo’s success is that it is partly self taught — having played millions of games against itself after initial programming to figure out the game and hone its tactics through trial and error.

“It is not the beginning of the end of humanity. At least if we decide we want to aim for safe and beneficial AI, rather than just highly capable AI,” Oxford University future technology specialist Anders Sandberg said of Lee’s drubbing.

“But there is still a lot of research that needs to be done to get things right enough that we can trust (and take pride in!) our AIs.”

Tags:

trumpstage1

Donald Trump, Bull Connor with a spray tan, has turned the American electoral process into a bumfight.

His violence-stoking rhetoric is being condemned even by fellow GOP hopefuls, including the rudderless Marco Rubio. Of course, the Florida Senator simultaneously tried to lay blame for the Trump campaign fracases on the divisiveness of Barack Obama, when the President’s chief sin seems to be that he’s black. It was never Obama’s tan suit that outraged those on the right but his tan skin.

Watching Trump yesterday, sweaty and frightened, ducking from a protestor who charged the stage, reminds that he trolled the President relentlessly with his Birther garbage, charging him with the phantom crime of occupying the White House illegally, which could have easily incited some unstable person into a reckless act. Trump clearly didn’t care nor has he been worried about encouraging his supporters to inflict violence on peaceful protesters during his disgusting campaign. Shaun King of the NYDN was the first to point out that someone is going to get killed at one of the rallies, and now John Marshall of the Talking Points Memo has published similar sentiments. An excerpt:

Today we appear to be going further and further into uncharted territory. After the cancellation of Trump’s event yesterday in Chicago, we had the incident at the rally in Dayton, Ohio in which a protestor, Thomas Dimassimo, jumped the security perimeter surrounding Trump and tried to rush the speaking platform. Dimassimo was charged with disorderly conduct and inducing panic and later released on bail. At a subsequent event and on Twitter, Trump claimed that Dimassimo was tied to ISIS, apparently on the basis of a hoax video his staff found on Youtube. At yet another event this evening Trump called for the mass arrest of protestors, noting that arrest records would leave an “arrest mark” and “ruin the rest of their lives.” Trump also repeatedly blamed “communist” Bernie Sanders for what now appear to be the almost constant protests and disruptions at his rallies.

This evening at an event in Kansas City there were numerous protest interruptions inside the rally and a chaotic scene outside in which, according to a report on MSNBC, police used pepper spray on at least one group of protestors.

For all the talk about Mussolini, let alone Hitler, George Wallace is the best analog in the last century of American politics – the mix of class politics and racist incitement, the same sort of orchestrated ratcheting up of conflict between supporters and protestors. As all of this has unfolded over the course of the day there have been numerous instances of Trump supporters calling for protestors to “go back to Africa” and another on video calling on them to “go to fucking Auschwitz.”

Is the man invoking Nazi concentration camps in that video an anti-Semite or just a ramped hater in a frenzy of provocation? I’m not sure we know. And as I’ll argue in a moment, in a climate of incitement and crowd action, it doesn’t necessarily matter.

It may sound like hyperbole. But this is the kind of climate of agitation and violence where someone will end up getting severely injured or killed. I do not say that lightly.•

Tags: , ,

monkeytypewriterani1 (1)

 

10 search-engine keyphrases bringing traffic to Afflictor this week:

  1. mussolini and julius caesar
  2. friedrich trump whoremaster
  3. bill walton and patty hearst
  4. joan didion writing on space exploration
  5. stepin fetchit with muhammad ali
  6. harry reems and alan dershowitz
  7. tim berners-lee on artificial intelligence
  8. ray kurzweil non-biological thinking
  9. actual mars one astronaut
  10. michel siffre cave studies

 

This week, it became clear that a Trump Administration would mean big changes for the annual Easter Egg Roll on the White House lawn.

This week, it became clear that a Trump Administration would mean big changes for the annual Easter Egg Roll on the White House lawn.

crump

bloodybunnies6

large_crossburn

800px-Scared_Crying_Child-D.-Sharon-Pruitt

 

  • Thomas Frank thinks trade, not racism, is driving Trump’s success. Unlikely.
  • Oliver Stone is paranoid (of course) about his film Snowden.
  • Beth Shapiro looks at the technical and ethical issues with de-extinction.

 

From the January 14, 1883 Brooklyn Daily Eagle:

waxnoses7

a33a6ab781a61bda_HamletSkull.preview

Consciousness is explainable, not now, but eventually. When “eventually” occurs I don’t know. 

In one of his characteristically smart and demystifying articles about how the human brain works, Michael Graziano writes in The Atlantic that many of our current theories of consciousness rely on our (incorrect) intuitions and are embedded with flourishes that flatter us. 

The most surprising line he writes is this one:When I talk to other scientists about the study of consciousness, very often the first thing I’m asked to explain is why the topic is worth scientific attention.” That’s stunning. I think the two most interesting questions humans can answer are 1) What’s out there (in space)? and 2) What’s in here (in our brains)? Everything else seems not trivial but far less important. 

An excerpt about a better approach to studying brain function:

Here’s how we can construct theories that do a better job of explaining, even if they appeal less to our biases and intuitions. The brain is an information-processing machine. It takes in data, transforms it, and uses it to help guide behavior. When that machine ups and says, “Hey, I have a conscious experience of myself and the things around me,” that assertion is based on data computed in the brain. As scientists we can ask a series of basic questions. How did the machine arrive at that self-description? What’s the specific, adaptive use of that self-description? What networks in the brain compute that type of information? These are all scientifically approachable questions. And we are beginning to see specific, testable theories that can answer them. The theories that show the most promise are sometimes called metacognitive theories. They are theories of how the brain computes information about itself and its own processes.

The brain constructs packets of information, virtual models, that describe things in the world. Anything useful to monitor and predict, the brain can construct a model of it. These simulations change continuously as new information comes in, and they’re used to guide ongoing behavior. For example, the visual system constructs rich, detailed models of the objects in the visual world—a desk, a car, another person. But the brain doesn’t just model concrete objects in the external world. It also models its own internal processes. It constructs simulations of its own cognition.

And those simulations are never accurate. They contain incomplete, sometimes surreal information. The brain constructs a distorted, cartoon sketch of itself and its world. And this is why we’re so certain that we have a kind of magic feeling inside us.

Tags:

oritestv

Nuclear spaceships aren’t a new proposition. In the late 1950s, a group of American scientists, including Freeman Dyson, worked on Project Orion, a plan to boom us to Mars by 1965 and Saturn by 1970. It didn’t seem outlandish scientifically, but the work had to be scrapped after the signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, which forbid nuclear-powered space exploration. 

Of course, a rogue state with enough knowledge and money could still go for it, and Russia, unsurprisingly, is interested in being that nation. The former Soviet Union long worked on their own nuke-space schemes, and the interest has reawakened. From Nick Stockton at Wired:

The engines the Soviets and Americans were developing during the Space Race, on the other hand, had at least double a chemical rocket’s specific impulse. Modern versions could likely do even better. Which means spaceships would be able to carry a lot more fuel, and therefore fire their thrusters for a longer portion of the trip to Mars (bonus: artificial gravity!). Even better, a thermal fission spaceship would have enough fuel to decelerate, go into Martian orbit, and even return to Earth.

Calling for a fission mission to Mars is great for inspiring space dreamers, but Russia’s planned engine could have practical, near-term applications. Satellites need to fire their thrusters every so often to stay in their ideal orbits (Also, to keep from crashing to Earth). Sokov thinks the main rationale for developing a nuclear thermal engine would be to allow for more of these orbital corrections, significantly increasing a satellite’s working lifespan. Fission power would also give probes more maneuverability. “One civilian application is to collect all the space junk,” says Sokov. “You are free to think of other, perhaps not as innocent applications.”

Russia may have the will to go nuclear, but it probably lacks the means.•

 _____________________________

“First time we tried it, the thing took off like a bat out of hell.”

Tags:

helmet77777 (1)Attempting to narrow the wealth gap by having corporations make micropayments to citizens for their information seems to me a morally bankrupt system even if it achieves the unlikely and saves some from actual bankruptcy. There has to be a better way, though whether we’re unwittingly working for Facebook and Google for free or accepting bits of coins for our efforts, it’s hard to see how we avoid this privacy-obliterating system we’ve built. We live in a very anti-government time, but corporations are far more pervasive and invasive and will only grow more so as the Internet of Things becomes the thing. We may eventually miss Big Brother.

I’m looking forward to reading Nicholas Carr’s forthcoming book, Utopia Is Creepy, which has the best title ever, and I credit him with pointing me toward Shoshana Zuboff’s Frankfurter Allgemeine essay “The Secrets of Surveillance Capitalism.” As she writes, “the very idea of a functional, effective, affordable product as a sufficient basis for economic exchange is dying,” and what is replacing it is spooky as hell. The Harvard professor’s article is devastating not for imagining a dark future that might be if things go horribly wrong but for laying out where we’re headed if we just incrementally build on the status quo.

The opening:

Google surpassed Apple as the world’s most highly valued company in January for the first time since 2010.  (Back then each company was worth less than 200 billion. Now each is valued at well over 500 billion.)  While Google’s new lead lasted only a few days, the company’s success has implications for everyone who lives within the reach of the Internet. Why? Because Google is ground zero for a wholly new subspecies of capitalism in which profits derive from the unilateral surveillance and modification of human behavior.  This is a new surveillance capitalism that is unimaginable outside the inscrutable high velocity circuits of Google’s digital universe, whose signature feature is the Internet and its successors.  While the world is riveted by the showdown between Apple and the FBI, the real truth is that the surveillance capabilities being developed by surveillance capitalists are the envy of every state security agency.  What are the secrets of this new capitalism, how do they produce such staggering wealth, and how can we protect ourselves from its invasive power?

“Most Americans realize that there are two groups of people who are monitored regularly as they move about the country.  The first group is monitored involuntarily by a court order requiring that a tracking device be attached to their ankle. The second group includes everyone else…”

Some will think that this statement is certainly true. Others will worry that it could become true. Perhaps some think it’s ridiculous.  It’s not a quote from a dystopian novel, a Silicon Valley executive, or even an NSA official. These are the words of an auto insurance industry consultant intended as a defense of  “automotive telematics” and the astonishingly intrusive surveillance capabilities of the allegedly benign systems that are already in use or under development. It’s an industry that has been notoriously exploitative toward customers and has had obvious cause to be anxious about the implications of self-driving cars for its business model. Now, data about where we are, where we’re going, how we’re feeling, what we’re saying, the details of our driving, and the conditions of our vehicle are turning into beacons of revenue that illuminate a new commercial prospect.•

Tags: ,

trump097

Donald Trump, equal parts Chairman Mao and Vince McMahon, knows nothing, but is he a Know Nothing?

The Stalin of steaks has flourished thanks to virulent anti-immigrant speech in a country that’s grown rich on the backs of immigrants (and forced immigrants known as slaves). That might sound strange, but as disconcerting as it is, it’s not a new thing. The strain against the Other always lurks in the underbelly of the country, sometimes rearing to the surface.

In a New Statesman article, Ben Wilson recalls an unhappy time much like our own: the 1850s. An excerpt:

Trump would certainly have found the 1850s a congenial time. This was one of the most explosive periods in modern history, with proliferating technologies, shifting patterns of trade and migration on a colossal scale. At a time when the US was entering the global economy, many saw themselves as victims of the new world order. As cities were rapidly reshaped by new industries and tens of thousands of newcomers, many native-born Americans believed their wages, their way of life and even their country were being taken from them. And there were plenty of politicians ready to egg on their discontent, provoking racial prejudices to garner votes.

Today, Trump might be reading from a script prepared in 1854. The American political establishment was shocked in that year when a new political movement known as the Know Nothings sensationally won a series of local and Congressional elections. Started in secret as the Order of the Star Spangled Banner (it got its memorable moniker from the instruction given members to deny any involvement), the movement had prepared the ground well. Look at your cities, the Know Nothings told voters, with its squalor and drunkenness; look at your falling wages. Who was to blame? The answer was simple. The Know Nothings alleged that immigrants, many of them Irish Catholics, were responsible for an upsurge in crime, particularly sexual and violent crime. And as Catholics who supposedly owed their allegiance to the Pope, the migrants would fundamentally alter the character of the Protestant United States. Sound familiar?

The parallels between the Know Nothings and Trump are a reminder that populist nationalism lies close to the surface of American politics, remaining dormant most of the time.•

Tags: ,

321Anopheles-gambiae-photo-2-thumb-425x279

No one likes bees stings, but everyone likes bees. We all want to save the bees.

New technologies may ultimately give us the option to rescue, revive, reconfigure or eradicate species, which sounds like a great power to have–and a chilling one. It may not bring back mammoths anytime soon or maybe ever, but it likely will have significant impact on life on Earth as we learn to take the reigns of evolution for ourselves and other species.

Yohann Koshy of Vice interviewed Ashley Dawson, author of Extinction: A Radical History, which argues, among other things, that the development of such new tools may imbue us with the belief that we can elide any capitalism-created crisis. 

An excerpt about CRISPR:

Question:

Are there any examples of this technology being put to good ends?

Ashley Dawson:

Last week, I was at Princeton, and I spoke to a scientist from MIT. He’s one of a few people who is trying to use CRISPR technology to genetically engineer the extinction of the Anopheles mosquito, which is responsible for carrying malaria, Dengue fever, Zika, and lot of horrible viruses and diseases.

I’m still trying to figure out where I stand on that. More than 700,000 people die every year of malaria, mostly in poor and vulnerable populations. So if you can do something to eradicate the disease, perhaps it’s OK. But then what about the ecological niche the mosquito fills? What about how the use of these technologies could be proliferated?

Some people think this technology, CRISPR, is so dangerous it should be treated like nuclear technology—that it shouldn’t be widely available. The problem with scientists is they often don’t look at the broader political-economic questions. The reason Zika has gotten so much traction in a place like Brazil is because as deforestation happens, you get human populations in closer proximity to wild species of various different kinds, some of which function as disease vectors. So the prevalence of the disease in certain areas is connected to resource extraction, which is, in turn, coming from corporations that the governments like the United States are supporting.•

Tags: ,

czarnicholasii

Nicholas_II_by_Boissonnas_&_Eggler_c1909

10-NIKOLAI-2-

It began auspiciously for Nicholas II, though it didn’t end well.

The last of the Russian tsars assumed power at a youthful age in 1894 after his father, Alexander III, was assassinated. Nicholas II, who at most possessed modest political, economic and military skills, was not the optimal choice to lead a nation even under the best of circumstances, but no one likely could have restrained the sweep of history that was to upturn the embattled nation. It ended for Russia with a successful revolution in 1917, of course, and basement executions in Ekaterinburg the following year for the last emperor, his loved ones and minions. 

Even from the start, many thought the new leader wouldn’t last the tumultuous times, as evidenced by an article that ran in the November 3, 1894 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, two days after his father died. 

tnii

Tags: ,

321snowdeni9 Snowden-Oliver-Stone (1)

I don’t trust the NSA or Oliver Stone with our information. 

It was clear long before Edward Snowden to any American paying attention that our government had overreached into our privacy in the aftermath of 9/11. It’s not that there aren’t real dangers that need to be investigated, but treating every citizen like a threat is another kind of threat.

Stone is a very gifted filmmaker whose work seems informed by chemicals he (over-)experimented with as a youth. It’s galling that so many took his overheated JFK hokum seriously for so long and that some still do. His films are interesting provided no one uses them as history lessons.

That means the director’s upcoming take on Snowden should be…interesting? Well, let’s not prejudge. 

Stephen Galloway of the Hollywood Reporter has an article about Stone’s paranoid approach to the making of the movie, which might be warranted in this case. He recently said this of the production: “We moved to Germany, because we did not feel comfortable in the U.S….we felt like we were at risk here.” An excerpt:

When Stone (whose films include Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July and Wall Street) was first approached to make the movie, he hesitated. He had been working on another controversial subject, about the last few years in the life of Martin Luther King Jr., and did not immediately wish to tackle something that incendiary again.

“Glenn Greenwald [the journalist who worked with Poitras to break the Snowden story] asked me some advice and I just wanted to stay away from controversy,” he said. “I didn’t want this. Be that as it may, a couple of months later, the Russian lawyer for Snowden contacts me via my producer. The Russian lawyer told me to come to Russia and wanted me to meet him. One thing led to another, and basically I got hooked.”

In Moscow, Stone met multiple times with Snowden, who has been living in exile in Russia since evading the U.S. government’s attempts to arrest him for espionage. “He’s articulate, smart, very much the same,” he said. “I’ve been seeing him off and on for a year — actually, more than that. I saw him last week or two weeks ago to show him the final film.”

He added: “He is consistent: he believes so thoroughly in reform of the Internet that he has devoted himself to this cause … Because of the Russian hours, he stays up all night. He’s a night owl, and he’s always in touch [with the outside world], and he’s working on some kind of constitution for the Internet with other people. So he’s very busy. And he stays in that 70-percent-computer world. He’s on another planet that way. His sense of humor has gotten bigger, his tolerance. He’s not really in Russia in his mind — he’s in some planetary position up there. And Lindsay Mills, the woman he’s loved for 10 years — really, it’s a serious affair — has moved there to be with him.”•

Tags: , ,

321deepmingago

Demis Hassabis’ DeepMind was 20 years in the making, and its trouncing of Go champion Lee Se-dol was a plateau but still only prelude. “I think for perfect information games, Go is the pinnacle,” Hannabis has said, though the greater goal is to redirect the AI advances toward healthcare, virtual assistants, robotics, etc.

After the Google AI’s Game 1 triumph, Hassabis sat down with Sam Byford of Verge for an interview, which is very much worth reading. Perhaps most interesting is that even the developers didn’t really know exactly where AlphaGo was going, which is promising and a little worrisome.

An excerpt:

Sam Byford:

So for someone who doesn’t know a lot about AI or Go, how would you characterize the cultural resonance of what happened yesterday?

Demis Hassabis:

There are several things I’d say about that. Go has always been the pinnacle of perfect information games. It’s way more complicated than chess in terms of possibility, so it’s always been a bit of a holy grail or grand challenge for AI research, especially since Deep Blue. And you know, we hadn’t got that far with it, even though there’d been a lot of efforts. Monte Carlo tree search was a big innovation ten years ago, but I think what we’ve done with AlphaGo is introduce with the neural networks this aspect of intuition, if you want to call it that, and that’s really the thing that separates out top Go players: their intuition. I was quite surprised that even on the live commentary Michael Redmond was having difficulty counting out the game, and he’s a 9-dan pro! And that just shows you how hard it is to write a valuation function for Go.

Sam Byford:

Were you surprised by any of the specific moves that you saw AlphaGo play?

Demis Hassabis:

Yeah. We were pretty shocked — and I think Lee Se-dol was too, from his facial expression — by the one where AlphaGo waded into the left deep into Lee’s territory. I think that was quite an unexpected move.

Sam Byford:

Because of the aggression?

Demis Hassabis:

Well, the aggression and the audacity! Also, it played Lee Se-dol at his own game. He’s famed for creative fighting and that’s what he delivered, and we were sort of expecting something like that. The beginning of the game he just started fights across the whole board with nothing really settled. And traditionally Go programs are very poor at that kind of game. They’re not bad at local calculations but they’re quite poor when you need whole board vision.•

Tags: ,

_88650791_matchroom8

The psychologist Gary Marcus urged caution when Google AI recently defeated a good, but not champion, Go player. Most of qualifications still pertain still pertain, but DeepMind just deep-sixed Lee Se-dol, one of the world’s best players. The human competitor noticed the psychological component of the game was noticeably absent, even disconcerting. “It’s like playing the game alone,” he said.

Below is 

____________________________

From Choe and Markoff:

SEOUL, South Korea — Computer, one. Human, zero.

A Google computer program stunned one of the world’s top players on Wednesday in a round of Go, which is believed to be the most complex board game ever created.

The match — between Google DeepMind’s AlphaGo and the South Korean Go master Lee Se-dol — was viewed as an important test of how far research into artificial intelligence has come in its quest to create machines smarter than humans.

“I am very surprised because I have never thought I would lose,” Mr. Lee said at a news conference in Seoul. “I didn’t know that AlphaGo would play such a perfect Go.”

Mr. Lee acknowledged defeat after three and a half hours of play.

Demis Hassabis, the founder and chief executive of Google’s artificial intelligence team DeepMind, the creator of AlphaGo, called the program’s victory a “historic moment.”•

____________________________

Deep-Blue

Garry Kasparov held off machines but only for so long. He defeated Deep Thought in 1989 and believed a computer could never best him. But by 1997 Deep Blue turned him–and humanity–into an also-ran in some key ways. The chess master couldn’t believe it at first–he assumed his opponent was manipulated by humans behind the scene, like the Mechanical Turk, the faux chess-playing machine from the 18th century. But no sleight of hand was needed.

Below are the openings of three Bruce Weber New York Times articles written during the Kasparov-Deep Blue matchup which chart the rise of the machines.

Responding to defeat with the pride and tenacity of a champion, the I.B.M. computer Deep Blue drew even yesterday in its match against Garry Kasparov, the world’s best human chess player, winning the second of their six games and stunning many chess experts with its strategy.

Joel Benjamin, the grandmaster who works with the Deep Blue team, declared breathlessly: “This was not a computer-style game. This was real chess!”

He was seconded by others.

“Nice style!” said Susan Polgar, the women’s world champion. “Really impressive. The computer played a champion’s style, like Karpov,” she continued, referring to Anatoly Karpov, a former world champion who is widely regarded as second in strength only to Mr. Kasparov. “Deep Blue made many moves that were based on understanding chess, on feeling the position. We all thought computers couldn’t do that.”•

Garry Kasparov, the world chess champion, opened the third game of his six-game match against the I.B.M. computer Deep Blue yesterday in peculiar fashion, by moving his queen’s pawn forward a single square. Huh?

“I think we have a new opening move,” said Yasser Seirawan, a grandmaster providing live commentary on the match. “What should we call it?”

Mike Valvo, an international master who is a commentator, said, “The computer has caused Garry to act in strange ways.”

Indeed it has. Mr. Kasparov, who swiftly became more conventional and subtle in his play, went on to a draw with Deep Blue, leaving the score of Man vs. Machine at 1 1/2 apiece. (A draw is worth half a point to each player.) But it is clear that after his loss in Game 2 on Sunday, in which he resigned after 45 moves, Mr. Kasparov does not yet have a handle on Deep Blue’s predilections, and that he is still struggling to elicit them.•

In brisk and brutal fashion, the I.B.M. computer Deep Blue unseated humanity, at least temporarily, as the finest chess playing entity on the planet yesterday, when Garry Kasparov, the world chess champion, resigned the sixth and final game of the match after just 19 moves, saying, “I lost my fighting spirit.”

The unexpectedly swift denouement to the bitterly fought contest came as a surprise, because until yesterday Mr. Kasparov had been able to summon the wherewithal to match Deep Blue gambit for gambit.

The manner of the conclusion overshadowed the debate over the meaning of the computer’s success. Grandmasters and computer experts alike went from praising the match as a great experiment, invaluable to both science and chess (if a temporary blow to the collective ego of the human race) to smacking their foreheads in amazement at the champion’s abrupt crumpling.

“It had the impact of a Greek tragedy,” said Monty Newborn, chairman of the chess committee for the Association for Computing, which was responsible for officiating the match.

It was the second victory of the match for the computer — there were three draws — making the final score 3 1/2 to 2 1/2, the first time any chess champion has been beaten by a machine in a traditional match. Mr. Kasparov, 34, retains his title, which he has held since 1985, but the loss was nonetheless unprecedented in his career; he has never before lost a multigame match against an individual opponent.

Afterward, he was both bitter at what he perceived to be unfair advantages enjoyed by the computer and, in his word, ashamed of his poor performance yesterday.

“I was not in the mood of playing at all,” he said, adding that after Game 5 on Saturday, he had become so dispirited that he felt the match was already over. Asked why, he said: “I’m a human being. When I see something that is well beyond my understanding, I’m afraid.”•

Tuerkischer_schachspieler_windisch4

 

Tags: ,

Deutsch: Flusspferd, Nilpferd, Großflusspferd · English: Hippopotamus · Español: Hipopótamo común · Français : Hippopotame · Italiano: Ippopotamo · ?????: ???????? · Lietuviu: Didysis hipopotamas · Nederlands: Nijlpaard · Polski: Hipopotam nilowy · Português: Hipopótamo-comum

There exists a band of far-flung thinkers who dream of humans repopulating and restoring the natural world via de-extinction (read here and here). It would be a regenesis, though it’s easier said than done. Even though such things aren’t currently doable, I wouldn’t say that they’re permanently impossible, not if we’re talking about the very long run. But we’re not likely digging ourselves out of our Anthropocene hole with such things.

In an excellent Five Books Interview on the topic of de-extinction, evolutionary biologist Beth Shapiro pours cold water on the reawakening of the woolly mammoth and other animals and birds that have bid the Earth adieu, pointing out not just the practical difficulties but also the ethical concerns. I’ve read two of the titles she chose, E.O. Wilson’s The Diversity of Life and Elizabeth Kolbert’s The Sixth Extinction, both of which are certainly worth the time. 

Before getting to her selections, the author of How to Clone a Mammoth explains exactly why we can’t do just that and why we shouldn’t even if we could. An excerpt:

Question:

If we were able to bring a mammoth back, what would the purpose of that be?

Beth Shapiro:

If we pretend, for a moment, that it’s technically possible – which it isn’t – and that it’s ethically ok – which it isn’t – why might we want to bring a mammoth back to life? Well, for me there are two reasons. The first is ecological. Elephants play a very important role in their ecosystem, they’re the biggest herbivore that exists. They wander around knocking down the big things and allow the habitat – the grasslands – to regenerate themselves. There’s no reason to suspect a mammoth wouldn’t have done the same thing.

There’s a Russian scientist called Sergey Zimov who has a park in North-Eastern Siberia called ‘Pleistocene Park‘. The Pleistocene was the geological interval that existed before the current one, which is the Holocene, sometimes the Anthropocene. It was the age of Ice Age Giants and he is preparing this park for the return of Ice Age Giants and so far he has bison and horses and five different species of deer. He doesn’t have mammoths yet, but he is making up for that using large road-rolling machinery. What he’s found in this Pleistocene Park of his is that where he has these grazing herbivores – bison, horses, deer – just by virtue of wandering around on the permafrost, digging up the soil, recycling nutrients, spreading the seeds around they have actually changed that habitat. They have reestablished the rich grasslands that used to be there during the time of these Ice Age Giants, creating the habitat that they themselves need to survive. Not only are these animals there and quite happy, but he’s also noted that things like saiga antelope have come to visit the park because there’s loads of stuff for them to eat there. He argues that giant herbivores are still a missing component that would really help to push this environment over the edge. There’s a potentially compelling ecological reason to bring mammoths back to life.

The next reason is more sentimental. Few of us are willing to imagine a world without elephants, but Asian elephants are endangered. Every year there are fewer of them. Their habitat is continuing to disappear as human populations grow. We’re having trouble stopping poachers taking them for their ivory. What if we could use this technology, this same swapping out of genes technology, not to bring a mammoth back to life, but to change an elephant a little bit so that it has some of the evolutionary adaptations that a mammoth had? Say, adaptations that allow it to survive somewhere cold. Elephants are a tropically adapted species, mammoths lived in the Arctic. If we could swap out some of the elephant gene and allow elephants to live in Europe, or Siberia, then we could create new habitat for elephants where they could survive while we tried to fix whatever mess is going on in their natural habitats. What if we could use this technology not to bring extinct species back to life but to save species that are alive today and yet in danger of becoming extinct because of changes to their habitat that are often caused by us?•

Tags: , ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »