Richard Waters

You are currently browsing articles tagged Richard Waters.

the-insane-life-of-former-fugitive-and-eccentric-cybersecurity-legend-john-mcafee

John McAfee, who’s never been charged for murder, is a Philip K. Dick character of his own making, speeded-up and paranoid. The erstwhile anti-virus emperor says he’s returning to the field of security software but who the fuck knows. McAfee’s apparently found financial backing, but he seems better suited to manning a gunboat in the proximity of a banana republic. From Richard Waters in the Financial Times:

John McAfee, the controversial former software boss, has made a move to win back a leading role in the security software industry that he helped to pioneer, taking the helm of a tiny public investment vehicle and declaring his aim of turning it into “a successful and major force in the space”.

Mr McAfee, creator of the widely used antivirus software that bears his name, sold his first company to Intel for $7.6bn six years ago, in one of the biggest software transactions ever. But he made international headlines four years ago when he went on the run after becoming the focus of a manhunt in Belize following the murder of his neighbour there. He fled over the border into Guatemala, before being deported back to the US at his request. He was never arrested or charged in the murder.

Mr McAfee’s erratic behaviour and claims that he was afraid for his safety if he was arrested by the local police prompted the Belize prime minister to suggest he was “bonkers.” He has since maintained an outspoken public stance on tech policy issues, including putting himself forward as an independent candidate in this year’s US presidential elections and denouncing the FBI’s attempt to force Apple to grant access to one of its iPhones this year as “the beginning of the end of the US as a world power.”•

Tags: ,

watson89898

IBM’s Watson may be the biggest thing ever or a huge disappointment, but it’s probably somewhere in between. The former Trebek foil didn’t “end cancer” as the company’s breathless press release suggested when it announced the AI would transition from game-show contestant to all-around problem solver. The in-flux firm has pretty much everything staked on successfully applying the machine’s analytical skills in myriad directions. In a Financial Times piece, Richard Waters reviews the process, which has numerous champions and just as many naysayers. An excerpt:

IBM’s initial plan was to apply Watson to extremely hard problems, announcing in early press releases “moonshot” projects to “end cancer” and accelerate the development of Africa. Some of the promises evaporated almost as soon as the ink on the press releases had dried. For instance, a far-reaching partnership with Citibank to explore using Watson across a wide range of the bank’s activities, quickly came to nothing.

Since adapting in 2014, IBM now sells some services under the Watson brand. Available through APIs, or programming “hooks” that make them available as individual computing components, they include sentiment analysis — trawling information like a collection of tweets to assess mood — and personality tracking, which measures a person’s online output using 52 different characteristics to come up with a verdict.

At the back of their minds, most customers still have some ambitious “moonshot” project they hope that the full power of Watson will one day be able to solve, says [IBM Head of Research John] Kelly; but they are motivated in the short term by making improvements to their business, which he says can still be significant.

This more pragmatic formula, which puts off solving the really big problems to another day, is starting to pay dividends for IBM. Companies like Australian energy group Woodside are using Watson’s language capabilities as a form of advanced search engine to trawl their internal “knowledge bases”. After feeding more than 20,000 documents from 30 years of projects into the system, the company’s engineers can now use it to draw on past expertise, like calculating the maximum pressure that can be used in a particular pipeline.

To critics in the AI world, the new, componentised Watson has little to do with the original breakthrough and waters down the technology. “It feels like they’re putting a lot of things under the Watson brand name — but it isn’t Watson,” says [Northwestern computer science professor Kris] Hammond.

[Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence head Oren] Etzioni goes further, claiming that IBM has done nothing to show that its original Jeopardy!-playing breakthrough can yield results in the real world. “We have no evidence that IBM is able to take that narrow success and replicate it in broader settings,” he says. Of the box of tricks that is now sold under the Watson name, he adds: “I’m not aware of a single, super-exciting app.”•

Tags: , , ,

Attending the recent O’Reilly Solid conference in San Francisco, Richard Waters of the Financial Times glimpsed the future of the Internet of Things, still at a larval stage but a dramatic metamorphosis that will almost definitely happen, though no one knows exactly when. Gathering the information will be only half the battle as processing it intelligently is just as key. In his article, Waters focuses on the potential of ubiquitous connectedness but not the potential perils (privacy concerns, technological unemployment, etc.). An excerpt:

The world-changing applications made possible by the new technology platform cannot be imagined at the outset. …

The exhibits included a “pop-up factory” to make electronics on the fly and a part-3D printed car designed to be built in small local “microfactories”. Much of the discussion was of synthetic biology that will take manufacturing down to the microscopic level and merge the inorganic with the organic.

Behind the disruption lie three technologies that are on a collision course, according to Mickey McManus, a researcher at design software company Autodesk.

Extending internet connectivity to the physical world is only part of the story. A second seminal tech change will stem from the spread of artificial intelligence, which will make it easier to design and control complex ecosystems of objects, as well as put a higher level of intelligence into the individual “things” themselves. The third leg of the revolution, says Mr McManus, is digital manufacturing exemplified by 3D printing, which could present an alternative to some forms of mass-market production.

Taken together, he hints at the types of changes that could result: three students in a dorm room could start a car company; a distributed social network might replace a factory; or objects may disassemble and reassemble themselves as needs change.•

 

Tags:

Richard Waters’ new Financial Times piece anticipates a landscape of powerful digital assistants which don’t only respond to our thoughts but also do the thinking for us, making choices based on…who knows? What’s objectively best for us? Who “bribes” the next-level Siris to win our business? There’s plenty of room for abuse should apps no longer stand alone and erstwhile human decisions become disappeared into the 0s and 1s. The opening:

How smart do you want your smartphone to be? In designing Cortana, the voice-activated “virtual assistant” built into its mobile software, Microsoft is betting that most people are not yet ready to hand too much control of their lives to an artificial brain.

A soft-voiced presence with a slightly sassy attitude drawn from a video game character, Cortana is quite capable of reading your email to see if you have a flight coming up, then using the information to tell you when it is time to leave for the airport.

But Microsoft will not let “her” take the liberty. Instead, the system asks permission, like a discreet human assistant who does not want to assume too much — a step that also helps to confirm the software is on the right track in anticipating your wishes.

“At the moment it’s progressive intelligence, not autonomous intelligence,” says Marcus Ash, group program manager for Cortana, which is enabled on phones with the Windows operating system, including Microsoft’s Lumia devices. People do not want to be surprised by how much their phones are starting to take over, he says: “We made an explicit decision to be a little less ‘magical’ and a little more transparent.”

Niceties like this could soon be a thing of the past. The race is on between some of the biggest tech companies to come up with omniscient guides capable of filtering the complex digital world .

Like the browser wars of the 1990s, the outcome will help to set the balance of power in the next phase of the internet. By channelling attention and making decisions on behalf of their users, virtual assistants will have enormous power to make or break many other businesses. Many companies — from carmakers to entertainment concerns — aim to develop voice-powered assistants of their own to keep their customers loyal. But the future may belong instead to a handful of all-knowing assistants, much as Google’s search engine managed to suck in so many of the world’s queries on the web.

Though it has not reached the point of mass adoption yet, the potential of this new form of artificial intelligence has all the tech companies scrambling.•

Tags: ,

The lasting wealth of most gold rushes isn’t found in quick strikes, though those exist, but in the long-term infrastructure built in the race for riches. While the banking scandal that precipitated the economic collapse of 2008 left only pain in its wake, the current AI frenzy in Silicon Valley will probably, sooner or later, bring some good things to life–or some such simulacrum of life–even if there will also be a lot of disappointed investors. From Richard Waters at the Financial Times:

“The latest AI dawn owes much to new programming techniques for approximating ‘intelligence’ in machines. Foremost among these is machine learning, which involves training machines to identify patterns and make predictions by crunching vast amounts of data. But like other promising new ideas that inspire a rash of start-ups, there is a risk that many companies drawn to the field will struggle to find profitable uses for the technology.

‘A lot of these AI platforms are like Swiss army knives,’ says Tim Tuttle, chief executive of Expect Labs, which recently raised $13m. ‘They can do a lot of things, but it’s not clear what the high-value ones will be.’

The result, he says, is a ‘wild-west mentality’ in the industry, as entrepreneurs race to apply AI to every computing problem they can think of.

‘I don’t think machine learning, as a standalone technology, is a valuable business,’ adds [Context Relevant’s Stephen] Purpura. ‘A lot of these things will get acquired.’

Artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, neural networks: building machines that tackle problems that were previously believed to be solvable only by the human brain has given rise to a range of techniques and jargon.

The hope that AI will be more than just another passing tech fad is based on its broader potential. Like ‘big data,’ the phrase refers not just to a single technology or use but an approach that could have wide applications.”

 

Tags: , ,

In a Financial Times interview conducted by Richard Waters, Larry Page discusses the Bell Labs ambitions of Google, the search giant that aims to remake itself in radically different ways. He also concurs with the current conventional wisdom that says consumer prices are about to markedly shrink and that will make up for technological unemployment. An excerpt:

Some of Google’s own big bets are in areas that he describes as being at the “fringes” – things that seem open to a technological solution but which, for some reason, have not received concerted attention. As examples, he picks self-driving cars and the diseases that afflict older people – the latter a field that his wife worked in at a lab at Stanford University. “It wasn’t a high-status thing,” he says. Through a new biotech arm called Calico, Google is now planning to plough hundreds of millions of dollars of its own into the area.

“We do benefit from the fact that once we say we’re going to do it, people believe we can do it, because we have the resources,” he says. “Google helps in that way: there aren’t many funding mechanisms like that.”

But compared with its heady early days, when every brash initiative was welcomed by an adoring public with the indulgence of a parent celebrating a child’s finger paintings, the onrush of technological change has started to stir up fear.

“I think people see the disruption but they don’t really see the positive,” says Page. “They don’t see it as a life-changing kind of thing . . . I think the problem has been people don’t feel they are participating in it.”

A perennial optimist when it comes to technology, he argues that all that will change. Rapid improvements in artificial intelligence, for instance, will make computers and robots adept at most jobs. Given the chance to give up work, nine out of 10 people “wouldn’t want to be doing what they’re doing today.”

What of people who might regret losing their work? Once jobs have been rendered obsolete by technology, there is no point wasting time hankering after them, says Page. “The idea that everyone should slavishly work so they do something inefficiently so they keep their job – that just doesn’t make any sense to me. That can’t be the right answer.”

He sees another boon in the effect that technology will have on the prices of many everyday goods and services. A massive deflation is coming: “Even if there’s going to be a disruption on people’s jobs, in the short term that’s likely to be made up by the decreasing cost of things we need, which I think is really important and not being talked about.”

New technologies will make businesses not 10 per cent, but 10 times more efficient, he says. Provided that flows through into lower prices: “I think the things you want to live a comfortable life could get much, much, much cheaper.”

Collapsing house prices could be another part of this equation. Even more than technology, he puts this down to policy changes needed to make land more readily available for construction. Rather than exceeding $1m, there’s no reason why the median home in Palo Alto, in the heart of Silicon Valley, shouldn’t cost $50,000, he says.•

Tags: ,

I wonder if it’s necessity or ego telling us that AI has to think the same we do to be on our level. Couldn’t it operate otherly and best us the way animals on four legs outrun humans on two? Is thinking only one thing or can it be another thing again? From “Unthinking Computers Perform Clever Parlor Tricks,” Richard Waters’ middling enthusiasm for deep learning in the Financial Times:

“The success of deep learning is a product of the times. The idea is decades old: that a batch of processors, fed with enough data, could be made to function like a network of artificial neurons. Grouping and sorting information in progressively more refined ways, they could ‘learn’ how to parse it in something akin to the way the human brain is believed to function.

It has taken the massive computing power concentrated in cloud data centres to train neural networks enough to make them useful. It sounds like a dream of artificial intelligence as conjured up by Google: ingest all the world’s data and apply enough processing power, and the secrets of the universe will reveal themselves to you.

Deep learning has produced some impressive results. In a project known as DeepFace, Facebook recently reported that it had reached 97.35 per cent accuracy in identifying the faces of 4,000 people in a collection of 4m images, far better than had been achieved before. Such feats of pattern recognition come naturally to humans, but they are hard for computer scientists to copy. Even trite-sounding results can point to important advances. Google’s report two years ago that it had designed a system that identified cats in YouTube videos still reverberates around the field.

Using the same techniques to ‘understand’ language or solve other problems that rely on pattern recognition could make machines far better at interpreting the world around them. By analysing what people are doing and comparing it to what they (and thousands of others) have done in similar situations in the past, they could also anticipate what they might do next.

The result could be behavioural systems that truly understand your behaviour and recommendation engines capable of suggesting things you actually want. These may sound eerie. But done properly, machines could come to anticipate our needs and act as lifetime guides.

But there is a risk of equating the output of systems such as these with the products of actual human intelligence. In reality, they are parlour tricks, albeit impressive ones. The important thing will be to know where to apply their skills – and how far to trust them.”

 

Tags:

Libertarian billionaire Peter Thiel is an interesting guy, though I don’t agree with most of what he says. I’d love, for instance, to see him apply some of his know-how to coming up with solutions for poverty. Like a lot of people in Silicon Valley, he seems to exist on an island where such messy problems don’t register.

From a new Financial Times profile of Thiel by Richard Waters, in which the subject rails against government regulation, some of which might have come in handy on Wall Street during the aughts:

“He sounds equally uncomfortable discussing himself. The ‘ums’ multiply as he tries to explain why he threw in law and banking and came to Silicon Valley to pursue something far more world-changing. ‘There was this decision to move back to California and try something new and different,’ he says as though it were something that happened to someone else.

He is similarly vague when talking about the origins of his personal philosophy. ‘I’ve always been very interested in ideas and trying to figure things out.’ His undergraduate degree, from Stanford University, was in philosophy but his stance against the dominant political philosophy on many issues seems more visceral than intellectual. ‘I think that one of the most contrarian things one can do in our society is try to think for oneself,’ he says.

He only really regains his stride when talking about how technological ambition has gone from the world, leaving what he calls an ‘age of diminished expectations that has slowly seeped into the culture.’ Predictably, given his libertarian bent, much of this is traced back to regulation.

This is his explanation for why the computer industry (which inhabits ‘the world of bits’) has thrived while so many others (‘the world of atoms’) have not. ‘The world of bits has not been regulated and that’s where we’ve seen a lot of progress in the past 40 years, and the world of atoms has been regulated, and that’s why it’s been hard to get progress in areas like biotechnology and aviation and all sorts of material science areas.'”

Tags: ,

Because Bill Gates has only done three million interviews thus far in his life, the Financial Times’ headline writers thought they should label the paper’s new dialogue with him as “exclusive.” The crux of the discussion is an interesting one: Is it more important to give poor people access to the Internet or give them malaria medicine. If you have malaria, it’s a pretty easy choice. But I do think providing information where there is little empowers people. Sure, food, water and medicine first, but then let’s share the Internet. From Richard Waters “exclusive”:

“There is no getting round the fact, however, that Gates often sounds at odds with the new generation of billionaire technocrats. He was the first to imagine that computing could seep into everyday life, with the Microsoft mission to put a PC on every desk and in every home. But while others talk up the world-changing power of the internet, he is under no illusions that it will do much to improve the lives of the world’s poorest.

‘Innovation is a good thing. The human condition – put aside bioterrorism and a few footnotes – is improving because of innovation,’ he says. But while ­’technology’s amazing, it doesn’t get down to the people most in need in anything near the timeframe we should want it to.’

It was an argument he says he made to Thomas Friedman as The New York Times columnist was writing his 2005 book, The World is Flat, a work that came to define the almost end-of-history optimism that accompanied the entry of China and India into the global labour markets, a transition aided by the internet revolution. ‘Fine, go to those Bangalore Infosys centres, but just for the hell of it go three miles aside and go look at the guy living with no toilet, no running water,’ Gates says now. ‘The world is not flat and PCs are not, in the hierarchy of human needs, in the first five rungs.’ “

Tags: ,