Both Android phones and iPhones have voice-controlled interface software, but their interfaces are very different. Android phones have Voice Search where the user speaks "commands" and the phone responds with results (or actions if programmed to do so). iPhones have the now-famous Siri where users "ask" the phone questions or requests and the phone responds in a human-like conversational style.
I'm a bit uncomfortable with using voice interfaces. I'm not sure why: perhaps it's because I don't want to sound like I'm talking to myself, or maybe I don't like the sound of my own voice. I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of talking to my phone or my computer as if it were a person. Once you start doing that I think it's a very short step before you start attributing real human characteristics to the machine.
Computer geeks are well-known for giving clever names to their computers and devices, but for me at least it's not a personal thing. Computers need names to help identify them on a network, and because computer geeks have multiple computers they like to use a naming scheme themed on something they have an interest in. I have named most of my past computers after monsters, and my current laptop is named 'wyvern'. However I have never actually talked to my computers the way many petrolheads are known to talk to their cars.
The episode of Radiolab I linked to below includes three stories of just how easy it is for people to start treating machines that pretend to be people as if they really were people, even when we know at a conscious level that they're machines. For me, the scariest story was the one in Clever Bots about Joseph Weizenbaum's secretary spending many hours after work "talking" to ELIZA about her personal life even though she was fully aware that ELIZA was not human. As someone who has difficulty with the art of human conversation, I can see how I could fall into a similar trap.
After listening to the program I felt that the science supported my concerns and I wasn't being overly paranoid. I support full discrimination between humans and machines. No rights for robots! And a big NO to human-robot marriage!!!
Source: Talking to Machines - Radiolab:
'via Blog this'
Friday, January 6, 2012
Will robo-wars become a cat-and-mouse game?
I think the current state of "robo-wars" is too imbalanced to be sustainable over the long term. The USA has launched over five times as many drone attacks against Pakistan (which it is not "at war" with) than manned bomber attacks in the Kosovo war 10 years ago, and the US military shows no sign of slowing down their use of semi-autonomous war machines.
It would be difficult for opponents of the US to match their level of spending and technology investment to build or acquire equivalent war-bots. However they might be able to find ways to turn these machines against their masters. This could vary from jamming a drone's control signals to take it down and convert them to the enemy's control, to planting malware inside a drone's control systems.
Drone malware doesn't need to be sophisticated to cause a lot of damage. One of the incidents mentioned in this radio program gives a clue on how this could happen. The malware could wait until the drone meets the conditions that suggest it is inside home base (e.g. a GPS location or receiving a control signal to dock) and then tell the drone to "go squirrely" (i.e. spin around in a circle firing all its weapons).
Autonomous and semi-autonomous war machines are amoral: they have no sense of 'loyalty'. It may be impossible to tell by looking at a robot (i.e. the hardware) that it's programming (i.e. the software) has changed. Soldiers are unlikely to be able to tell if and when one of their robots has been reprogrammed and is no longer 'trustworthy'.
As we have seen from Stuxnet, malware can be implanted at a very low level in embedded systems. When such malware activates, it can be extremely difficult to distinguish their effects from unintended software bugs.
Of course, once such war-bot malware appears, you can be sure that countries like the USA will work on developing countermeasures. A new technology cat-and-mouse game will then join the existing games of virus/antivirus and black-hat/white-hat.
Source: The morality of robo-wars: PW Singer - The Philosopher's Zone - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation):
'via Blog this'
It would be difficult for opponents of the US to match their level of spending and technology investment to build or acquire equivalent war-bots. However they might be able to find ways to turn these machines against their masters. This could vary from jamming a drone's control signals to take it down and convert them to the enemy's control, to planting malware inside a drone's control systems.
Drone malware doesn't need to be sophisticated to cause a lot of damage. One of the incidents mentioned in this radio program gives a clue on how this could happen. The malware could wait until the drone meets the conditions that suggest it is inside home base (e.g. a GPS location or receiving a control signal to dock) and then tell the drone to "go squirrely" (i.e. spin around in a circle firing all its weapons).
Autonomous and semi-autonomous war machines are amoral: they have no sense of 'loyalty'. It may be impossible to tell by looking at a robot (i.e. the hardware) that it's programming (i.e. the software) has changed. Soldiers are unlikely to be able to tell if and when one of their robots has been reprogrammed and is no longer 'trustworthy'.
As we have seen from Stuxnet, malware can be implanted at a very low level in embedded systems. When such malware activates, it can be extremely difficult to distinguish their effects from unintended software bugs.
Of course, once such war-bot malware appears, you can be sure that countries like the USA will work on developing countermeasures. A new technology cat-and-mouse game will then join the existing games of virus/antivirus and black-hat/white-hat.
Source: The morality of robo-wars: PW Singer - The Philosopher's Zone - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation):
'via Blog this'
Indoors: Climate-Controlled Paradise or Toxic Gas Chamber?
Some of my work colleagues are a bit picky about the environmental conditions inside the office. The pickiest of them all is the group that I call "Management".
Management is very sensitive to bathroom odors, so makes a bit deal about using "air fresheners" to reduce the offensiveness of the smell. Management is also sensitive to temperature, and likes to keep the air conditioning set to a nice cool temperature. Opening the windows automatically disables the air conditioning, so Management usually keeps them closed.
Not much research has been done on indoor environments until relatively recently. One of the findings mentioned in this Future Tense program is that the chemicals in many air fresheners react to ozone to create toxic by-products. Most indoor ozone comes from outdoor air but is also generated by some equipment like laser printers. However once these toxic by-products are formed in a sealed indoors environment they tend to hang around for a while.
While these by-products are not being formed in high enough concentrations to cause office workers to suddenly drop dead all over the world, we don't yet know the health effects of long-term exposure to low concentrations of these by-products. For now, the best advise is to take it easy with the air fresheners and open the windows every once in a while.
Source: Indoor ecology - Future Tense - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation):
'via Blog this'
Management is very sensitive to bathroom odors, so makes a bit deal about using "air fresheners" to reduce the offensiveness of the smell. Management is also sensitive to temperature, and likes to keep the air conditioning set to a nice cool temperature. Opening the windows automatically disables the air conditioning, so Management usually keeps them closed.
Not much research has been done on indoor environments until relatively recently. One of the findings mentioned in this Future Tense program is that the chemicals in many air fresheners react to ozone to create toxic by-products. Most indoor ozone comes from outdoor air but is also generated by some equipment like laser printers. However once these toxic by-products are formed in a sealed indoors environment they tend to hang around for a while.
While these by-products are not being formed in high enough concentrations to cause office workers to suddenly drop dead all over the world, we don't yet know the health effects of long-term exposure to low concentrations of these by-products. For now, the best advise is to take it easy with the air fresheners and open the windows every once in a while.
Source: Indoor ecology - Future Tense - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation):
'via Blog this'
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Proving atheists wrong with parodies
This image seems to be making the rounds on the Internet recently:
My first reaction was the same as that of many others: How could someone make an argument riddled with so many flaws of logic and science? They must have been morons!
After thinking about it more my questions changed to: How could someone make an argument riddled with so many flaws of logic and science? They must have been smartasses!
I thought it was a bit suspicious that it was the image itself was being circulated and not some site hosting it. No attribution on the image makes it hard to find its source and know who to blame. I thought it very suspicious that the author could handle multiplication and division of numbers in scientific notation, but somehow completely missed learning about the water cycle in school.
I'm now convinced that the image was created by some trolls as a parody, and not by serious Young Earth Creationists. However that hasn't stopped many people from laughing at it, and I'm sure there was derision in some of that laughter. Most responses were of the form "LOL don't they know about peeing?" A small few used it as a springboard to mount attacks against Creationists.
This phenomenon where people cannot distinguish between extremist views and parodies of such views is so common on the Internet that there is a name for it: Poe's law. In this particular case I was able to sniff out the parody even without the smiley-face, but I may not be so lucky next time. One should be careful of taking extremist viewpoints from anonymous or pseudonymous sources too seriously, as you risk fighting a position that nobody seriously holds.
Beyond the parody value, I think the argument is potentially useful as a critical-thinking exercise for middle school children (grades 7-10 or thereabouts). Identifying flawed logic in arguments is an important skill, and I'm not sure that modern education systems do a good job of teaching it.
My first reaction was the same as that of many others: How could someone make an argument riddled with so many flaws of logic and science? They must have been morons!
After thinking about it more my questions changed to: How could someone make an argument riddled with so many flaws of logic and science? They must have been smartasses!
I thought it was a bit suspicious that it was the image itself was being circulated and not some site hosting it. No attribution on the image makes it hard to find its source and know who to blame. I thought it very suspicious that the author could handle multiplication and division of numbers in scientific notation, but somehow completely missed learning about the water cycle in school.
I'm now convinced that the image was created by some trolls as a parody, and not by serious Young Earth Creationists. However that hasn't stopped many people from laughing at it, and I'm sure there was derision in some of that laughter. Most responses were of the form "LOL don't they know about peeing?" A small few used it as a springboard to mount attacks against Creationists.
This phenomenon where people cannot distinguish between extremist views and parodies of such views is so common on the Internet that there is a name for it: Poe's law. In this particular case I was able to sniff out the parody even without the smiley-face, but I may not be so lucky next time. One should be careful of taking extremist viewpoints from anonymous or pseudonymous sources too seriously, as you risk fighting a position that nobody seriously holds.
Beyond the parody value, I think the argument is potentially useful as a critical-thinking exercise for middle school children (grades 7-10 or thereabouts). Identifying flawed logic in arguments is an important skill, and I'm not sure that modern education systems do a good job of teaching it.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
My Paranoia of Social Networks
When I learned about MySpace, my greatest fear was that it would expose my personal information to identity thieves who would proceed to ruin my credit.
So I didn't sign up for MySpace.
When I learned about FaceBook, my greatest fear was that it would overshare personal information to the wrong people in my social groups and damage my relationships.
So if you have to ask...
When I learned about Google+, my greatest fear was that Google would eventually collect enough information about me that they could kidnap me and replace me with a replicant and nobody — not even my own family — would notice the difference.
So I signed up for Google+.
Even if my worst fears about Google+ come true, there's a good chance that my replicant would do a better job of being me than I have so far.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Moving Back Down Under
In less than two weeks I'll be moving back home.
For those that don't know, home for me is Sydney, Australia.
I have spent 13 years in Charlotte, North Carolina, and 12 of those years working for Carolinas Healthcare System (CHS for short). I had the pleasure of knowing and working with a number of good people at CHS. I also learned a lot about enterprise application development, from system integration to network application security to software design and architecture to maintenance and troubleshooting. I suspect there are not many IT environments where I could have learned so much about so many things as I did there, and I hope to put the lessons I learned to good use going forward.
My last day at CHS was this past Tuesday, November 30. It was quite a busy day for me, working to complete some final tasks even while I was finishing my packing and saying goodbyes, and I didn't get around to everyone I wanted to see that day. I think my supervisor anticipated this, which is why he scheduled my going away lunch for Thursday. It worked out better that way as I was able to say goodbye to everyone in my team at the lunch without me feeling rushed to get back to the office.
On Friday I'm making a day trip to Raleigh to attend CFLunch and chat a bit with members of the fine ColdFusion developer community in that area. After communicating with him so many times via email, Instant Messaging, and Skype, I look forward to talking in person to Model-Glue's Fearless Leader! On the way back to Charlotte I'll make a stop to visit an ex-boss and mentor. I have a lot of respect for him because he understood the software development process ... and because he wasn't afraid to kick my arse when I needed it :-)
Next week I plan to make farewell appearances at a CharLUG Mini Meet and an Adobe Charlotte December meeting.
The rest of my time will be spent panicking, furiously packing what I can fit in my luggage, and trying to find ways to sell or otherwise dispose of my furniture, electronics (including a CRT HDTV & 2 PCs), and anything else I happen to have. If you think I may have anything of interest to you, please contact me!
PS. You may also contact me if you're in the Charlotte area and are interested in a farewell L4D2 Steam LAN party: I have gift copies for people who can bring their own rig!
PPS. I regret that I won't be able to attend the CharlotteJS Holiday Party. CharlotteJS is a great group and I learned a lot from the meetups I attended. Garrett is a young but passionate and dedicated developer, and with him at the helm of CharlotteJS it's bound to keep getting better and better!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)