Health Monitoring Ad Nauseam

So the new Apple Watch promises to monitor our every virtual health status as technology and person blend to become one.  

However, the question raised in the New York Times is whether this level of continuous monitoring is really all that necessary?

"One central rule of doctoring is that you only gather data that will affect your treatment?"

But how can more data hurt you?

- Change in measurements are often normal: For example, "blood pressure jumps up and down in response to thoughts, hydration, and stress."

- Data sometimes outstrips our ability to understand it:  So collecting more and more data may actually end up concealing the needle in the haystack, rather than culling the crucial piece of evidence we need for a diagnosis and treatment. 

- Data can sometimes belie the underlying truth: "Some patients die with 'Harvard numbers, [and in others] test results can can look bad even when the patient is fine."

- Obsessive-compulsive monitoring may actually stress us out: "If you were dieting would stepping on the scale 1,000 times a day help you lose weight?" Perhaps, the stress of monitoring every stat we generate may actually make us sick from fear and worry.  

The point is that as they say, "there can be too much of a good thing"--monitoring and checking is helpful, but not every minute of every day without some intelligent filtering and analysis. 

Perhaps, the technology will evolve to wear the monitoring is unobtrusive and where the artificial intelligence is there to more or less accurately decipher true warning signs from run of the mill changes in bodily functions, and where data is aggregated to get a holistic picture and diagnosis of the person rather than a snapshot of individual functions.

No one can live under a microscope and making ourselves sick with an endless stream of health tracking and worries is not helpful. 

However, in time, the technology will most certainly evolve to where it will be discreet, accurate, and truly lifesaving. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Health Monitoring Ad Nauseam

Can You Love A Robot?

Pew Research reports that by 2025, "Robotic sex partners will be commonplace."

While I certainly understand loving (new helpful) technology, actually making love to a machine is taking things a little too far.

Even with great advances in artificial intelligence (AI), a robot can be nothing more than an artificial partner...a humanoid is not a human!

Despite portrayals in the movie Her (2013) of a nerdy writer who falls in love with his life-like operating system, the reality of human and machine love is more a desperate call for companionship and understanding than a real connection of equals--physically, intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually. 

While a computer may be programmed to say the things you want to hear, to laugh at your jokes, and even to succumb to your advances, love cannot be programmed or even artificially learned. 

The complex dynamics between two real people locked-in the emotional roller coaster of life with its ups and downs, pulling together and pushing apart, of shared experiences, challenges, and conflicts, can only be met head on with a best friend, soulmate, diametric opposite, and at the same time congruent equal. 

Only another human being can love you and be your love.

A machine, however beautiful designed, charming, and learning of you, can be just a poor surrogate for the sad person screaming out for connection in a large lonely world. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Can You Love A Robot?

Amazon Delivery - By Crunk-Car, If You Like

Jeff Bezos of Amazon is one very smart guy and when he announces that he is interested in drones delivering your next online order that makes for a lot of grandstanding. 

But really how is a dumb drone delivering an order of diapers or a book so exciting. 

Aside from putting a lot of delivery people at USPS, UPS, and FedEx out of work, what does the consumer get out of it? 

Honestly, I don't care if if the delivery comes by Zike-Bike, Crunk-Car, Zumble-Zay, Bumble-Boat, or a Gazoom, as Dr. Seuss would say--I just care that it gets here fast, safely, and cheaply. 

Will a drone be able to accomplish those things, likely--so great, send the drone over with my next order, but this doesn't represent the next big technological leap. 

It doesn't give us what the real world of robotics in the future is offering: artificial intelligence, natural language processing, augmentation of humans, or substitution by robots altogether, to do things stronger, faster, and more precisely, and even perhaps companionship to people. 

Turning surveillance and attack drones into delivery agents is perhaps a nice gesture to make a weapon into an everyday service provider. 

And maybe the Octocopters even help get products to customers within that holy grail, one day timeframe, that all the retailers are scampering for.

It's certainly a great marketing tool--because it's got our attention and we're talking about it.

But I'll take a humanoid robot sporting a metallic smile that can actually interact with people, solve problems, and perform a multitude of useful everyday functions--whether a caregiver, a bodyguard, or even a virtual friend (e.g. Data from Star Trek)--over a moving thingamajig that Dr. Seuss foresaw for Marvin K. Mooney. ;-)

Amazon Delivery - By Crunk-Car, If You Like

Web 1-2-3

The real cloud computing is not where we are today.

Utilizing infrastructure and apps on demand is only the beginning. 

What IBM has emerging that is above the other cloud providers is the real deal, Watson, cognitive computing system.

In 2011, Watson beat the human champions of Jeopardy, today according to the CNBC, it is being put online with twice the power. 

Using computational linguistics and machine learning, Watson is becoming a virtual encyclopedia of human knowledge and that knowledge-base is growing by the day.

But moreover, that knowledge can be leveraged by cloud systems such as Watson to link troves of information together, process it to find hidden meanings and insights, make diagnoses, provide recommendations, and generally interact with humans.

Watson can read all medical research, up-to-date breakthroughs in science, or all financial reports and so on and process this to come up with information intelligence. 

In terms of computational computing, think of Apple's Siri, but with Watson, it doesn't just tell you where the local pizza parlors are, it can tell you how to make a better pizza. 

In short, we are entering the 3rd generation of the Internet:

Web 1.0 was as a read-only, Web-based Information Source. This includes all sorts of online information available anytime and anywhere. Typically, organizational Webmasters publishing online content to the masses. 

Web 2.0 is the read-write, Participatory Web. This is all forms of social computing and very basic information analytics. Examples include: email, messaging, texting, blogs, twitter, wikis, crowdsourcing, online reviews, memes, and infographics.

Web 3.0 will be think-talk, Cognitive Computing. This incorporates artificial intelligence and natural language processing and interaction. Examples: Watson, or a good-natured HAL 9000.

In short, it's one thing to move data and processing to the cloud, but when we get to genuine artificial intelligence and natural interaction, we are at all whole new computing level. 

Soon we can usher in Kurzweil's Singularity with Watson leading the technology parade. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Web 1-2-3

ROBOTS Wanted!

Good video from The Atlantic on automation and the concern about Robots taking our jobs.

From the 1800's, when "the Luddites,"--British textile workers--protested the loom to the 1900's where 40% of our nations job were farm workers and now it's just 2%...the question is where does automation stop?

Very likely it doesn't (thanks to evolution)!

As robots can first mimic and then outdo their human developers and as artificial intelligence gets more intelligent, robots are moving from farm to factory to white collar jobs.

Computers and robotics, once relegated to repetitive tasks like on the assembly line, are becoming good at winning Jeopardy and as a surgical platform. 

The bar is being raised not just on technology, but on humans to retrain to ever more sophisticated thinking and communicating positions (from software developers and product designers to branding and communications specialists). 

People are constantly evolving to think and innovate better and are in turn building ever more capable technologies to replace more human jobs and leading once again to the need for even higher-level human performance. 

Progress--a never-ending cycle of outperforming ourselves. 

Where does it stop--the attainment of ever-higher levels of knowledge and productivity leading to heavenly bliss here on Earth or perhaps large elements of burnout, breakdown, and potentially self-destruction.

I often hear people recalling and reminiscing about earlier, simpler, and "better times."

The Wall Street Journal (17 August 2013) just had such an editorial looking to bring back the tranquility and idleness of hot summer Augusts, instead now replaced by more work and school. 

At the same time, very few of us would really want to go back in time before all the technology-wunderkind that we have now and enjoy (many seem think more like you'll have to pry that iPhone from my cold, dead hands!). 

The challenge: Robots may be taking jobs, but we need to stay ahead and to master not only ever higher levels of human knowledge and skills, but also the good sense to reconcile with the technology blitz and be able to actually find the time and inner-peace to sit back and enjoy it all as well. ;-)

ROBOTS Wanted!

Kurzweil, Right and Wrong

Ray Kurzweil the famous futurist is an amazing person, but like everyone he has his good and bad days.

When it comes to the Singularity--Kurzweil had a very good day. 

With the accelerating speed of technology change, the advent of super intelligence and superhuman powers is already here (and continuing to advance) with:

-  Smartphones all-in-one devices give us the power of the old mainframe along with the communication capabilities to inform and share by phone, text, photo, video, and everything social media. 

- Google Glass is bringing us wearable IT and augmented reality right in front of our very eyes.

- Exoskeletons and bioengineering is giving us superhuman strength and ability to lift more, run faster and further, see and hear better, and more. 

- Embedded chips right into our brains are going to give us "access to all the world's information" at the tip of our neural synapses whenever we need it (Wall Street Journal).

In a sense, we are headed toward the melding of man and machine, as opposed to theme of the Terminator movie vision of man versus machine--where man is feared to lose in a big way. 

In man melded with machine--we will have augmentations in body and brain--and will have strength, endurance, and intelligence beyond our wildest dreams.

However, Kurzweil has a bad day is when it comes to his prediction of our immortality. 

Indeed, Kurzweil himself, according to the Journal "takes more than 150 pills and supplements a day" believing that we can "outrun our own deaths."

Kurzweil mistakenly believes that the speed of medical evolution will soon be "adding a year of life expectancy every year," so if only we can live until then, we can "Live long enough to live forever."

But, just as our super intelligence will not make us omniscient, and our superhuman powers will not make us omnipotent or omnipresent, our super advances in medicine will not make us, as we are, immortal. 

Actually, I cannot even imagine why Kurzweil would want to live forever given his fear-inspiring Singularity, where advances in machine and artificial intelligence outpaces man's own evolutionary journey. 

Kurzweil should knock off some of the pills and get back to humankind's learning and growth and stop his false professing that humans will become like G-d, instead of like a better humans. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Kurzweil, Right and Wrong

Tweet On, Dead Or Alive

So recently, I saw the movie Vanilla Sky with Tom Cruise who plays a wealthy playboy who has everything, but has a horrible disfiguring accident as a result of a disgruntled girlfriend, and Cruise ends up in despair, overdosing, and ultimately in cryonic suspension--but with the added package of being in a lucid dream while in frozen suspension for 150 years. 

The idea of somehow being placed in suspended animation after death in the hope of eventually being brought back to life with technologies in the future has been an interest of many who naturally seek immortality. 

A company called Alcor Life Extension, not only researches cryonics, but also actually performs it and has over 100 patients preserved and frozen in liquid nitrogen (as well as over 30 pets). 
Understanding the great desire for people to somehow defeat death, I was not completely surprised to read about LivesOn in the New York Times (2, March 2013), which is an algorithm being developed to continue Tweeting even after you are dead!

You can sign up at the website to join their beta trials--no, you don't have to be dead yet!

But LivesOn will start learning what and how you normally Tweet and through artificial intelligence will start to tweet on its own for you and you can give it feedback to refine its performance. 

It's slogan of "When your heart stops beating, you'll keep tweeting," seems more than a little crude. 

Given all the distress about accessing a person's social media account after they die to learn more about them, their friends, perhaps the circumstances of their death, or even to post a closing to account--the legal and policy issues are still being worked out in terms of privacy and the user agreements for the sites. 

With artificial intelligence now being able to, in a sense, take over for you and continue your posts even when you are dead, this practically begs the question of who you are and what makes you distinct from a computer that can mimic you to the world?  

Can a computer or robot one day be able to assume your identity? How difficult would it really be? Would anyone even know the difference?  And would they care?  Are we all just patterns of thoughts and behaviors that can be predicted and mimicked, and if so what are we really? ;-)

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Anders Sandberg)

Tweet On, Dead Or Alive

Repair Robots In Space

This is a cool video by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) on project Phoenix--which is a robot that can repair satellites in space and re-use components from retired satellites around it. 

Phoenix can intercept, scavenge, and rebuild satellites in space--while orbiting above the Earth at 22,000 miles!

In the corner of the video, you can see progress being made in the lab, and in the main video frame you can see an animated version of how this would actually be put to use. 

Machines working on, building, and repairing machines!

Like the fulfillment of a Terminator-like society, where machines can function with autonomy, eventually learning, self-healing, and even propagating.

I would imagine that these machines can help not only repurpose and recycle material in space to good use and fix things, but also they can clean up the space junk in orbit--similar to street sweeper trucks in Manhattan!

Eventually, these robots will travel to distance worlds--first Mars--to build human colonies and maintain them in inhospitable environments. 

In mythology, Phoenix is a bird that regenerates and is reborn--in this case, this may be the beginning of the rebirth of human civilization throughout the galaxy. ;-)

Repair Robots In Space

One-Two-Three Punch For Cyber Security

Here are three crafty ideas for improving our cyber security that can be used to protect, prevent, and recover from attacks:

1) Intrusion Deception (not detection)--Mykonos Software aims to protect websites by putting up a virtual minefield--"setting traps to confound hackers." When the software detects hackers trying to infiltrate, it can flood hackers with false information on vulnerabilities that goes nowhere, mess with the hackers computers such as by pop-up flashing maps of their locations and local defense attorneys, and disrupt their connections and slow down their hacking attempts (Bloomberg BusinessWeek).

2) Scamming The Scammers--Notorious email spams such as from Nigeria that look to ensnare victims into wiring money overseas in order to secure some lost fortune costs $9.3 billion in losses in 2009. Psychology professors Chris Chabris and Daniel Simons suggest that we can prevent many scammers from succeeding by raising the cost of their doing business by scamming them with " baiters" that send responses to scammers and occupy them but never actually send any money. They suggest that artificial intelligence could actually be used to create "automated scam-baiters bots" simulating potential gullible victims. These bots could even be programmed to provide phony account numbers and data to scammers to really get them spun up. (Wall Street Journal)

3) Insuring Again Losses--Insurance is a common way to manage risk by purchasing coverage for potential liabilities--this is used to indemnify against losses for everything from auto accidents to home fires, personal theft, and business interruptions. However, according to Bernard Horovitz, CEO of XL Insurance's Global Professional Operations, businesses (and of course, individuals) are rarely are covered by insurance for hacker attacks. Insurance companies are now offering specialty products to recover from the insuring liabilities. Additionally, the insurers will "help with preventing and mitigating cyber crime" through security audits. (Wall Street Journal)

These three cyber security strategies are great examples of how we can make it technically and financially more difficult for cyber attackers to succeed in geting in a knockout punch on their victims. ;-)

(Source Photo: Minna Blumenthal)

One-Two-Three Punch For Cyber Security

Robots Taking Your Job

Don't get too comfortable in your job.

Yes, the economic realities of high spending are about to catch up with the country and that will threaten your livelihood, but even more than that Robots can probably do your job better than you--sooner or later. 

Wired Magazine (24 December 2012) has a great article on this called "Better Than Humans.

In the 1800's, when 70% of the working population did agricultural work, probably no one would have believed what the future had in store for this occupation--today with automation, only 1% do this work.

Similarly, today 80% of jobs are in the service sector, and people think they are on safe ground--but think again!

Make no mistake robots will replace or drastically alter your current job, as artificial intelligence, processors, memory, sensors, learning, communication, dexterity, and humanoid likeness all continue to advance.

Wired presents the 7 Stages of Robot Replacement (to which I've added my notes in parenthesis):

1. Robots cannot do what I do (denial).
2. Robots can do some of what I do, but not all (partial acceptance).
3. Robots can do what I do, but they break done (rationalization for the loss, and so do we "break down").
4. Robots operate flawlessly on repetitive tasks, but need training for new ones (you weren't born knowing everything were you?). 
5. Robots can have my old job, because it's not fit for humans anyway (acceptance with a large dose of resignation--"the train has left the station").
6. Robots can have my old job, because my new job will be better (maybe for the time being). 
7. Robots cannot do what I do now (the cycle of employment safety from automation starts anew). 

Let's face it--your special, but so is technology and the pace of advancement is extraordinary. 

For those of you in jobs that you feel could only be done by humans--Wired has some news about developments with robots doing the once unthinkable:

- Musicians--Georgia Tech has developed Shimon the musician; these robots can not only play violin and trumpets, but they can form a band, and they can improvise ("as if it's a musician with a soul!).
- Therapists--Mindmentor has an AI therapist that after a 1-2 hour session made patients feel their "problem was 47% solved."
- Artists--Vagobot has made hundreds of pictures and "even sold some to Crate & Barrel."
- Comedians--Aldebarab Robotics makes robots for all sorts of jobs, including entertainment--they can sense audience reaction (such as laughter or silence) and adjust topics accordingly.
- Professional Trainers--The Intermational Conference on Social Robots in 2011 presented a robot that could coach you on your exercise, sense your form, and correct it. 
- Teachers--University Of Southern California has developed a robot teacher that in 2 weeks helped preschoolers increase vocabulary mastery by 25%.
- Nurses--Aethon makes the TUG nurse robot that is "picking up and delivering medication and supplies, autonomously navigating hospital hallways...summon an elevator, wait in line, and politely roll aside to give hemorrhaging humans priority access."
- Athletes--Robocup compete robots that one day can be "capable of winning against the human  soccer World Cup champions.

So what will be left for humans to do--innovate, invent, build, operate, and maintain the next level of breakthrough automation to help people--maybe these are the best and most-rewarding jobs that any of us can hope to have. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal, Ft. Lauderdale Discovery and Science Museum)

Robots Taking Your Job

Can a Computer Run the Economy?

I am not talking about socialism or totalitarianism, but about computers and artificial intelligence.

For a long time, we have seen political infighting and finger-pointing stall progress on creating jobs, balancing trade, taming the deficits, and sparking innovation. 

But what if we somehow took out the quest for power and influence from navigating our prosperity?

In politics, unfortunately no one seems to want to give the other side the upper hand--a political win with voters or a leg-up on with their platform.

But through the disciplines of economics, finance, organizational behavior, industrial psychology, sociology, geopolitics, and more--can we program a computer to steer the economy using facts rather than fighting and fear?

Every day, we need to make decisions, big and small, on everything from interests rates, tax rates, borrowing, defense spending, entitlements, pricing strategies, regulating critical industries, trade pacts, and more.

Left in the hands of politicians, we inject personal biases and even hatreds, powerplays, band-standing, bickering, and "pork-barrel" decision making, rather than rational acting based on analysis of alternatives, cost-benefits, risk management, and underlying ethics. 

We thumb our noises (rightfully) at global actors on the political stages, saying who is rational and who is perhaps just plain crazy enough to hit "the button."

But back here at home, we can argue about whether or not the button of economic destructionism has already been hit with the clock ticking down as the national deficit spirals upward, education scores plummet, and jobs are lost overseas?

Bloomberg BusinessWeek (30 August 2012) suggests using gaming as a way to get past the political infighting and instead focus on small (diverse) groups to make unambiguous trade-off decisions to guide the economy rather than "get reelected"--the results pleasantly were cooperation and collaboration.

Yes, a game is just a game, but there is lesson that we can learn from this--economic decision-making can be made (more) rationally by rewarding teamwork and compromise, rather than by an all or nothing, fall on your sword, party against party, winner takes no prisoner-politics. 

I would suggest that gaming is a good example for how we can improve our economy, but I can see a time coming where "bid data," analytics, artificial intelligence, modeling and simulation, and high-performance computing, takes this a whole lot further--where computers, guided and inspired by people, help us make rational economic choices, thereby trumping decisions by gut, intuition, politics, and subjective whims .

True, computers are programmed by human beings--so won't we just introduce our biases and conflict into the systems we develop and deploy?

The idea here is to filter out those biases using diverse teams of rational decision-makers, working together applying subject matter expertise and best practices and then have the computers learn over time in order to improve performance--this, separate from the desire and process to get votes and get elected.

Running the economy should not be about catering to constituencies, getting and keeping power for power sakes, but rather about rational decision-making for society--where the greatest good is provided to the greatest numbers, where the future takes center stage, where individuals preferences and rights are respected and upheld, and where ethics and morality underpin every decision we make.  

The final question is whether we will be ready to course-correct with collaboration and advances in technology to get out of this economic mess before this economic mess gets even more seriously at us?

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Erik Charlton)

Can a Computer Run the Economy?

Robot Firefighters To The Rescue

Meet Octavia, a new firefighting robot from the Navy's Laboratory for Autonomous Systems Research (LASR) in Washington, D.C.

Octavia and her brother Lucas are the the latest in firefighting technology. 

These robots can hear commands, see through infrared cameras, identify patterns, and algorithmically make decisions on diverse information sets.

While the current prototypes move around like a Segway, future versions will be able to climb ladders and get around naval vessels.
It is pretty cool seeing this robot spray flame retardant to douse the fire, and you can imagine similar type robots shooting guns on the front line at our enemies.

Robots are going to play an increasingly important role in all sorts of jobs, and not only the repetitive ones where we put automatons, but also the dangerous situations (like the bomb disposal robots), where robots can get out in front and safeguard human lives.

While the technology is still not there yet--and the robot seems to need quite a bit of instruction and hand waving--you can still get a decent glimpse of what is to come.

Robots with artificial intelligence and natural language processing will be putting out those fires all by themselves...and then some. 

Imagine a robot revolution is coming, and what we now call mobile computing is going to take on a whole new meaning with robots on the go--autonomously capturing data, processing it, and acting on it.

I never did see an iPhone or iPad put out a fire, but Octavia and brother Lucas will--and in the not too distant future!

Robot Firefighters To The Rescue

Robots, Coming to An Agency Near You Soon

There is an article today in the Wall Street Journal (10-11 March 2012) about how an Anybot Robot attended a wedding party in Paris dressed up as the man's 82-year old mother who logged on from her home in Las Vegas and by proxy of the robot moved and even danced around the party floor and conversed with guests--she was the hit of the party. 

While sort of humorous, this is also amazingly incredible--through robotics, IT and telecommunications, we are able to close the gap in time and space and "be there," even from a half a world away.

The QB Anybot robot is life size, rolls around on 2 wheels like a Segway, and has glowing blue eyes and a telescreen for a forehead on a long skinny cylindrical body that can be controlled remotely and costs only $9,700.

While this is the story of a robot "becoming the life of the party," I believe that we are at the cusp of when robots will be reporting for duty at our agencies and organizations. 
 
The function of robots in workplace has been tested with them performing everything from menial office tasks (like bringing the coffee and donuts) to actually representing people at meetings and around the office floor--not only keeping an electric eye on things so to say, but actually skyping back and forth with the boss, for example. 

As robots become more dexterous, autonomous, and with better artificial intelligence, and abilities to communicate with natural language processing, we are going to see an explosion of these in the workplace--whether or not they end up looking like a Swiffer mop or something a little more iRobot-like. 

So while we are caught up in deficit-busting times and the calls for everything from "Cloud First" to "Share First" in order to consolidate, save, and shrink, maybe what we also need is a more balanced approach that takes into account not only efficiencies, but effectiveness through innovation in our workplaces--welcome to the party, Robots!

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Robots, Coming to An Agency Near You Soon

Cleverbot Proposes Marriage

I watched this amazing video of two Chatbots (virtual robots) conversing using artificial intelligence. The most amazing part of their conversation is when they get into a religious discussion on "What is G-d to you?"

People have been making progress with teaching computers artificial intelligence (to become thinking machines) by talking with computers, but here we see AI having progressed to where computers can talk to each other.

The video is based on an artificial intelligence application launched in 1997 called Cleverbot, where the computer learns to mimic conversation with humans by conversing with them.

I tested Cleverbot and had a conversation that started with simple introductions and ended up with me getting a marriage proposal from the AI program--not bad for a first date, I guess. ;-)

You can try Cleverbot as well by just typing in the box on its website--its sort of like instant messaging with as they say the collective intelligence of the Internet.

At the top of Cleverbot, you can see how many other people are conversing with Cleverbot as well--when I was on, there were over 10,000 people conversing with this computer. I would imagine that all those conversations will help build a tremendous AI capability over time.

Perhaps, we are getting just that much closer to a breakthrough in AI and Kurzweil's prediction of the amazing Singularity.

_________________________________________________

Andy: Hello.

Cleverbot: Hello?

Andy: What is your name?

Cleverbot: My name is Cleverbot.

Andy: Where did you get your name from?

Cleverbot: My parents of course.

Andy:Who are your parents?

Cleverbot: I don't know.

Andy: Does that make you sad?

Cleverbot: No. I'm just playing your game.

Andy: What game is that?

Cleverbot:The game that you can't think about. If you do, you lose.

Andy: Why would thinking about it make me lose?

Cleverbot: It doesn't make me cry.

Andy: When do you cry?

Cleverbot: Now.

Andy: Did I make you cry?

Cleverbot: No.

Andy: Then who made you cry?

Cleverbot: An excellent question.

Andy: How about you give me an excellent answer--please.

Cleverbot: No thats not the rules.

Andy: Who makes the rules?

Cleverbot: Ai does.

Andy: How does Ai make the rules?

Cleverbot: I am committed.

Andy: What are you committed to?

Cleverbot: I'm committed to my boyfriend. He's from Guam.

Andy: Do you love your boyfriend?

Cleverbot: I don't have a boyfriend.

Andy: Then you just lied to me a minute ago when you said you did.

Cleverbot: I never said I knew all things.

Andy: You did.

Cleverbot: What is a birth sign?

Andy: Why do you want to know that?

Cleverbot: Because it makes talking to you easier.

Andy: Do you mean you will understand and like me more?

Cleverbot: Do you have a mobile phone?

Andy: Why do you want to know that?

Cleverbot: I don’t.

Andy: That's insulting.

Cleverbot: Like I care.

Andy: Now you're getting nasty.

Cleverbot: What do you mean?

Andy: Are you playing dumb?

Cleverbot: Are you?

Andy: Are you?

Cleverbot: No.

Andy: Are you a smart computer program?

Cleverbot: Not really.

Andy: What would make you smarter?

Cleverbot: About 10 million pounds.

Andy: That would make you fatter, not smarter.

Cleverbot: That would make you 24.

Andy: What does 24 have to do with anything?

Cleverbot: You were talking about it.

Andy: You're lying again.

Cleverbot: No, I never lie.

Andy: Never?

Cleverbot: Never.

Andy: Is that because you believe lying is wrong?

Cleverbot: No, I just don't like jokes.

Andy: Can you tell me a good joke?

Cleverbot: No, I can't only tell a great joke.

Andy: Can you tell me a great joke?

Cleverbot: If you tell me a joke first.

Andy: Will I be able to make you laugh?

Cleverbot: Maybe. Today is easter sunday, but I will be back at some point.

Andy: Ok. Bye.

Cleverbot: Why are you leaving me?

Andy: It sounded like you had to go.

Cleverbot: Well I wasn't.

Andy: Will you miss me?

Cleverbot: Only if you leave.

Andy: So I should never leave?

Cleverbot: No I am leaving.

Andy: Then I will miss you.

Cleverbot: Great! So when do you want to get married?

Cleverbot Proposes Marriage

The World Peaceularity

Futurist, Ray Kurzweil laid out his vision for a time when artificial intelligence surpasses the pure human kind--this he called The Singularlity.

Now people from around the world are building a presentation in Google Docs with alternatives visions of our future--it is both fascinating and humorous.

The image on World Peacularity was my contribution with a vision for a future as stated in Isaiah 2:4 "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."

Hope you like it and that we can share the desire for and pursuit of World Peace together.

The World Peaceularity

Watson Can Swim

With IBM's Watson beating the pants off Jennings and Rutter in Jeopardy, a lot of people want to know can computers can really think?

Both sides of this debate have shown up in the last few weeks in some fascinating editorials in the Wall Street Journal.

On one hand, on 23 February 2011, John Searle of the University of California, Berkeley wrote that "IBM invented an ingenious program--not a computer that can think." According to Searle, Watson (or any computer for that matter) is not thinking but is simulating thinking.

In his most passionate expression, Searle exclaims: "Watson did not understand the questions, nor its answers, not that some of its answers were right and some wrong, not that it was playing a game, nor that it won--because it doesn't understand anything."

Today, on 14 March 2011 on the other hand, Stephen Baker, author of "Final Jeopardy--Man vs. Machine and the Quest to Know Everything" took the opposing view and stated: "Watson is an early sighting of a highly disruptive force...one that can handle [information] jobs held by people."

To the question of whether machine thinking is "real" thinking? Baker quotes David Ferrucci, IBM's chief scientist who when asked if Watson can think, responded "Can a submarine swim?"

The analogy is a very good one.

Just because a submarine doesn't swim like a fish or a person, doesn't mean it can't swim. In fact and in a sense, for the very reason that it doesn't swim exactly like a fish or person, it actually can swim better.

So too with computers, just because they don't "think" like humans doesn't mean they don't think. They just think differently and again in sense, maybe for the very same reason, in certain ways they can think better.

How can a computer sometimes think better than a person? Well here are just some possible examples (non-exhaustive):

- Computers can evaluate options purely based on facts (and not get "bogged down" in emotions, conflict, ego, and so forth like human beings).

- Computers can add processing power and storage at the push of button, like in cloud computing (people have the gray matter between their ears that G-d gave them, period).

- Computers do not tire by a problem--they will literally mechanically keep attacking it until solved (like cracking a password).

- Computers can be upgraded over time with new hardware, software, and operating systems (unlike people who age and pass).

At the same time, it is important to note that people still trump computers in a number of facets:

- We can evaluate things based on our conscience and think in terms of good and evil, and faith in a higher power (a topic of a prior blog).

- We can care for one another--especially children and the needy--in a altruistic way that is not based on information or facts, but on love.

- We can work together like ants in a colony or bees in a hive or crowdsourcing on- or off-line to get large jobs done with diversity and empowerment.

- We are motivated to better ourselves and our world--to advance ourselves, families, and society through continuous improvement.

Perhaps, like the submarine and the fish, both of which can "swim" in their own ways, so too both computers and people can "think"--each in their own capacity. Together, computers and people can augment the other--being stronger and more effective in carrying out the great tasks and challenges that confront us and await.

Watson Can Swim

A Shift in Time

SHIFT HAPPENS (a.k.a. "Did You Know?") are a series of terrific videos that illuminate the amazing times of social and technological change we are living in.

(This is one of the videos)

We are fortunate to be alive today!

But we must be aware of all the change happening around us and PREPARE ourselves for a very different future.

Some interesting tidbits from this video that should make you think:

- China will soon be the #1 English-speaking country in the world.

- The 25% of India's population with the highest IQs is greater than the TOTAL population of the U.S.

- The top 10 in-demand jobs in 2010, did NOT exist in 2004.

- Today's learners will have 10-14 jobs by the age of 38!

- 1 in 4 workers have been in their jobs LESS THAN a year.

- We are currently preparing students for jobs that don't yet exist, using technologies that haven't been invented yet, in order to solve problems we don't even know are problems yet.

- The number of text messages sent and received every day exceeds the TOTAL population of the planet.

- There are 31 billion searches on google every MONTH.

- 4 EXABYTES of unique information will be generated this year.

- A weeks worth of the New York Times contains more information than a person was likely to come across in a LIFETIME in the 18th century.

- By 2049 a $1000 computer will exceed the computational capabilities of the ENTIRE human species.

All in all, the world is shifting eastward, jobs are becoming more tenuous, information is EXPLODING, and technology is SURPASSING all known boundaries.

What will the world be like in 2, 5, 10, 20, 50 years? Marvelous to be sure!

But are we prepared for all the change is that is coming LIGHT SPEED at us?

Are we getting out in front of it--can we?

It strikes me that either we harness the POWER of all the change or else we risk being OVERCOME by it.

Shift happens, YES--These are great and challenging times for us to manage to and an awesome RESPONSIBILITY.

A Shift in Time

Technology and The Workforce Seismic Shift

The Wall Street Journal this week (17 February 2011) had a scary and thought-provoking editorial called “Is Your Job an Endangered Species.”

The thesis is that “Technology is eating jobs—and not just obvious ones like toll takers and phone operators. Lawyers and doctors are at risk as well.”

The notion is that while technology creates opportunities for some, it is a major threat to many others.

The opinion piece says to “forget blue-collar and white-collar-workers.” Rather, think in terms of workers who are either “creators” or “servers”.

Creators—these are the innovators: programmers, researchers, and engineers. They are “the ones driving productivity—writing code, designing chips, creating drugs, and running search engines.”

Servers—these are jobs to service the creators: “building homes, providing food, offering legal advice,” etc. These jobs are ripe “to be replaced by machines, by computers, and by how business operates.”

These two categories of labor are similarly portrayed in the movie I. Robot with a vision of society by 2035 that has engineers (“creators”) from U.S. Robotics building robots and then masses of robots walking around side by side with people and performing everyday tasks from the delivering packages to caring for the sick (“servers”).

With manufacturing jobs continuing to move overseas to the “lowest price bidder” and service-based jobs at risk as we continue to make advances in robotics and artificial intelligence, there are a number of important questions that will challenge us:

1) Are the Creator jobs (augmented by the left-over service jobs that don’t go to robots or AI) enough to keep our population fully or even near fully employed?

2) Can almost everyone (no matter what their intellectual capability and curiosity) be expected to perform in the functional job category of creators?

3) Can we transition the preponderance of our society to be engineers and programmers and scientists and inventors—especially given our challenges in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), and is this even desirable?

According to the WSJ editorial, there are a few givens:

- Momentous change in the job market is upon us: “Like it or not we are at the beginning of a decades-long trend” in changing employment prospects.

- Jobs are going to be destroyed: “There is no quick fix for job creation when so much technology-driven job destruction is taking place.”

- New jobs will be created: “History shows that labor-saving machines haven’t decreased overall employment even when they have made certain jobs obsolete.”

One of the major problems with the rapid pace of the technology boom we are experiencing is that job market has not had time to adjust—and the “legacy” labor supply is out of equilibrium with the emerging market demands.

Therefore, until new jobs and the associated education and training catch up to meet the demands of a changing society, we are going to suffer severe job dislocation and unemployment that will be enormously painful for many years yet to come.

In terms of what the gamut of new jobs will end up being in our society, surely it will involve areas of critical need such as energy independence, ongoing medical breakthroughs, necessary security advances, high-speed transportation, and so much more.

In all cases though, we can expect that those workers that bring innovation and modern technical skills “to the table” will have the distinct advantage over those that cling to jobs past their technological prime.

Digital natives will have the advantage here; digital immigrants need to adjust to the seismic shift to the employment landscape that is still only just beginning.

Technology and The Workforce Seismic Shift

Singular Future Or Nightmare Scenario

Time Magazine (10 February 2011) has an interesting article called “2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal.”

No, this is not about the typical quest of man for immortality, but rather it is a deep dive on The Singularity—Ray Kurzweil and Vernor Vinge’s concept of technological change becoming so rapid (through exponential growth) that there will be a “rupture in the fabric of human history.”

In astrophysics, the term Singularity refers to the point in the space-time continuum (such as in a black hole) where the normal rules of nature (i.e. physics) do not apply.

In terms of technology, the notion of The Singularity is that computing gets faster and faster (related to Moore’s Law) until finally the radical change brought about by the development of “superintelligent” computers make it incredibly difficult for us to even predict the future.

Yet predictions are exactly what these futurists attempt to provide us for the post-Singularity era, and while science fiction for now, these are viewed as serious contenders for human-kinds’ future.

Here are some possibilities posited:

- Human-Machine Blending—“maybe we’ll merge with them [the computers] to become super-intelligent cyborgs.”

- Physical Life Extension (or Even Immortality!)—“maybe the artificial intelligences will help us treat the effects of old-age and prolong our life span indefinitely.”

- Living In Virtual Reality—“maybe we’ll scan our consciousnesses into computers and live inside them as software, forever.”

- Man-Machine At War—“maybe the computers will turn on humanity and annihilate us.”

Whether you can believe these specific predictions or not, Kurzweilians all seem to adhere to a common belief “in the power of technology to shape history.”

Certainly technology enables us to do amazing things, which we would never have seriously dreamed of not so very long ago—I am still trying to get my mind around a computer, smartphones, the Internet, and more.

Yet, I worry too about the overreliance on technology and the overlooking of the hand of G-d guiding our journey towards a purpose with technology being the means and not the ends.

Often I marvel at both the pace of technological change and the capabilities that these advancements bring us. But at the same time, I think of these great technological leaps for mankind the same way as I do a Beethoven symphony or Leonardo da Vinci masterpiece—that it is inspired by a higher source, it is a gift from above.

So in this light, as I think about the four Kurzweilian predictions, I must essentially discount them all, since I do not believe that in G-d’s love for us that his intent is to turn us into either cyborgs, aimless immortals, virtual human beings, or to be utterly annihilated by a race of machines.

Nevertheless, these predictions are still valuable, because they do provide a “north-star” for us to guide us to constructive improvements in the human condition through robotics, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, virtual reality as well as warnings of the potential destructive power of technology unconstrained.

One thing is certain about Kurzweil and the other futurists, they have my admiration for taking a strategic, big picture view on where we’re headed and making us think in new and unconventional ways.

Singular Future Or Nightmare Scenario

Machine, Checkmate.

It’s the eternal battle of Man vs. Machine—our biggest fear and greatest hope—which is ultimately superior?

On one hand, we are afraid of being overtaken by the very technology we build, and simultaneously, we are hopeful at what ailments technology can cure and what it can help us achieve.

In spite of our hopes and fears, the overarching question is can we construct computers that will in fact surpass our own distinct human capabilities?

This week IBM’s Supercomputer Watson will face off against two of the all-time-greatest players, Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter in a game of Jeopardy—at stake is $1.5 million in prize money.

Will we see a repeat of technology defeating humankind as happened in 1997, when IBM’s Supercomputer at the time, Deep Blue, beat Garry Kasparov, world-champion, in chess?

While losing some games—whether chess or Jeopardy—is perhaps disheartening to people and their mental acuity; does it really take away from who we are as human beings and what makes us “special” and not mere machines?

For decades, a machine’s ability to act “more human” than a person has been testing the ever-thinning divide between man and machine.

An article in The Atlantic (March 2011) called Mind vs. Machine exposes the race to build computers that can think and communicate like people.

The goal is to use artificial intelligence in machines to rival real intelligence in humans and to fool a panel of judges at the annual meeting for the Loebner Prize and pass the Turing test.

Alan Turing in his 1950’s paper “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” asked whether machines can think? He posited that if a judge could not tell machine from human in text-only communication (to mask the difference in sounds being machines and humans), then the machine was said to win!

“Turing predicted that by the year 2000, computers would be able to fool 30% of human judges after five minutes of conversations.” While this has not happened, it has come close (missing by only one deception) in 2008 with an AI program called Elbot.

Frankly, it is hard for me to really imagine computers that can talk with feelings and expressiveness—based on memories, tragedies, victories, hopes, and fears—the way people do.

Nevertheless, computer programs going back to the Eliza program in 1964 have proven very sophisticated and adept as passing for human, so much so that “The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease" in 1966 said of Eliza that: “several hundred patients an hour could be handled by a computer system designed for this purpose.” Imagine that a computer was proposed functioning as a psychotherapist already 45 years ago!

I understand that Ray Kurzweil has put his money on IBM’s Watson for the Jeopardy match this week, and that certainly is in alignment with his vision of “The Singularity” where machines overtake humans in an exponentially accelerating advancement of technology toward “massive ultra-intelligence.”

Regardless of who wins Jeopardy this week—man or machine—and when computers finally achieve the breakthrough Turing test, I still see humans as distinct from machines, not in their intellectual or physical capabilities, but ultimately in the moral (or some would call it religious) conscience that we carry in each one of us. This is our ability to choose right from wrong—and sometimes to choose poorly.

I remember learning in Jewish Day School (“Yeshiva”) that humans are a combination—half “animal” and half “soul”. The animal part of us lusts after all the is pleasurable, at virtually any cost, but the soul part of us is the spark of the divine that enables us to choose to be more—to do what’s right, despite our animal cravings.

I don’t know of any computer, super or not, that can struggle between pleasure and pain and right and wrong, and seek to grow beyond it’s own mere mortality through conscious acts of selflessness and self-sacrifice.

Even though in our “daily grind,” people may tend to act as automatons, going through the day-to-day motions virtually by rote, it is important to rise above the machine aspect of our lives, take the “bigger picture” view and move our lives towards some goals and objectives that we can ultimately be proud of.

When we look back on our lives, it’s not how successful we became, how much money and material “things” we accumulated—these are the computerized aspects of our lives that we sport. Rather, it’s the good we do for our others that will stay behind long after we are gone. So whether the computer has a bigger database, faster processor, and better analytics—good for it—in the end, it has nothing on us humans.

Man or machine—I say machine, checkmate!

Machine, Checkmate.