Author Archives: Phil Bowermaster

Friday Videos: Google's Self-Driving Car

I think this [Watson AI System] is really a tool that can assist knowledge workers, but isn’t going to replace them outright. Just like we won’t let a GPS drive our car by itself, we’re not going to turn over legal advice to computer. It’s just not ready for prime time, and won’t be in 10 years.


-Vivek Sarkar, Rice University AI expert

My TomTom can’t drive a car, but there are already computer systems that can:

And these robot cars don’t just drive slow or haltingly. They can now safely manage aggressive driving. Here’s a view from the outside of the car:

And here, I think, is the same run from inside the car. If you are subject to motion sickness, you might avoid this one.

This test run, by the way, was at TED.

Friday Videos: Google’s Self-Driving Car

I think this [Watson AI System] is really a tool that can assist knowledge workers, but isn’t going to replace them outright. Just like we won’t let a GPS drive our car by itself, we’re not going to turn over legal advice to computer. It’s just not ready for prime time, and won’t be in 10 years.


-Vivek Sarkar, Rice University AI expert

My TomTom can’t drive a car, but there are already computer systems that can:

And these robot cars don’t just drive slow or haltingly. They can now safely manage aggressive driving. Here’s a view from the outside of the car:

And here, I think, is the same run from inside the car. If you are subject to motion sickness, you might avoid this one.

This test run, by the way, was at TED.

FastForward Radio — The Future We make

Phil  and Stephen discuss futurism as advocacy. How does ideology impact our view of what the future is likely to be? What happens when we stop trying just to predict the future and start trying to make it happen?

PLUS: The future Phil and Stephen are trying to make happen.

 

FFRNewLogo9J.jpg

Listen to internet radio with The Speculist on Blog Talk Radio

The closing song this week was “Don’t You Want Me” by Modern Science. Hear their new EP at modernsciencemusic.com.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Am I too worried about Watson?

In my “Why Watson is Important” post, I asked, “If, instead of general knowledge questions, Watson were optimized to do computer support, teach a class, or practice law, how long until those sorts of jobs start to be done by computers?”

My answer was about 10 years.  The SciGuy blogger wanted to know if I could be right:

But is Watson really up for dispensing legal advice or customer support? Unsure of this myself, I turned to Vivek Sarkar, a computer whiz at Rice University who worked at IBM on the company’s Deep Blue project. I asked, “Is Watson going to take away our jobs?”

“I think that’s a little paranoid,” Sarkar said.

Essentially, Watson is analogous to a GPS system for navigating unstructured information, such as the mess that is the Web. The computer was endowed with the ability to process natural language — in this case questions — and browse the web for answers. It then ranked possible answers as the most likely.

While this ability to churn through the mass of information on the Web gave Watson an edge over its competitors, it was far from perfect, as its infamous answer of Toronto in a Final Jeopardy question (In the category of “U.S. Cities,” the question was: “Its largest airport is named for a World War II hero; its second largest, for a World War II battle.”)

Where Watson falls down, then, is its inability to separate the ludicrous answers from the plausible answers in its Web search. Therefore, Sarkar says:

“I think this is really a tool that can assist knowledge workers, but isn’t going to replace them outright. Just like we won’t let a GPS drive our car by itself, we’re not going to turn over legal advice to computer. It’s just not ready for prime time, and won’t be in 10 years.”

Sarkar’s thinking here is linear.  My GPS can’t drive my car, but there will be automatic automobile systems in 10 years, so his analogy gives small comfort.  Likewise, Watson will not remain frozen, only as capable in 10 years as it is today.  Watson and its descendent’s will continue to be refined and improved – both hardware and software.  


Computers and robots already take jobs.  Manufacturing jobs continue to be automated out of existence. There are fewer bank tellers per capita today than 20 years ago.  Nobody uses a travel agent anymore.  

Again, the computer does not have to be self-aware to take your job.  It just needs to do the job better or cheaper than you.  The SciGuy’s final point:

in a couple of decades we’ll probably all have a Watson equivalent in our pockets — or maybe embedded in our skulls, who knows — but it likely won’t have taken most of our jobs.

Either version of the future – where computers do most knowledge work and probably most physical work too – or where upgraded humans get the work… either is a pretty big deal.  Interesting times are ahead.


Enhanced by Zemanta

The Great Stagnation: Darkest Before the Dawn?

Tyler Cowen has written a short book entitled, “The Great Stagnation.” Pretty downer subject, right? The lengthy subtitle gives a little hope: “How America Ate All The Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got Sick, and Will (Eventually) Feel Better.” Here, briefly, are some of the subjects covered.

Productivity is usually best accomplished by reaching for the next easy innovation – “low-hanging fruit.” Innovation always builds on what came before. Our connundrum: the problems that could be easily solved, have largely been solved. How do we continue to be productive?

[Not everyone agrees that productivity has declined in the United States.]

One answer to the productivity problem is, obviously, to solve harder problems. Solving those problems take more time and resources. Then, often, the payoff is not as great as earlier achievements.

Another issue: much recent innovation has occurred in revenue deficient sectors of the economy (think blogging or podcasting), or job deficient sectors of the economy. Example: the globally important company Twitter has less than 400 employees. Much recent productivity gain has been finding ways to do more work with fewer people. That’s great if you own a company, not so great if you’re looking for work.

Politically we have a system that encourages spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need. Neither party has clean hands on this. We thought we were richer than we were – individually, as a nation, and the world. We built up expectations of what our own lives would be like and, as a nation, made entitlement promises based on money that wasn’t really there.

The Internet has made this recession more tolerable than recessions in the past. Broke? Facebook and Farmville cost practically nothing. You can learn (and blog about) anything you care to. This fun might prolong the recession. In past recessions you’d tighten your belt for awhile, but eventually the desire to live a little would overpower your frugality. That’s not happening so much this time.

The book does a good job outlining our problems. Its less clear on solutions. Financially, what can’t go on forever won’t. But how do we reform? He suggests promoting civil political discourse and raising the social status of scientists and other innovators. Fine. Worthy goals. How?

One thing that he mentioned gives me hope. The rise of the consumer class in China and India will drive the world econony and innovation. Another driver of innovation:

a “cognitive surplus” suggests that billions of people rapidly are becoming smarter and better connected to each other. Self-education has never been more fun, and that is because we are in control of that process like never before.

Looking forward I see a prolonged recession. There are bubbles left to pop. But progress during these down years will go on. I suspect our wars on cancer and infectious diseases will turn our way in the next decade. Eventually we will be driven to a sane energy policy – we will have to produce more of our own energy. Natural gas, coal, and new oil fields will be part of that. Nuclear needs to play a much bigger part.

Things will get better.

In the meantime… see you on Facebook.

 


Check out my highlights and notes on “The Great Stagnation” and other books.

Predator the Musical

Fun Friday video this week. Warning: some blue language – delivered in operatic style.

Dualism–I'm of Two Minds

Very interesting interview with Susan Blackamore in the Third Way. She talks about how she came to abandon paranormal research and discusses some of the reasons why memetics is still regarded as somewhat suspect as a field of study.

Includes some pretty deep philosphical stuff. Blackamore rejects dualism but owns up to how difficult that is:

It ap­pears to be the case that there is a physical world – I can hit it and feel it, I can hit you and you will agree that you felt it. There is undoubtedly my experience of the de­light­ful turquoise colour of your socks, and I know enough about how the brain works to know that other people looking at those socks will call them ‘green’ and others will call them ‘blue’, because we all have different visual systems. Private subjective experiences seem to be a very different kind of thing from the physical world.

Look inside the skull and what have you got? You’ve got a brain made of billions of neurons, and all those neurons are doing is shunting electrical impulses and little molecules of chemicals here and there, back and forth. That’s all they’re doing. How can that be, or give rise to, or be responsible for – I don’t even know what the right word is! – the experience of that turquoise?

That is the mystery and it’s all around us. I cannot honestly deny that I seem to be having an experience of turquoise. There seems to be a me over here and there seems to be a sock over there. Nor can I deny that if we chop open a brain in the lab we will see all these neurons and everything. But these two things seem completely in­commensurable.

 

She goes on to talk about the idea that consciousness is most likely an illusion. That’s the one that always gets me. This always raises a couple of questions:

1. Who exactly is having the illusion?

2. If my consciousness entertains the thought that “consciousness is an illusion,” isn’t that conclusion highly suspect — seeing that it is the result of an illusion? (That’s true of all conclusions, of course, but it seems especially pointed when it comes to that one.)

I’m not a dualist, myself, but if I were I think I would draw the line not between mind and matter but between matter and information.

Dualism–I’m of Two Minds

Very interesting interview with Susan Blackamore in the Third Way. She talks about how she came to abandon paranormal research and discusses some of the reasons why memetics is still regarded as somewhat suspect as a field of study.

Includes some pretty deep philosphical stuff. Blackamore rejects dualism but owns up to how difficult that is:

It ap­pears to be the case that there is a physical world – I can hit it and feel it, I can hit you and you will agree that you felt it. There is undoubtedly my experience of the de­light­ful turquoise colour of your socks, and I know enough about how the brain works to know that other people looking at those socks will call them ‘green’ and others will call them ‘blue’, because we all have different visual systems. Private subjective experiences seem to be a very different kind of thing from the physical world.

Look inside the skull and what have you got? You’ve got a brain made of billions of neurons, and all those neurons are doing is shunting electrical impulses and little molecules of chemicals here and there, back and forth. That’s all they’re doing. How can that be, or give rise to, or be responsible for – I don’t even know what the right word is! – the experience of that turquoise?

That is the mystery and it’s all around us. I cannot honestly deny that I seem to be having an experience of turquoise. There seems to be a me over here and there seems to be a sock over there. Nor can I deny that if we chop open a brain in the lab we will see all these neurons and everything. But these two things seem completely in­commensurable.

 

She goes on to talk about the idea that consciousness is most likely an illusion. That’s the one that always gets me. This always raises a couple of questions:

1. Who exactly is having the illusion?

2. If my consciousness entertains the thought that “consciousness is an illusion,” isn’t that conclusion highly suspect — seeing that it is the result of an illusion? (That’s true of all conclusions, of course, but it seems especially pointed when it comes to that one.)

I’m not a dualist, myself, but if I were I think I would draw the line not between mind and matter but between matter and information.

Push, Pull, Prosumer

Over at my other blog I have some thoughts on the shift from push access of content to pull, and how that is contributing to the emergence of a prosumer economy. We’ve talked recently about how the prosumer model might play a role in replacing traditional employment should radical restructuring of our economy occur. Turns out the prosumer model might also have a role to play in (a somewhat modified version of)  the traditional workplace.

Enhanced by Zemanta

FastForward Radio-the Singularity Network

Phil and Stephen welcome Jean-Sebastien B. Miousse, founder of the Singularity Network, to talk about the relationship between and accelerating technological and societal change.

 

FFRNewLogo9J.jpg


Listen to internet radio with The Speculist on Blog Talk Radio

 

 About Our Guest

Jean-Sebastien B. Miousse is a visionary and futurist. He’s a big believer in the power of networking to make things work, which he has demonstrated through founding and being the driving force behind the Singularity network.

Our guest is also a composer for film/tv/game music. He attended Musitechnic in Montreal, where he studied sound, music and applied digital techniques. He is  a multi-instrumentalist, audio producer and orchestrator, currently producing his own music and preparing his digital release on all online stores including iTunes.
JeanSBM.jpg

Enhanced by Zemanta