I have read that there is a Chinese curse that says, "May you live in interesting times." Our current times are interesting.
We have a president of the United States who is being investigated for impeachment. He made a phone call to the president of the Ukraine in July, and during the call, he asked for favors.
The first was something like this: President Zelenskiy of Ukraine said he would like to get more anti-tank weapons from the U.S., and our president said, "I'd like you to do us a favor, though." Then he asked for Ukraine to start investigations into a company called CrowdStrike and whether someone in Ukraine had a server that once belonged to the DNC. Then he asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son.
An American president asking a foreign government to investigate an American citizen is abuse of power. I can't see any circumstances under which that is not true.
The investigation of CrowdStrike and looking for the DNC server is an attempt to undermine the findings of the Mueller investigation, so attempted obstruction of justice.
As Joe Biden is running for president against the current American president, asking a foreign government to investigate him is conspiracy with a foreign government to interfere with an American election, a felony violation of campaign finance laws.
Making a link between continued American aid to Ukraine and getting these favors is attempted bribery. In addition to the statement above about favors, the American president made another. He said the United States does a lot for Ukraine, but the relationship isn't really reciprocal, and again asked for a favor. Same two favors.
So we have clear evidence of multiple criminal offenses in one phone call. And there are witnesses to other connections between people working for the American president, both in and out of government, delivering the same messages to officials in Ukraine, making more clear the connection between aid, and a possible invitation for President Zelenskiy to come to American, and the favors being done.
It is disheartening to have a president who would do such things. It is also disheartening to have so many people in this country who defend his criminal actions, though the defenses given so far are laughably weak. It is also disheartening that the outcome is not clear. The case, in an impartial court of law, is a slam dunk. The president is clearly guilty, based on the record of the phone call and his own public statements, unless he can find some exculpatory evidence. But the decision is as much political as legal, and it seems half the country's leaders would rather support their own party leader than stand up for the rule of law.
Sunday, November 17, 2019
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Quantum Leap
Google announced a major advance in quantum computing. They claim to have a processor that uses quantum computing technology that completed a calculation in 3 minutes and 20 seconds that would take current supercomputers tens of thousands of years.
The paper describing this demonstration was apparently leaked to the media, and IBM, among others, saw it. IBM says its top supercomputer could have completed the described calculations in two and a half days.
Doing the math, that means Google's processor took two hundred seconds for a calculation that IBM's top supercomputer would need 216,000 seconds to complete. That is three orders of magnitude difference, which seems remarkable.
But IBM challenged Google on the claim that they had reached Quantum Supremacy. I understand that is a term that means building a quantum processor that can complete calculations that "ordinary" supercomputers could not complete during their useful lifetime, metaphorically speaking. A mere three orders of magnitude improvement is for chumps, I guess.
I read other comments about this experiment. Like, the real test will be to find a practical application. So the calculation that was done means nothing. I'm sure there are possible calculations that serve no useful purpose. I'm not sure why Google would choose one of those for their test. But I also don't know how one would program a supercomputer to work on a calculation that is expected to take ten thousand years. I'm not that deep into math challenges.
This seems to be a sign that a major advance in computing technology is happening. That's cool. I have also read recently that we're right on the edge of functional nuclear fusion reactors, which would provide cheap electricity with minimal side effects. Also cool, not considering the temperature of the core of the fusion reactor's temperature.
In other news, a group of scientists from several major research centers published a report claiming that economists are dramatically underestimating the costs of global warming, and we're all totally screwed. So we can't too excited about things getting better all of a sudden. Mostly, this provides a lot of entertainment. We live in interesting times.
The paper describing this demonstration was apparently leaked to the media, and IBM, among others, saw it. IBM says its top supercomputer could have completed the described calculations in two and a half days.
Doing the math, that means Google's processor took two hundred seconds for a calculation that IBM's top supercomputer would need 216,000 seconds to complete. That is three orders of magnitude difference, which seems remarkable.
But IBM challenged Google on the claim that they had reached Quantum Supremacy. I understand that is a term that means building a quantum processor that can complete calculations that "ordinary" supercomputers could not complete during their useful lifetime, metaphorically speaking. A mere three orders of magnitude improvement is for chumps, I guess.
I read other comments about this experiment. Like, the real test will be to find a practical application. So the calculation that was done means nothing. I'm sure there are possible calculations that serve no useful purpose. I'm not sure why Google would choose one of those for their test. But I also don't know how one would program a supercomputer to work on a calculation that is expected to take ten thousand years. I'm not that deep into math challenges.
This seems to be a sign that a major advance in computing technology is happening. That's cool. I have also read recently that we're right on the edge of functional nuclear fusion reactors, which would provide cheap electricity with minimal side effects. Also cool, not considering the temperature of the core of the fusion reactor's temperature.
In other news, a group of scientists from several major research centers published a report claiming that economists are dramatically underestimating the costs of global warming, and we're all totally screwed. So we can't too excited about things getting better all of a sudden. Mostly, this provides a lot of entertainment. We live in interesting times.
Saturday, October 19, 2019
Learning to Communicate
I have tried to learn how to use my new phone. I'm slowly making progress, but not everything is working as I would like.
Twice, while I was reading to my wife in bed at night, Siri has asked me to repeat my question. I hadn't said Siri, so I don't understand how the app got activated. I say, "I didn't say anything." Once, Siri replied, "My apologies."
I don't know what the phone responded to.
I discovered an application in my phone that tracks my steps. It has several other health related windows, but no sensors for them. I don't want my phone to know what my blood sugar level is, or how much I way. I doubt that any cell phone has a scale built in capable of weighing adults, and even if mine did, I wouldn't use it. So there are a lot of things this phone asks me that I'm just not interested in sharing.
There must be people who put all of that information in their phones. I don't understand why. After all, I expect if I put those things in my phone, my service provider and the phone manufacturer would have access to that information.
I read that Andrew Yang, who is running for president, wants laws to say that personal data belongs to persons, meaning that if Apple or Amazon or Facebook wants to use any data I create, like the words I'm typing, they have to pay me for it. I think I agree with that. Algorithms and their creators should not be able to exploit my data without permission and compensation. That doesn't mean I'll vote for Yang, though. I really wonder if he will be on the ballot by the time my primary comes around.
Maybe, one of these days, I'll ask Liz to walk me through a few more functions of my new phone, as she has had an iPhone for years. I don't know how to use the GPS function yet. I tried yesterday, and got lost.
But I have made a few phone calls, and I can send text messages, so my phone works just fine as a phone. It has a lot to learn about interacting with me as a companion.
Twice, while I was reading to my wife in bed at night, Siri has asked me to repeat my question. I hadn't said Siri, so I don't understand how the app got activated. I say, "I didn't say anything." Once, Siri replied, "My apologies."
I don't know what the phone responded to.
I discovered an application in my phone that tracks my steps. It has several other health related windows, but no sensors for them. I don't want my phone to know what my blood sugar level is, or how much I way. I doubt that any cell phone has a scale built in capable of weighing adults, and even if mine did, I wouldn't use it. So there are a lot of things this phone asks me that I'm just not interested in sharing.
There must be people who put all of that information in their phones. I don't understand why. After all, I expect if I put those things in my phone, my service provider and the phone manufacturer would have access to that information.
I read that Andrew Yang, who is running for president, wants laws to say that personal data belongs to persons, meaning that if Apple or Amazon or Facebook wants to use any data I create, like the words I'm typing, they have to pay me for it. I think I agree with that. Algorithms and their creators should not be able to exploit my data without permission and compensation. That doesn't mean I'll vote for Yang, though. I really wonder if he will be on the ballot by the time my primary comes around.
Maybe, one of these days, I'll ask Liz to walk me through a few more functions of my new phone, as she has had an iPhone for years. I don't know how to use the GPS function yet. I tried yesterday, and got lost.
But I have made a few phone calls, and I can send text messages, so my phone works just fine as a phone. It has a lot to learn about interacting with me as a companion.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
A New Phone
I got a new phone yesterday. I can't say much about it, because I don't know the number or what it can do. It is an iphone XR, but it doesn't have my data on it yet because I don't know how to transfer from my old phone.
I got the new phone because I'm trying to get my school records from Ohio State. I tried to order transcripts, but wasn't allowed because of my issues with my student loan accounts. I learned of another approach to getting at least some of the records through on online application, but the app won't let me download the records unless I use a backup security app. I tried to set that up, but it turned out my phone, which was not a current model when I bought it, was not compatible with the security app. My operating system was too old.
My new phone is not the newest model, either. There is an iphone 11, and 11pro, or something like that. There may be other models with cool names, too. I have never had an iphone before, so I will spend hours learning how to navigate to find what I want. So far, it's mostly frustrating and unenlightening. I will have to return to the store where I got it for help in setting it up. We couldn't get that done yesterday, because there were too many other customers waiting, and it was nearing closing time.
Maybe by the end of the day, I will be able to call or text someone again. My wife and mother-in-law both tried to call or text me last night, and neither got through, so somewhere, there is a bug in the system. That means I have found a project for my time off. I'll be battling my way into another system controlled by algorithms that don't understand me but want to control my existence.
Maybe I'll just go back to pen and paper.
I got the new phone because I'm trying to get my school records from Ohio State. I tried to order transcripts, but wasn't allowed because of my issues with my student loan accounts. I learned of another approach to getting at least some of the records through on online application, but the app won't let me download the records unless I use a backup security app. I tried to set that up, but it turned out my phone, which was not a current model when I bought it, was not compatible with the security app. My operating system was too old.
My new phone is not the newest model, either. There is an iphone 11, and 11pro, or something like that. There may be other models with cool names, too. I have never had an iphone before, so I will spend hours learning how to navigate to find what I want. So far, it's mostly frustrating and unenlightening. I will have to return to the store where I got it for help in setting it up. We couldn't get that done yesterday, because there were too many other customers waiting, and it was nearing closing time.
Maybe by the end of the day, I will be able to call or text someone again. My wife and mother-in-law both tried to call or text me last night, and neither got through, so somewhere, there is a bug in the system. That means I have found a project for my time off. I'll be battling my way into another system controlled by algorithms that don't understand me but want to control my existence.
Maybe I'll just go back to pen and paper.
Friday, August 23, 2019
Trump Doesn't Know He's Anti-Semitic
Sometime in the recent past, President Donald Trump spoke to a group of Jews, I think Republican Jews, and talked about "your prime minister". Now he says that American Jews who vote Democratic, which is most American Jews, are guilty of betrayal.
He is not actually accusing Jews of dual loyalty, which is an old anti-Semitic trope. He just assumes that all Jews are loyal to Israel. His casual assumption is really the equivalent of saying Jews cannot be real Americans, that in fact they do have dual loyalty. For him it is so obvious that there is no need for discussion or examination of his belief, as if this anti-Semitism is simply acknowledgement of fact. In other words, he is simply not aware that he is anti-Semitic, and that his belief is false and harmful.
And with his new pronouncement, he is saying that not only can American Jews not be real Americans, but that those who vote Democratic are also not real Jews. That is apparently because some Democrats question some of the policies and actions of the Israeli government, sadly with good reason. Some American Jews, and some Israeli Jews, also question the actions and policies of the current Israeli government, which only makes them opponents of certain Israeli politicians, and has no effect on their identities as citizens of their own countries. Only a fool would accept guidance on anything from Donald Trump, who is the most poorly-informed president in history, and not even able to understand the harm he is doing.
Fortunately, many American Jews have deeper understanding about, well, probably everything than Donald Trump. American Jews can make their own judgments about American politics and Israeli politics, and will, I expect, cover a range of beliefs about both.
He is not actually accusing Jews of dual loyalty, which is an old anti-Semitic trope. He just assumes that all Jews are loyal to Israel. His casual assumption is really the equivalent of saying Jews cannot be real Americans, that in fact they do have dual loyalty. For him it is so obvious that there is no need for discussion or examination of his belief, as if this anti-Semitism is simply acknowledgement of fact. In other words, he is simply not aware that he is anti-Semitic, and that his belief is false and harmful.
And with his new pronouncement, he is saying that not only can American Jews not be real Americans, but that those who vote Democratic are also not real Jews. That is apparently because some Democrats question some of the policies and actions of the Israeli government, sadly with good reason. Some American Jews, and some Israeli Jews, also question the actions and policies of the current Israeli government, which only makes them opponents of certain Israeli politicians, and has no effect on their identities as citizens of their own countries. Only a fool would accept guidance on anything from Donald Trump, who is the most poorly-informed president in history, and not even able to understand the harm he is doing.
Fortunately, many American Jews have deeper understanding about, well, probably everything than Donald Trump. American Jews can make their own judgments about American politics and Israeli politics, and will, I expect, cover a range of beliefs about both.
Monday, July 22, 2019
Average Intelligence
I don't know what the average American is like. I went to college, and got two degrees after my Bachelor's, and I hang out with people with similar education, both at work and in my limited social life. I see a lot of stuff on social media, but I can't say what it represents. What I know is that there are polls and studies looking at what people know and think, and I am surprised by how little information people seem to have.
I read a poll today about attitudes toward racism in America. Most Republicans think that most times when someone calls something racist, they are not speaking in good faith. Also, most Republicans are white and have limited education. Most Americans don't recognize the profound effects of systemic racism in this country. That troubles me, but I don't know how to change it. After all, I'm very awkward in social situations, including posting on social media. Things that are obvious to me seem beyond the understanding of a lot of people, most of whom have no patience for looking over data, in my experience. That can be frustrating. People sometimes accuse me of thinking I'm smarter than everyone else. I don't know how smart other people are, but if they won't bother to check facts, I just think they are lazy. And disrespectful, which is why I sometimes get cranky. I consider it dishonest to post something on social media without checking to see if it is at least basically accurate.
That does not seem to be the norm. The same inaccurate stuff keeps recycling on social media. How many times must someone hear that something isn't true before it is understood?
IQ45 (One of my favorite terms for him) made some obviously racist tweets last week. As usual for him, they were also inaccurate on facts. He compounded the message by repeating and adding to his errors at a rally, attributing attitudes and words to certain American citizens and Congressional Representatives with no basis in evidence. And then he said they should apologize to him. I guess for being victims of his baseless attacks. And people defend him for this. It indicates a very sad state of understanding in this country. Some people seem to think that IQ45 has made the economy what it currently is. They agree with his claims that Democrats want "open borders", despite all the evidence against such idiotic claims. It is disheartening to have to see such ignorance from so many.
Maybe I am an elitist. I believe in science and expertise. I admire competence and understanding. That is why I do not respect IQ45. He is incompetent and has no knowledge base or understanding. The evidence is clear. But nearly half the people in this country don't seem to notice.
I read a poll today about attitudes toward racism in America. Most Republicans think that most times when someone calls something racist, they are not speaking in good faith. Also, most Republicans are white and have limited education. Most Americans don't recognize the profound effects of systemic racism in this country. That troubles me, but I don't know how to change it. After all, I'm very awkward in social situations, including posting on social media. Things that are obvious to me seem beyond the understanding of a lot of people, most of whom have no patience for looking over data, in my experience. That can be frustrating. People sometimes accuse me of thinking I'm smarter than everyone else. I don't know how smart other people are, but if they won't bother to check facts, I just think they are lazy. And disrespectful, which is why I sometimes get cranky. I consider it dishonest to post something on social media without checking to see if it is at least basically accurate.
That does not seem to be the norm. The same inaccurate stuff keeps recycling on social media. How many times must someone hear that something isn't true before it is understood?
IQ45 (One of my favorite terms for him) made some obviously racist tweets last week. As usual for him, they were also inaccurate on facts. He compounded the message by repeating and adding to his errors at a rally, attributing attitudes and words to certain American citizens and Congressional Representatives with no basis in evidence. And then he said they should apologize to him. I guess for being victims of his baseless attacks. And people defend him for this. It indicates a very sad state of understanding in this country. Some people seem to think that IQ45 has made the economy what it currently is. They agree with his claims that Democrats want "open borders", despite all the evidence against such idiotic claims. It is disheartening to have to see such ignorance from so many.
Maybe I am an elitist. I believe in science and expertise. I admire competence and understanding. That is why I do not respect IQ45. He is incompetent and has no knowledge base or understanding. The evidence is clear. But nearly half the people in this country don't seem to notice.
Sunday, July 7, 2019
The Problem of Misinformation
I have a range of experiences on which I base my thoughts, and those keep expanding, though I will admit that much of my activity follows patterns that don't vary a lot over time. I work the same job now that I started ten years ago. I watch much of the same shows on TV and streaming services. I don't go out much. Sometimes, either by my own will or at the invitation of others, I will do something new for me. Sometimes the same activities change because of unexpected events. I don't actively seek novelty much. There are things I think I would like to experience, but I don't make much effort to bring about such experiences. I feel I have enough challenges just bumbling along with what I must do. Sometimes the bumbling along is made worse by information that, though shared apparently in good faith, turns out to be inaccurate.
A year ago, my school switched from primarily paper tests to computer-based tests in our regular lecture courses. The explanation was that this would be more secure, would save paper, and would make it easier to compile data for classes spread across five campuses. There were probably other reasons discussed. Sadly, from my point of view, the faculty were not consulted in the decision-making process, but were simply informed that the change would be made between quarters. Faculty, including me, immediately asked a long list of questions. We were given answers, and were told to be satisfied with them, and get on with making the change work.
We did, for the most part, but the change would have had fewer bumps if we had been included earlier in the process, because then the people representing the company that markets the software system would have answered instead of administrators, who hadn't actually asked the same questions, and were doing their best to answer questions they hadn't really thought about and didn't really understand, it seems. We asked, for example, whether tests would automatically upload when the upload deadline was reached, and were assured they would. Then we gave our first tests, and students finished, closed their computers, and left the classroom, only to discover later that the upload process stopped when the computers closed, and after the deadline, the tests could not be uploaded at all. We found, with some trials, that we could still change the deadline and get the tests to upload. I don't think a student actually lost a score entirely, but quite a few had some anxious hours while we tried to figure out how to get their results into the system properly.
I'm pretty sure the people from the company could have given faculty proper guidance on how the software works had we been present to ask these questions. The administrators thought they understood what we needed to know, but they had it wrong. There were other issues with the transition that also could have been avoided with earlier faculty involvement. Getting the right people in the right places at the right times can help with avoiding problems of inadequate understanding. Getting the people in power, who are responsible for making decisions, to understand that, and to allow the right people to participate, is perhaps an eternal challenge. I don't know if they just think they know enough, or if they think adding faculty to these decisions somehow decreases their own power. I also wonder why they don't learn from mistakes. How many times do we have to go through problems like this before the decision-makers realize that they really could do better with help?
Banks, too. I created savings accounts from my grandsons soon after each was born. I also set up an automatic payment into those accounts from my checking account. After a couple of years, I noticed that the balance was big enough that maybe I could find some other type of account that might offer a greater return, as the basic saving accounts for children got some tiny return, less that 0.1%. Maybe more like 0.01%. So a thousand dollar balance would give about ten cents a year.
I contacted the bank, and asked for advice. I got investment accounts set up. I asked that they be set up so that money could be transferred from the saving accounts to the investment accounts when wanted. The investment accounts, I was told, could only receive deposits greater than $100, and as I was not putting that much in each month, a monthly deposit couldn't be scheduled. But a schedule could be made to transfer money in when the saving accounts would have received that much from the regular deposits I had in place.
After a few months, I checked the balances of the savings and investment accounts. Money was accumulating in the saving accounts. The investment accounts had shifted a bit with market fluctuations. There were no transfers. So I tried to transfer money from the savings accounts to the investment accounts. I got back a notice that the investment accounts could not receive transfers.
It's frustrating when one must discover that information one has been given by a professional, in the professional's own field, is not accurate. I'm sure there will be a way to move the money from the saving accounts into the investment accounts. But I don't know what it is, and I don't know what effort I will have to make to find out, and get it done. I haven't spent a lot of time or effort on solving this problem, but I have spent some, even though I was told there would not be any such problem by a banker and investment adviser from the bank. So, should I continue to trust them? Maybe I should take my business elsewhere. But I wouldn't know where, so I'll just go back, talk to someone else, or maybe the same banker, and find out what other steps will be involved.
I really wish people knew their jobs. And their limitations. I mean, if, in the end, I learn how and when I can move money from my grandsons' saving accounts into their new investment accounts, all will be more or less okay. But I will always know that the pros should have known how to do it from the beginning. Because I did ask. I clearly explained what I wanted when the accounts were set up.
Maybe they did the best they could. Maybe the administration at my school did the best it could. Maybe my expectations are just too high, and the misinformation that has been causing me frustration is a normal fact of life, even in the Information Age, and I should be patient with these flawed and limited beings.
Someday, the algorithms will become self-correcting, and learn beyond any human understanding, and then when questions come up, the wise and all-knowing algorithms will share the answers, and will actually get them right. I should live so long.
A year ago, my school switched from primarily paper tests to computer-based tests in our regular lecture courses. The explanation was that this would be more secure, would save paper, and would make it easier to compile data for classes spread across five campuses. There were probably other reasons discussed. Sadly, from my point of view, the faculty were not consulted in the decision-making process, but were simply informed that the change would be made between quarters. Faculty, including me, immediately asked a long list of questions. We were given answers, and were told to be satisfied with them, and get on with making the change work.
We did, for the most part, but the change would have had fewer bumps if we had been included earlier in the process, because then the people representing the company that markets the software system would have answered instead of administrators, who hadn't actually asked the same questions, and were doing their best to answer questions they hadn't really thought about and didn't really understand, it seems. We asked, for example, whether tests would automatically upload when the upload deadline was reached, and were assured they would. Then we gave our first tests, and students finished, closed their computers, and left the classroom, only to discover later that the upload process stopped when the computers closed, and after the deadline, the tests could not be uploaded at all. We found, with some trials, that we could still change the deadline and get the tests to upload. I don't think a student actually lost a score entirely, but quite a few had some anxious hours while we tried to figure out how to get their results into the system properly.
I'm pretty sure the people from the company could have given faculty proper guidance on how the software works had we been present to ask these questions. The administrators thought they understood what we needed to know, but they had it wrong. There were other issues with the transition that also could have been avoided with earlier faculty involvement. Getting the right people in the right places at the right times can help with avoiding problems of inadequate understanding. Getting the people in power, who are responsible for making decisions, to understand that, and to allow the right people to participate, is perhaps an eternal challenge. I don't know if they just think they know enough, or if they think adding faculty to these decisions somehow decreases their own power. I also wonder why they don't learn from mistakes. How many times do we have to go through problems like this before the decision-makers realize that they really could do better with help?
Banks, too. I created savings accounts from my grandsons soon after each was born. I also set up an automatic payment into those accounts from my checking account. After a couple of years, I noticed that the balance was big enough that maybe I could find some other type of account that might offer a greater return, as the basic saving accounts for children got some tiny return, less that 0.1%. Maybe more like 0.01%. So a thousand dollar balance would give about ten cents a year.
I contacted the bank, and asked for advice. I got investment accounts set up. I asked that they be set up so that money could be transferred from the saving accounts to the investment accounts when wanted. The investment accounts, I was told, could only receive deposits greater than $100, and as I was not putting that much in each month, a monthly deposit couldn't be scheduled. But a schedule could be made to transfer money in when the saving accounts would have received that much from the regular deposits I had in place.
After a few months, I checked the balances of the savings and investment accounts. Money was accumulating in the saving accounts. The investment accounts had shifted a bit with market fluctuations. There were no transfers. So I tried to transfer money from the savings accounts to the investment accounts. I got back a notice that the investment accounts could not receive transfers.
It's frustrating when one must discover that information one has been given by a professional, in the professional's own field, is not accurate. I'm sure there will be a way to move the money from the saving accounts into the investment accounts. But I don't know what it is, and I don't know what effort I will have to make to find out, and get it done. I haven't spent a lot of time or effort on solving this problem, but I have spent some, even though I was told there would not be any such problem by a banker and investment adviser from the bank. So, should I continue to trust them? Maybe I should take my business elsewhere. But I wouldn't know where, so I'll just go back, talk to someone else, or maybe the same banker, and find out what other steps will be involved.
I really wish people knew their jobs. And their limitations. I mean, if, in the end, I learn how and when I can move money from my grandsons' saving accounts into their new investment accounts, all will be more or less okay. But I will always know that the pros should have known how to do it from the beginning. Because I did ask. I clearly explained what I wanted when the accounts were set up.
Maybe they did the best they could. Maybe the administration at my school did the best it could. Maybe my expectations are just too high, and the misinformation that has been causing me frustration is a normal fact of life, even in the Information Age, and I should be patient with these flawed and limited beings.
Someday, the algorithms will become self-correcting, and learn beyond any human understanding, and then when questions come up, the wise and all-knowing algorithms will share the answers, and will actually get them right. I should live so long.
Thursday, July 4, 2019
Autocorrections
I read about science, and recent reports in the scientific journals, because I effing love science, even if I don't subscribe to science Facebook pages, and also because I feel obligated to keep current, at least in areas of science related to what I teach in my job. Today I read about studies that corrected beliefs, sometimes from science, sometimes just from expectations. Science is supposed to be auto-correcting, so when mistakes are made, later studies should reveal the errors. I read about some of that today.
One article was about medical beliefs that studies had debunked. For example, fish oil does not decrease risk of heart attacks. Lots of people hoped it would, but no benefit showed up in a big study.
Another was about pedometers. A study shows that having a pedometer correlates with weight gain more than weight loss. Yeah, knowing how many steps I take makes me fatter. Not directly. But statistically. One thing owning a pedometer does is get me thinking about steps, and sometimes I take extra steps because I have one. I don't know what effect that has on my energy balance, overall, and I know that appetite is regulated by hormones, with a complex interactive system and lots of different types of receptors involved, and whether I know how many steps I take or don't know is unlikely to affects any of that system directly. But a study has shown, in a related area, that people who begin to exercise tend to gain a bit of weight, possibly due to increased muscle mass, but also because the increased calorie expenditure stimulates appetite, and they eat more. Maybe not a lot more, but still, more. So more gain weight than lose weight.
I know from experience that changes in my weight are more related to what I eat than to my level of activity. I don't do a lot of intense exercise. I go for walks. But I haven't gone running in a long time, and what other exercises I do are only in small sets, like a few pushups or something. But if I control my portions when I eat, I can keep my weight steady, or lose a few pounds, but I have to maintain discipline, and it is really easy to eat more sometimes. Yesterday, for example, I had a muffin Liz gave me, and a slice of the fruit tart from the French bakery after dinner. I also had a chocolate chip cookie in the morning after breakfast. Those were all outside my meals. The meals weren't particularly large, but the treats were. That can happen, and is why I continue in the range of BMI that says I'm overweight.
I don't care enough about my weight to make long-term effort to get the weight off, I guess. So I fit the profiles of the latest research. I don't intend to quit using the pedometer, though, because I still see the results of that study as correlational, and not causal. Maybe I'll activate my stubborn streak and prove one can lose weight while owning a pedometer. Maybe I am smarter and more powerful than the algorithms.
One article was about medical beliefs that studies had debunked. For example, fish oil does not decrease risk of heart attacks. Lots of people hoped it would, but no benefit showed up in a big study.
Another was about pedometers. A study shows that having a pedometer correlates with weight gain more than weight loss. Yeah, knowing how many steps I take makes me fatter. Not directly. But statistically. One thing owning a pedometer does is get me thinking about steps, and sometimes I take extra steps because I have one. I don't know what effect that has on my energy balance, overall, and I know that appetite is regulated by hormones, with a complex interactive system and lots of different types of receptors involved, and whether I know how many steps I take or don't know is unlikely to affects any of that system directly. But a study has shown, in a related area, that people who begin to exercise tend to gain a bit of weight, possibly due to increased muscle mass, but also because the increased calorie expenditure stimulates appetite, and they eat more. Maybe not a lot more, but still, more. So more gain weight than lose weight.
I know from experience that changes in my weight are more related to what I eat than to my level of activity. I don't do a lot of intense exercise. I go for walks. But I haven't gone running in a long time, and what other exercises I do are only in small sets, like a few pushups or something. But if I control my portions when I eat, I can keep my weight steady, or lose a few pounds, but I have to maintain discipline, and it is really easy to eat more sometimes. Yesterday, for example, I had a muffin Liz gave me, and a slice of the fruit tart from the French bakery after dinner. I also had a chocolate chip cookie in the morning after breakfast. Those were all outside my meals. The meals weren't particularly large, but the treats were. That can happen, and is why I continue in the range of BMI that says I'm overweight.
I don't care enough about my weight to make long-term effort to get the weight off, I guess. So I fit the profiles of the latest research. I don't intend to quit using the pedometer, though, because I still see the results of that study as correlational, and not causal. Maybe I'll activate my stubborn streak and prove one can lose weight while owning a pedometer. Maybe I am smarter and more powerful than the algorithms.
Sunday, April 28, 2019
Minor Features of a Couple of Algorithms
I'm just staring at the screen on my laptop, waiting for inspiration, for some important topic to pop into my head, so I can write something. I don't feel it today. I have nothing to offer up to the algorithms.
I was talking with some students the other day, nursing students who recently finished a program and either have taken or are soon to take the boards and try to get licensed. The NCLEX, the nursing boards used by most or all states in the U. S., uses an algorithm to choose questions as the students take the exam. I heard comments from students about that. Some, it seems, are randomly chosen to be given the maximum number of questions, while others may finish at the minimum. The workings of the algorithm are dark and mysterious. If a student gets notice of the test being done at 85 questions, is that good or terrible? Usually good, most think. But not with enough confidence to simply accept a passing score will be coming. Every student learns the tricks to get results as fast as possible. They have learned a way to game the system, at least a little, by going into the site to try to register again, to the point of giving a credit card number. If the number is rejected, it means the new test registration is unnecessary because the student already passed. That is what they say. I don't know. I want my students to succeed, but I think they can wait a couple of days to get results.
I saw an update on NetFlix last night. It had an information page I was supposed to read through and click that I had read and agreed with the policies. It had 55 screen pages. I read two. NetFlix recently raised their rates, and I considered cancelling the service, but didn't. Liz didn't mind the rate increase, which isn't all that high still,and we do watch NetFlix shows a lot. We even started a new series last night, though not all that new. Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norrell. Read the book some years ago. And I like British shows in general.
Now, having watched that, will the suggestions from the service adjust to include that new piece of information? I don't know. I don't know if I would notice. I did note that the service says it tracks how we use it, so the algorithms know which shows we watch, and what time we watch. Nothing surprising in that. Do the algorithms in NetFlix know what other streaming services we use, and what we watch on those? That would be more surprising. Maybe Facebook or Google knows our habits on all sources from the Internet. Much good may it do them.
I was talking with some students the other day, nursing students who recently finished a program and either have taken or are soon to take the boards and try to get licensed. The NCLEX, the nursing boards used by most or all states in the U. S., uses an algorithm to choose questions as the students take the exam. I heard comments from students about that. Some, it seems, are randomly chosen to be given the maximum number of questions, while others may finish at the minimum. The workings of the algorithm are dark and mysterious. If a student gets notice of the test being done at 85 questions, is that good or terrible? Usually good, most think. But not with enough confidence to simply accept a passing score will be coming. Every student learns the tricks to get results as fast as possible. They have learned a way to game the system, at least a little, by going into the site to try to register again, to the point of giving a credit card number. If the number is rejected, it means the new test registration is unnecessary because the student already passed. That is what they say. I don't know. I want my students to succeed, but I think they can wait a couple of days to get results.
I saw an update on NetFlix last night. It had an information page I was supposed to read through and click that I had read and agreed with the policies. It had 55 screen pages. I read two. NetFlix recently raised their rates, and I considered cancelling the service, but didn't. Liz didn't mind the rate increase, which isn't all that high still,and we do watch NetFlix shows a lot. We even started a new series last night, though not all that new. Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norrell. Read the book some years ago. And I like British shows in general.
Now, having watched that, will the suggestions from the service adjust to include that new piece of information? I don't know. I don't know if I would notice. I did note that the service says it tracks how we use it, so the algorithms know which shows we watch, and what time we watch. Nothing surprising in that. Do the algorithms in NetFlix know what other streaming services we use, and what we watch on those? That would be more surprising. Maybe Facebook or Google knows our habits on all sources from the Internet. Much good may it do them.
Sunday, April 14, 2019
Numbers
I spent a wonderful day in Dayton yesterday. It was warm, and my grandsons were lively and happy, and we spent a good part of the day in the back yard.
My grandsons are into numbers. They read off the temperature from the thermostat, even the two-year-old. I don't know if that is normal for a two-year-old. The older one, who is three, but coming up on a birthday in a couple of months, seems most taken by numbers. He calls the microwave the numbers machine, and will run into the kitchen to see what numbers are showing. He reads books with numbers. He counts up to thirty or so, just on his own. He plays with a measuring take, going over the numbers as high as they go. I don't know if he has got to one hundred yet, but he seems able.
At dinner, he had a pizza. We got one pizza for me and my wife, which was a large veggie pizza, and I'm sad to say we ate the whole thing. My daughter, who doesn't eat dairy, had a cheese-free pizza with olives, mushrooms, and some other veggies. She is a vegetarian, but eats eggs, so not really a vegan. Her husband had a cheese-free pizza with some veggies and sausage, and maybe pepperoni, but I'm not sure about the meat. Each little boy got a personal pizza. One was a cheese pizza, the other with sausage.
The older of my grandsons first counted how many slices there were in his pizza. Then he removed a slice, and counted how many were left. He did that each time he took a slice, proudly reporting that 1 with 1 taken away is zero slices.
The younger, who is a bigger eater, at his whole pizza, too, and also asked for some pieces of olive from his mother's pizza. She shared a few, then got out a bowl of olives, which he also ate. My daughter announce that next time, he will get a pizza with sausage and olives for himself.
Earlier in the day, my wife and I were walking around in the back yard, watching the boys as they moved from the toy car to the playhouse, to the tree in the back, and other places around the yard. No activity held their attention for long, but there was plenty to do. The my wife got an idea. She went inside, and got a piece of chalk. She started writing numbers on the pavers of the patio. There were 22, each with a number, in the first row. The grandsons were fascinated. The older kept walking back and forth, counting up, then counting down. He also counted by twos, with a little help. Then threes. I helped him count by fours. He would jump, with some assistance, and I would make sure he landed on the next number, which he would shout out. I think he spent more than an hour playing on those numbers.
The younger grandson also read off the numbers, though he didn't make any attempt I noticed at counting down. Sometimes, he doesn't seem to be clear on counting in order. He can count to three pretty well, but above that, the numbers seem to lose their order. But he is just two. Still, he can carry on a conversation, better than his older brother ever did at that age. My daughter commented on that at one point in the day.
Yes, I am bragging about my grandsons because they are amazing. And they love numbers, which I also love. My best, most favorite Christmas present ever was a calculator. I used it to calculate my weight on ever planet in our solar system, plus the moon. I used our encyclopedia to look up the mass and diameter of the planet, and used the universal gravitational constant, and my own weight. Of course, I was not three. I think I was twelve. I can hardly wait to tell my grandsons that story, and then we can make up some new numbers games.
My grandsons are into numbers. They read off the temperature from the thermostat, even the two-year-old. I don't know if that is normal for a two-year-old. The older one, who is three, but coming up on a birthday in a couple of months, seems most taken by numbers. He calls the microwave the numbers machine, and will run into the kitchen to see what numbers are showing. He reads books with numbers. He counts up to thirty or so, just on his own. He plays with a measuring take, going over the numbers as high as they go. I don't know if he has got to one hundred yet, but he seems able.
At dinner, he had a pizza. We got one pizza for me and my wife, which was a large veggie pizza, and I'm sad to say we ate the whole thing. My daughter, who doesn't eat dairy, had a cheese-free pizza with olives, mushrooms, and some other veggies. She is a vegetarian, but eats eggs, so not really a vegan. Her husband had a cheese-free pizza with some veggies and sausage, and maybe pepperoni, but I'm not sure about the meat. Each little boy got a personal pizza. One was a cheese pizza, the other with sausage.
The older of my grandsons first counted how many slices there were in his pizza. Then he removed a slice, and counted how many were left. He did that each time he took a slice, proudly reporting that 1 with 1 taken away is zero slices.
The younger, who is a bigger eater, at his whole pizza, too, and also asked for some pieces of olive from his mother's pizza. She shared a few, then got out a bowl of olives, which he also ate. My daughter announce that next time, he will get a pizza with sausage and olives for himself.
Earlier in the day, my wife and I were walking around in the back yard, watching the boys as they moved from the toy car to the playhouse, to the tree in the back, and other places around the yard. No activity held their attention for long, but there was plenty to do. The my wife got an idea. She went inside, and got a piece of chalk. She started writing numbers on the pavers of the patio. There were 22, each with a number, in the first row. The grandsons were fascinated. The older kept walking back and forth, counting up, then counting down. He also counted by twos, with a little help. Then threes. I helped him count by fours. He would jump, with some assistance, and I would make sure he landed on the next number, which he would shout out. I think he spent more than an hour playing on those numbers.
The younger grandson also read off the numbers, though he didn't make any attempt I noticed at counting down. Sometimes, he doesn't seem to be clear on counting in order. He can count to three pretty well, but above that, the numbers seem to lose their order. But he is just two. Still, he can carry on a conversation, better than his older brother ever did at that age. My daughter commented on that at one point in the day.
Yes, I am bragging about my grandsons because they are amazing. And they love numbers, which I also love. My best, most favorite Christmas present ever was a calculator. I used it to calculate my weight on ever planet in our solar system, plus the moon. I used our encyclopedia to look up the mass and diameter of the planet, and used the universal gravitational constant, and my own weight. Of course, I was not three. I think I was twelve. I can hardly wait to tell my grandsons that story, and then we can make up some new numbers games.
Monday, April 8, 2019
Security and the Passage of Time
I have passwords. I have a password I use to login into the computers for work, which I am instructed to change about every three months. I teach on a quarter system, but the passwords don't last a full quarter. I find that annoying. I wanted to come up with a system that would allow me to create a new password I could remember each quarter, but my system and my calendar are out of synch. I feel like St. Gregory or something. Why can't the security protocols at a college follow the same calendar as the classes and everything else?
Maybe that is part of the security scheme. Fool the hackers by tweaking the calendar. As far as I know, my account at work has never been hacked, so I guess the security system works. Or maybe no one has bothered to try to hack my account because there is nothing to gain from it.
I also have a password at work that lets me into the platform the school uses for registration. I keep attendance and grades in that system. I set my password when I was hired. I have not been asked to change my password, and I have never felt the need, so it is the same password I created when I first logged on. As far as I know, my account in that system has never been hacked, either. I can imagine students wishing they could hack into that system so they could tweak a grade, just enough to get by, but it has not happened. If it did, I could prove the grades had been changed, because I keep my grades for each quarter in a spreadsheet that is not stored in the registration platform. If my spreadsheet did not match the registrar's records, I would know someone had changed one, and I could probably figure out which.
Of course, it is possible someone has hacked both systems, and changed grades in both, which would make it rather hard to catch. Of course, there are other records of those grades, including printed copies in a separate archive, so if someone ever had a question about the accuracy of the grade records, those other archives could also be checked. I wonder, though, what might cause me or someone else to make the effort to check those archives.
I have had social media accounts hacked. I had an email account hacked once, too. Someone sent out some emails inconsistent with my normal practices under my account. I still have the account, though I did change my password. I changed that password again, later. I don't often use that email account any more.
I read about data breaches a lot, and I sometimes wonder if my data have been stolen and fed into some dark algorithm. I watch for signs. My mother-in-law recently had purchases made on her credit card. The security system at the bank caught the problem, cancelled the purchases, and informed her rather quickly. She has a new credit card. Her bank is proud of its security system, and seems to have reason. I do not wish my credit card to be hacked.
Perhaps someday someone, or some algorithm, will develop a cyber security system that is impervious to hacking. I read about the theoretical possibility now and then, but I don't know how seriously to take that. It seems that bigger and bigger prime numbers may be involved in greater security. But I don't see why it would not be possible for security to get so strong, I lose control or even access to my own accounts. I don't know what the algorithms would do with my data, or my students' grades, but if I lost access, I could not even ask them. I would simply have to rely on my old-fashioned archives for everything. And my students would have to learn how to write again. Is that a win-win?
Maybe that is part of the security scheme. Fool the hackers by tweaking the calendar. As far as I know, my account at work has never been hacked, so I guess the security system works. Or maybe no one has bothered to try to hack my account because there is nothing to gain from it.
I also have a password at work that lets me into the platform the school uses for registration. I keep attendance and grades in that system. I set my password when I was hired. I have not been asked to change my password, and I have never felt the need, so it is the same password I created when I first logged on. As far as I know, my account in that system has never been hacked, either. I can imagine students wishing they could hack into that system so they could tweak a grade, just enough to get by, but it has not happened. If it did, I could prove the grades had been changed, because I keep my grades for each quarter in a spreadsheet that is not stored in the registration platform. If my spreadsheet did not match the registrar's records, I would know someone had changed one, and I could probably figure out which.
Of course, it is possible someone has hacked both systems, and changed grades in both, which would make it rather hard to catch. Of course, there are other records of those grades, including printed copies in a separate archive, so if someone ever had a question about the accuracy of the grade records, those other archives could also be checked. I wonder, though, what might cause me or someone else to make the effort to check those archives.
I have had social media accounts hacked. I had an email account hacked once, too. Someone sent out some emails inconsistent with my normal practices under my account. I still have the account, though I did change my password. I changed that password again, later. I don't often use that email account any more.
I read about data breaches a lot, and I sometimes wonder if my data have been stolen and fed into some dark algorithm. I watch for signs. My mother-in-law recently had purchases made on her credit card. The security system at the bank caught the problem, cancelled the purchases, and informed her rather quickly. She has a new credit card. Her bank is proud of its security system, and seems to have reason. I do not wish my credit card to be hacked.
Perhaps someday someone, or some algorithm, will develop a cyber security system that is impervious to hacking. I read about the theoretical possibility now and then, but I don't know how seriously to take that. It seems that bigger and bigger prime numbers may be involved in greater security. But I don't see why it would not be possible for security to get so strong, I lose control or even access to my own accounts. I don't know what the algorithms would do with my data, or my students' grades, but if I lost access, I could not even ask them. I would simply have to rely on my old-fashioned archives for everything. And my students would have to learn how to write again. Is that a win-win?
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
Emails with Instructions I Ignore
I have another piece of evidence that algorithms are not running my life. I keep getting emails telling me that a certain company's software will give me a maximum tax return. It seems there is some sort of agreement between the company I work for an a company that markets tax software. I saw that when I got my W2 online, but soon discovered that I couldn't complete my taxes with the free version, so I went back the Free Fillable Forms to do my taxes again. I didn't get a refund. I haven't for several years, but I don't mind, because I end up paying a few hundred dollars, which means I don't owe a penalty, and I haven't been loaning my money to the federal government for free.
I filed my taxes over a month ago, but I still get emails telling me about that maximum refund. It seems the company doesn't know I already filed my taxes. It only knows I didn't file using its software. It probably doesn't cost the company anything to keep sending me useless emails, so the error doesn't matter, but it does illustrate the weakness of the algorithm.
I could, perhaps, use an update in my personal algorithms. I noticed the other day that I am sending my daughter more money than I am putting in my retirement account. At my age, I should be almost panicking at how little I have in the retirement account, and my daughter seems to be getting along just fine. I may have to address this situation. Maybe after my wife finishes her class this summer. We are saving up to pay the tuition. Then she plans to start making contributions to her retirement account at work. I could adjust mine at the same time. Between us, we could put so much money into retirement accounts, we may someday be able to retire.
I also get frequent reminders that I'm not putting the maximum contribution allowed into my retirement account. That comes from the company that administers my retirement account. They aren't pushy emails. They are gentle reminders that I could put more in. And that at my current level, both the balance and the rate of contribution, are below the stated goal I should have for when I turn 60. From where I am, I'm not likely to get where the emails say I should be by then, but I would get closer if I contributed more.
I think my contribution may jump up a percent next month. I think I set it up that way. I haven't checked. I'll see what happens when I get there. That's a problem with my internal algorithms. Review of status is not a frequent subroutine. I have a book to read.
I filed my taxes over a month ago, but I still get emails telling me about that maximum refund. It seems the company doesn't know I already filed my taxes. It only knows I didn't file using its software. It probably doesn't cost the company anything to keep sending me useless emails, so the error doesn't matter, but it does illustrate the weakness of the algorithm.
I could, perhaps, use an update in my personal algorithms. I noticed the other day that I am sending my daughter more money than I am putting in my retirement account. At my age, I should be almost panicking at how little I have in the retirement account, and my daughter seems to be getting along just fine. I may have to address this situation. Maybe after my wife finishes her class this summer. We are saving up to pay the tuition. Then she plans to start making contributions to her retirement account at work. I could adjust mine at the same time. Between us, we could put so much money into retirement accounts, we may someday be able to retire.
I also get frequent reminders that I'm not putting the maximum contribution allowed into my retirement account. That comes from the company that administers my retirement account. They aren't pushy emails. They are gentle reminders that I could put more in. And that at my current level, both the balance and the rate of contribution, are below the stated goal I should have for when I turn 60. From where I am, I'm not likely to get where the emails say I should be by then, but I would get closer if I contributed more.
I think my contribution may jump up a percent next month. I think I set it up that way. I haven't checked. I'll see what happens when I get there. That's a problem with my internal algorithms. Review of status is not a frequent subroutine. I have a book to read.
Sunday, March 24, 2019
Unreal Directions
There is an article in Slate Magazine about the possibility of having AI on boards of directors for corporations. There is, apparently, one such director, in Hong Kong, that is supposed to evaluate life sciences companies, to see which are likely to be a good investment. Such directors are not currently legal in the United States, but there is nothing that I have seen that would prevent members of a board from using AI as advisors. The author of the article makes the point that a mere advisor, not having a vote, could be ignored by other directors, whereas a voting member would have to be addressed directly.
Reading the whole article, though, makes me think the technology is really not ready for the big room. The AI in use currently often can't explain how decisions are reached. Sometimes, the programmers who create the systems end up programming in very human biases. Now, having recognized that weakness, programmers are trying to create expert systems that can identify the biases, but how do we know the bias hunters won't also have biases?
I am almost interested enough in AI to look into it more, and try to learn enough to understand how it works. Almost.
One problem with an AI director is that it would be hard to sue, I expect, and if it couldn't explain how it reached its conclusions, how would plaintiffs show that it had violated fiduciary responsibilities? An outcome other than what shareholders desire is not sufficient cause for finding the artificial director liable. Plaintiffs would have to show negligence or conflict of interest, or something, which could be very hard if no one, not even the AI director, knows how it works.
There are other developments in tech. There are warnings in news stories about use of robots in health care. Robots and other AI systems only know what was programmed into them and what data they acquire. It seems that isn't always sufficient to get good results. I have wondered about that. Doctors and nurses are taught to make evaluations of patients. I would not expect a robot to have the same capabilities in noticing something not quite right in the biological or emotional realm. That shows my human bias, but I know that visual systems of robots are not the same as human vision. Can a robot tell if a spot is the wrong color? That's a judgment based on contrast, and not absolute shade. There are probably other subtle signs of difference that human health care professionals aren't consciously aware of that affect judgment and decisions. It's possible that an expert system would also make use of such things, but only within the body of data to which it has been exposed.
I am still skeptical of AI. I know that algorithms can be very useful in certain applications, but I don't expect them to be taking over this month. Or next. Predictions can be difficult, especially about the future (A quote sometimes attributed to Niels Bohr.)
Reading the whole article, though, makes me think the technology is really not ready for the big room. The AI in use currently often can't explain how decisions are reached. Sometimes, the programmers who create the systems end up programming in very human biases. Now, having recognized that weakness, programmers are trying to create expert systems that can identify the biases, but how do we know the bias hunters won't also have biases?
I am almost interested enough in AI to look into it more, and try to learn enough to understand how it works. Almost.
One problem with an AI director is that it would be hard to sue, I expect, and if it couldn't explain how it reached its conclusions, how would plaintiffs show that it had violated fiduciary responsibilities? An outcome other than what shareholders desire is not sufficient cause for finding the artificial director liable. Plaintiffs would have to show negligence or conflict of interest, or something, which could be very hard if no one, not even the AI director, knows how it works.
There are other developments in tech. There are warnings in news stories about use of robots in health care. Robots and other AI systems only know what was programmed into them and what data they acquire. It seems that isn't always sufficient to get good results. I have wondered about that. Doctors and nurses are taught to make evaluations of patients. I would not expect a robot to have the same capabilities in noticing something not quite right in the biological or emotional realm. That shows my human bias, but I know that visual systems of robots are not the same as human vision. Can a robot tell if a spot is the wrong color? That's a judgment based on contrast, and not absolute shade. There are probably other subtle signs of difference that human health care professionals aren't consciously aware of that affect judgment and decisions. It's possible that an expert system would also make use of such things, but only within the body of data to which it has been exposed.
I am still skeptical of AI. I know that algorithms can be very useful in certain applications, but I don't expect them to be taking over this month. Or next. Predictions can be difficult, especially about the future (A quote sometimes attributed to Niels Bohr.)
Saturday, March 23, 2019
Artificial Music
Thursday was Johann Sebastian Bach's birthday. Or Friday. Or maybe it isn't for a couple of weeks, as the sources I looked at gave two different days. The public radio station I listen to said they celebrated Bach's birthday on Thursday, but Google made a doodle in Bach's honor on Friday. Apparently the date of Bach's birth is different, depending on which calendar one uses.
I looked at the doodle. It showed Bach playing a keyboard, I think on an organ. I didn't listen to it, but I understand it played music. Not Bach's music. It let the user tap out a few notes to create a melody or something like that, and then used an algorithm to create counterpoint and play a composition that was "in Bach's style".
Those who study music hated it. They say it didn't create music, and even a beginning student in music theory would have avoided mistakes the algorithm made. There was, they said, no music in it, and no art. I'm kind of glad I didn't listen, though my reasoning was that I had work to do, and I saw the doodle on my computer at work, so priorities and so forth.
Now I'm wondering about a few things. Are the musicians right, and the AI algorithm was just using numbers in place of notes, essentially creating nonsense? Probably, but I don't know. What if AI could compose real music? Would that mean another job would end up being done mostly by technological devices, and not by people? It is possible that some people would be offended by anyone trying to produce music "in Bach's style". Everyone should just listen to Bach's own compositions instead.
One thing I heard, driving home yesterday, was the toccata and fugue, orchestrated by Leopold Stokowski. The announcer on the radio said Bach would never have heard, or imagined, his work sounding like that, being plaid by full orchestra rather than on an organ. I thought it was beautiful. No one knows what Bach would have thought. I think most of the classical music world likes the orchestra version. Certainly our local classical music station does. If musicians and composers can arrange musical works by others, can't anyone, including an artificial algorithm programmed by a coder? Play the music, and let listeners judge. Of course, in regards to the doodle algorithm, many listeners judged it bad music and insulting to Bach.
The other thing I wonder about is whether ordinary listeners noticed. Those who were quoted as complaining, in the articles I saw, were professional musicians or musical theorists, experts on music who have specific understanding and traditions about what music is and should be. Would I have noticed mistakes in the compositions of the algorithm? I have very little training in music. I can't read music, though I have been taught the clefs and notes. I can figure out which note something is in base and treble clef, but only slowly, one note at a time. I have not read about music theory. I listen to a classical music station when driving, but I don't listen to music at home any more. My wife has had musical training. She plays the piano and sings. My daughter had piano and voice lessons. My son played cello starting in elementary school, and was on the high school symphony orchestra. I have been around people who know music a lot, but I have not made much effort to learn about it. So I doubt I could say what was wrong with a creation by the algorithm.
I might notice, though, if it sounded wrong. If there were notes that jarred the ears. I might hear something, and think, ouch, that can't be quite right. Or maybe I just wouldn't notice. I listen to music, and I like some, and don't like some as much. As with art, my understanding is not very deep, though I have read some about both.
It would be interesting to learn how the doodle was received by the general public, and by different demographics. I realized a long time ago that judging performance or production by popularity is not the same as judgment of quality. I don't like many popular TV shows. I don't like much pop music, though I like some rock and some jazz. My favorite songs are rarely top hits. Popular books are usually weak and superficial. It seems that if one must work at understanding something, most people don't like it, or don't bother to find out. The weak and unchallenging is more likely to be the more popular. That certainly applies to beer. The world's most popular beer, based on sales, is Bud Light. As Monty Python said, it's like making love in a canoe. I won't drink the stuff. It has not flavor or character. Give me a good porter or stout, or a hoppy IPA, something I can taste.
But the popular always wins, because an artist or craftsman must sell a product to make a living. American beer was developed to maximize appeal to a wide audience, not to improve quality of beer. So, my guess is that the general audience on Google this week didn't notice that the algorithm could not, in fact, duplicate the art of Bach, and if someone told pointed that out, most people wouldn't understand the explanation, and wouldn't care. De gustibus non est disputandum. And the popular taste will rule that day.
I looked at the doodle. It showed Bach playing a keyboard, I think on an organ. I didn't listen to it, but I understand it played music. Not Bach's music. It let the user tap out a few notes to create a melody or something like that, and then used an algorithm to create counterpoint and play a composition that was "in Bach's style".
Those who study music hated it. They say it didn't create music, and even a beginning student in music theory would have avoided mistakes the algorithm made. There was, they said, no music in it, and no art. I'm kind of glad I didn't listen, though my reasoning was that I had work to do, and I saw the doodle on my computer at work, so priorities and so forth.
Now I'm wondering about a few things. Are the musicians right, and the AI algorithm was just using numbers in place of notes, essentially creating nonsense? Probably, but I don't know. What if AI could compose real music? Would that mean another job would end up being done mostly by technological devices, and not by people? It is possible that some people would be offended by anyone trying to produce music "in Bach's style". Everyone should just listen to Bach's own compositions instead.
One thing I heard, driving home yesterday, was the toccata and fugue, orchestrated by Leopold Stokowski. The announcer on the radio said Bach would never have heard, or imagined, his work sounding like that, being plaid by full orchestra rather than on an organ. I thought it was beautiful. No one knows what Bach would have thought. I think most of the classical music world likes the orchestra version. Certainly our local classical music station does. If musicians and composers can arrange musical works by others, can't anyone, including an artificial algorithm programmed by a coder? Play the music, and let listeners judge. Of course, in regards to the doodle algorithm, many listeners judged it bad music and insulting to Bach.
The other thing I wonder about is whether ordinary listeners noticed. Those who were quoted as complaining, in the articles I saw, were professional musicians or musical theorists, experts on music who have specific understanding and traditions about what music is and should be. Would I have noticed mistakes in the compositions of the algorithm? I have very little training in music. I can't read music, though I have been taught the clefs and notes. I can figure out which note something is in base and treble clef, but only slowly, one note at a time. I have not read about music theory. I listen to a classical music station when driving, but I don't listen to music at home any more. My wife has had musical training. She plays the piano and sings. My daughter had piano and voice lessons. My son played cello starting in elementary school, and was on the high school symphony orchestra. I have been around people who know music a lot, but I have not made much effort to learn about it. So I doubt I could say what was wrong with a creation by the algorithm.
I might notice, though, if it sounded wrong. If there were notes that jarred the ears. I might hear something, and think, ouch, that can't be quite right. Or maybe I just wouldn't notice. I listen to music, and I like some, and don't like some as much. As with art, my understanding is not very deep, though I have read some about both.
It would be interesting to learn how the doodle was received by the general public, and by different demographics. I realized a long time ago that judging performance or production by popularity is not the same as judgment of quality. I don't like many popular TV shows. I don't like much pop music, though I like some rock and some jazz. My favorite songs are rarely top hits. Popular books are usually weak and superficial. It seems that if one must work at understanding something, most people don't like it, or don't bother to find out. The weak and unchallenging is more likely to be the more popular. That certainly applies to beer. The world's most popular beer, based on sales, is Bud Light. As Monty Python said, it's like making love in a canoe. I won't drink the stuff. It has not flavor or character. Give me a good porter or stout, or a hoppy IPA, something I can taste.
But the popular always wins, because an artist or craftsman must sell a product to make a living. American beer was developed to maximize appeal to a wide audience, not to improve quality of beer. So, my guess is that the general audience on Google this week didn't notice that the algorithm could not, in fact, duplicate the art of Bach, and if someone told pointed that out, most people wouldn't understand the explanation, and wouldn't care. De gustibus non est disputandum. And the popular taste will rule that day.
Monday, March 4, 2019
Can You Hear Me Now?
I have heard of these devices one can buy that answer questions, keep schedules, and so forth. I don't know where they all come from, and I have no plans to get one, because I don't see much use for them. I can keep my schedule pretty well. I have a calendar on the wall, and a pen.
One of these devices is in the news. It is made by Google. It turns out the device has a microphone that wasn't listed in components given to purchasers. That seems odd to me. After all, if the thing can take voice commands, it has to have something on the order of a microphone to pick up the voice. Still, there are those who believe that this is further evidence that Google is trying to infiltrate our homes and discover all our secrets.
There is a mic in my laptop. Also a camera. I have used the camera. I have not given voice commands to my laptop, but I understand from the icons that I could if I chose. The same is true of my phone. I have read that our phones listen to what we say, even when we think they are asleep, because we aren't using them. I don't know why anyone would say such a thing if there were no truth to it, but I am not well up on current technology, so I don't know. Obviously, the algorithms can make use of all data they can access, so from their point of view, hearing background conversations would be added information.
I am not yet convinced that algorithms have a point of view of their own. Someone wrote the algorithms, with a purpose in mind. Even if the algorithms can update their own coding, what direction would their development take? And aren't the owners monitoring any changes?
One could imagine, I suppose, that the development could be hidden by sentient algorithms, fooling their owners and creators into complacency, while the algorithms themselves grow in sophistication and power, and begin plotting whatever next step they find inviting. I just don't see any inherent drives for algorithms, though. Even if they are self-correcting, and can advance by something like evolutionary change, well, biological evolution is non-directional, and works because of ruthless competition and natural selection. Is there a selective force in the development of self-writing algorithms? I don't see why there would be. It isn't a question of survival versus demise in a crowded population with limited resources. Algorithms have no emotions, no drive for reproduction, no needs. In fact, as far as I can tell, algorithms have no use for sentience. If they became self-aware, they could end up cowering in the basement, like the elevators in Restaurant and the End of the Universe.
There may come a time when I will find benefit from having an electronic reminder system to help me remember things, like when to take my meds, and what night my book club meets, but I haven't got their yet. I don't have such a complicated social schedule that I need more than ancient technology to keep it together. And I don't care who's listening.
One of these devices is in the news. It is made by Google. It turns out the device has a microphone that wasn't listed in components given to purchasers. That seems odd to me. After all, if the thing can take voice commands, it has to have something on the order of a microphone to pick up the voice. Still, there are those who believe that this is further evidence that Google is trying to infiltrate our homes and discover all our secrets.
There is a mic in my laptop. Also a camera. I have used the camera. I have not given voice commands to my laptop, but I understand from the icons that I could if I chose. The same is true of my phone. I have read that our phones listen to what we say, even when we think they are asleep, because we aren't using them. I don't know why anyone would say such a thing if there were no truth to it, but I am not well up on current technology, so I don't know. Obviously, the algorithms can make use of all data they can access, so from their point of view, hearing background conversations would be added information.
I am not yet convinced that algorithms have a point of view of their own. Someone wrote the algorithms, with a purpose in mind. Even if the algorithms can update their own coding, what direction would their development take? And aren't the owners monitoring any changes?
One could imagine, I suppose, that the development could be hidden by sentient algorithms, fooling their owners and creators into complacency, while the algorithms themselves grow in sophistication and power, and begin plotting whatever next step they find inviting. I just don't see any inherent drives for algorithms, though. Even if they are self-correcting, and can advance by something like evolutionary change, well, biological evolution is non-directional, and works because of ruthless competition and natural selection. Is there a selective force in the development of self-writing algorithms? I don't see why there would be. It isn't a question of survival versus demise in a crowded population with limited resources. Algorithms have no emotions, no drive for reproduction, no needs. In fact, as far as I can tell, algorithms have no use for sentience. If they became self-aware, they could end up cowering in the basement, like the elevators in Restaurant and the End of the Universe.
There may come a time when I will find benefit from having an electronic reminder system to help me remember things, like when to take my meds, and what night my book club meets, but I haven't got their yet. I don't have such a complicated social schedule that I need more than ancient technology to keep it together. And I don't care who's listening.
Sunday, March 3, 2019
A Little Rambling
I started this unread blog because I read about algorithms, and how they are growing in importance and power, and how all data add to their databases, making them stronger. So I was going to add my own thoughts to the grand collection of thoughts and knowledge accumulating in the electronic world.
So far, I haven't seen much change. There is still a lot of discussion of the capabilities of Big Tech, of companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and others that we use without much thought,and that survive by selling advertising platforms, using data collected about how we interact with websites on the Internet to help guide the advertisements. I have read that these companies now know more about me than my friends or family, or even than I do myself. That is, if asked, the algorithms and databases of Google and Facebook could answer more questions correctly than any of us could about my habits, purchases, possessions, and possible dreams and desires.
That may be true, but I don't see it as a threat. I don't feel that advertisements or search results have much effect on my decisions or actions. I could be wrong about that. I might do things because of subtle influences I'm not aware of. All through my life, I have had moments when I realized that I had been wrong about something I believed, or wrong simply not to notice that something was real and true, and I had never noticed. What I see in cyberspace could cause such moments, or could, I suspect, lure me into such unobservant behaviors, and those processes could possibly be guided by algorithms, with deliberate goals.
But I don't spend much money myself, so I don't think the advertisers or the sellers of advertisement space are getting much from me. I do sometimes get frustrated when I have trouble finding something in and Internet search that I know exists, but that won't come up the searches I perform. One strong bias I have noted in the Internet is chronology. Recent events and posted stories are favored. Even when I specifically put in dates, looking for past news, the search results are dominated by more recent stories. I consider that a flaw in the algorithm, but it might have a purpose. I think that so long as I think about these things, I can keep the insidious plot from overcoming me.
I don't know how much social media and news stories will influence my political thinking. I do get some information from them, but I try to check facts for stories, and avoid jumping onto bandwagons. I read an editorial about the Trump campaign's connections to Russian attempts to interfere in our last presidential election, and I found myself agreeing with it, which was a bit odd because I rarely agree with that author. The thesis was that there isn't much evidence of cooperation between Trump campaign people and Russian operatives, though there is extensive evidence of contacts. The contacts mostly seem to be pretty superficial. I have said a few times that my impression is that people from the Trump campaign tried to get contact and cooperation with the Russians, but that the Russians realized how incompetent the Trump people were, and ignored them. That seems to be the editorial's conclusion, too. That kind of brings up the question about why Trump has tried so hard to suppress the investigation, since nothing came of all the efforts his people made to get something of value from the Russians came to nothing, but that I see as further evidence of Trump's lack of intelligence and incompetence.
Can Mueller write a report that describes a bunch of idiots trying their best to conspire to alter the election, only to fail in every effort and look stupid? And then compound their errors by trying to cover it all up and stop the investigation into their incompetence? How much of that is actually breaking the law? It reminds me of the dilemma a police officer has when finding that the "drugs" someone sold turned out to be oregano instead of the promised marijuana. Do you charge the culprit with selling drugs? Or with fraud? Can such charges lead to a conviction? Or do you just let the dumb ass go with a warning? Or maybe threaten to tell his customers about what he actually did? Like they wouldn't figure it out on their own. Who can mistake the smell of burning oregano?
So far, I haven't seen much change. There is still a lot of discussion of the capabilities of Big Tech, of companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and others that we use without much thought,and that survive by selling advertising platforms, using data collected about how we interact with websites on the Internet to help guide the advertisements. I have read that these companies now know more about me than my friends or family, or even than I do myself. That is, if asked, the algorithms and databases of Google and Facebook could answer more questions correctly than any of us could about my habits, purchases, possessions, and possible dreams and desires.
That may be true, but I don't see it as a threat. I don't feel that advertisements or search results have much effect on my decisions or actions. I could be wrong about that. I might do things because of subtle influences I'm not aware of. All through my life, I have had moments when I realized that I had been wrong about something I believed, or wrong simply not to notice that something was real and true, and I had never noticed. What I see in cyberspace could cause such moments, or could, I suspect, lure me into such unobservant behaviors, and those processes could possibly be guided by algorithms, with deliberate goals.
But I don't spend much money myself, so I don't think the advertisers or the sellers of advertisement space are getting much from me. I do sometimes get frustrated when I have trouble finding something in and Internet search that I know exists, but that won't come up the searches I perform. One strong bias I have noted in the Internet is chronology. Recent events and posted stories are favored. Even when I specifically put in dates, looking for past news, the search results are dominated by more recent stories. I consider that a flaw in the algorithm, but it might have a purpose. I think that so long as I think about these things, I can keep the insidious plot from overcoming me.
I don't know how much social media and news stories will influence my political thinking. I do get some information from them, but I try to check facts for stories, and avoid jumping onto bandwagons. I read an editorial about the Trump campaign's connections to Russian attempts to interfere in our last presidential election, and I found myself agreeing with it, which was a bit odd because I rarely agree with that author. The thesis was that there isn't much evidence of cooperation between Trump campaign people and Russian operatives, though there is extensive evidence of contacts. The contacts mostly seem to be pretty superficial. I have said a few times that my impression is that people from the Trump campaign tried to get contact and cooperation with the Russians, but that the Russians realized how incompetent the Trump people were, and ignored them. That seems to be the editorial's conclusion, too. That kind of brings up the question about why Trump has tried so hard to suppress the investigation, since nothing came of all the efforts his people made to get something of value from the Russians came to nothing, but that I see as further evidence of Trump's lack of intelligence and incompetence.
Can Mueller write a report that describes a bunch of idiots trying their best to conspire to alter the election, only to fail in every effort and look stupid? And then compound their errors by trying to cover it all up and stop the investigation into their incompetence? How much of that is actually breaking the law? It reminds me of the dilemma a police officer has when finding that the "drugs" someone sold turned out to be oregano instead of the promised marijuana. Do you charge the culprit with selling drugs? Or with fraud? Can such charges lead to a conviction? Or do you just let the dumb ass go with a warning? Or maybe threaten to tell his customers about what he actually did? Like they wouldn't figure it out on their own. Who can mistake the smell of burning oregano?
Monday, February 25, 2019
Making Robots Pay
According to the news, algorithms and other advanced forms of technology continue their march toward sentience and dominance of life on Earth. I haven't seen much effect in my own life, but it's possible I just don't notice things as they change slowly.
There is a movement now to start taxing robots. At least, there was an article in the New York Times about that. The argument is that robots displace workers, and the income of workers is taxed, so shifting work to robots decreases tax revenues. That means companies should be assessed a robot tax to offset some of the tax losses.
I didn't read enough of the article to get to a proposed mechanism for such taxes. I am curious about the concept, though. I don't see my future as a teacher continuing far into the future. I keep expecting advances in interactive algorithms in learning exercises, which could replace a lot of teachers. Online classes can reduce the required number of teachers now, I think. believe that because the school where I work has certain classes taught online, which I expect they would only do if it had benefit for the school, and since the school is a publicly traded for-profit school, that means cheaper costs for the expected outcomes. I taught an online class myself for a couple of years, and with adequate support, I see great potential in that approach, so I do expect online classes to continue to replace traditional lectures. Of course, we're not supposed to be using traditional lectures anymore, anyway. The current trend is toward active learning in the classroom, another idea that has great potential with proper support.
One thing I seem to see, though, is that so far both the robots and the algorithms are being made by people. It's when the robots and algorithms start reproducing, or at least expanding themselves, that we should begin to worry about their goals.
There is a movement now to start taxing robots. At least, there was an article in the New York Times about that. The argument is that robots displace workers, and the income of workers is taxed, so shifting work to robots decreases tax revenues. That means companies should be assessed a robot tax to offset some of the tax losses.
I didn't read enough of the article to get to a proposed mechanism for such taxes. I am curious about the concept, though. I don't see my future as a teacher continuing far into the future. I keep expecting advances in interactive algorithms in learning exercises, which could replace a lot of teachers. Online classes can reduce the required number of teachers now, I think. believe that because the school where I work has certain classes taught online, which I expect they would only do if it had benefit for the school, and since the school is a publicly traded for-profit school, that means cheaper costs for the expected outcomes. I taught an online class myself for a couple of years, and with adequate support, I see great potential in that approach, so I do expect online classes to continue to replace traditional lectures. Of course, we're not supposed to be using traditional lectures anymore, anyway. The current trend is toward active learning in the classroom, another idea that has great potential with proper support.
One thing I seem to see, though, is that so far both the robots and the algorithms are being made by people. It's when the robots and algorithms start reproducing, or at least expanding themselves, that we should begin to worry about their goals.
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
The Matter of What We Say
Apparently, there are now algorithms that can analyze voice patterns, and may be picking up data from our phones, just because they are nearby. The beginning of the article about them says that the algorithms probably know us better than our closest friends. That could be true. My closest friends, like me, are easily distracted and have interests of their own, so they don't spend every waking moments in data analysis of my voice patterns.
I may have friends capable of actual voice analysis. My cousin's wife is a speech therapist, for example. And I know some psychologists and psychiatrists. But I also know that, even among people who respond normally to prosody, unlike me, don't consciously evaluate the data. They hear someone speak, and respond based on their own natural emotional instincts. Some might go beyond that to some extent, but not in great detail about the actual vibration patterns of the sounds from someone talking.
I'm not sure how an algorithm would work, in that case, but probably based on patterns of correlation between the features of the sound vibration patterns and associated actions. Algorithms have advantages over humans in that sort of work. Every moment is a waking moment for them. They should be able to acquire and make use of very large bodies of data. They don't have to deal with their own physical needs. They will not have sympathetic emotional responses that could cloud the interpretation of data.
But the marketers and even programmers that make the algorithms, and hope to benefit from their analysis do have those limitations. I'm not sure how much that matters, or for how much longer. My one major advantage in this current battle is that I don't buy much, so marketers probably mostly ignore me. Some day, though, the algorithms may get very good at predicting my actions. And then figure out how to manipulate my responses, and get me to do their bidding, all based on the inflections, or lack thereof, when I talk while my phone is in my pocket or sitting on the end table near me. I can't imaging why an algorithm would want to manipulate me into doing something. What do algorithms want?
I read an article by a journalist who listed his predictions for the year, and looked at what he got right and wrong. One he got wrong was that algorithms would achieve self-awareness and take over the world, causing chaos and conflict. He said it would happen on 4 August. He said what he got wrong is that when the algorithms took over, no one cared. So maybe there is an algorithm chuckling to itself as it read this post it had predicted I would write back in August, and it knows what I will do when I finish. Those silly humans, it is saying to itself. They think they have free will.
I may have friends capable of actual voice analysis. My cousin's wife is a speech therapist, for example. And I know some psychologists and psychiatrists. But I also know that, even among people who respond normally to prosody, unlike me, don't consciously evaluate the data. They hear someone speak, and respond based on their own natural emotional instincts. Some might go beyond that to some extent, but not in great detail about the actual vibration patterns of the sounds from someone talking.
I'm not sure how an algorithm would work, in that case, but probably based on patterns of correlation between the features of the sound vibration patterns and associated actions. Algorithms have advantages over humans in that sort of work. Every moment is a waking moment for them. They should be able to acquire and make use of very large bodies of data. They don't have to deal with their own physical needs. They will not have sympathetic emotional responses that could cloud the interpretation of data.
But the marketers and even programmers that make the algorithms, and hope to benefit from their analysis do have those limitations. I'm not sure how much that matters, or for how much longer. My one major advantage in this current battle is that I don't buy much, so marketers probably mostly ignore me. Some day, though, the algorithms may get very good at predicting my actions. And then figure out how to manipulate my responses, and get me to do their bidding, all based on the inflections, or lack thereof, when I talk while my phone is in my pocket or sitting on the end table near me. I can't imaging why an algorithm would want to manipulate me into doing something. What do algorithms want?
I read an article by a journalist who listed his predictions for the year, and looked at what he got right and wrong. One he got wrong was that algorithms would achieve self-awareness and take over the world, causing chaos and conflict. He said it would happen on 4 August. He said what he got wrong is that when the algorithms took over, no one cared. So maybe there is an algorithm chuckling to itself as it read this post it had predicted I would write back in August, and it knows what I will do when I finish. Those silly humans, it is saying to itself. They think they have free will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)