Surprises, Google Lunches, and Murder Trials

Hello dear blog, it’s been too long! Class assignments keep getting in the way. What was that Mark Twain quote? Something to the effect of, “never let your schooling interfere with your education,” but anyway, I had a very eventful weekend, so I figured I should blog about it.

My Saturday began with me.. a bit hungover.. at 8:30 in the morning.. in a lecture hall.. in a suit. After listening to a (rather informative) 3 hour lecture on career advice, I had the opportunity to talk with some prestigious members of the advertising and media industries. I learned the ins and outs of nabbing a media job in todays bleak job market. The all day event was definitely a worth while experience.

After sitting in a suit for eight hours, I hopped in my car to head home for my dad’s surprise birthday party. While on the highway I get a call from my mother. Mind you, I have a Jeep… I’m driving a tin box 70 mph, it’s so loud I lose my hearing after a long road trip. Anyway, I get a call from my mom and we’re talking on the phone and she decides to put my dad on. As I am yelling over all the ambient road noise, I am trying to explain to him that I am driving to the movies… really, really fast. When he asks what movie I’m about to see I respond, “Eli,” which hasn’t been in theaters for a while now. So needles to say it was more difficult than I anticipated to keep his part a secret, but the party was a huge success. I made this YouTube video to commemorate it!

My adventures while at home did not end when they kicked us out of the Frankfort Bowl. Monday morning I had the opportunity to sit in on the Drew Peterson trial. Actually being in the court room was an eerie, yet memorable experience. The first thing I noticed about him was his eyes, they were like black holes! He was some calm and collected the whole time, and I couldn’t help to notice that he was hitting on all of the female policemen while we took a recess. Hopefully the statements of the 70 “hearsay” witnesses will be enough to convict this guy, but watching the prosecution question Cathy’s attorney was incredible. I guess this is what I’m getting myself into when I go onto law school!

After witnessing my first murder trial, I got in my car and headed straight to the Google offices in Chicago. To be honest, I thought I was in a pre-school when I walked through the doors. Razor scooters, colorful decor, and asymmetric walls reinforced Google’s free-spirited ideology. The only reason I was lucky enough to tour the offices was Jake Parillo. Jake took me to lunch in the Google cafeteria, which peered out over the city. After an engaging discussion about Google, law school, and all things media, Jake showed me around the building. Although there were many unique things about Google, there were a couple that really jumped out at me. For one, almost everything was a whiteboard, you could write on basically anything, walls included! The other thing was all of the snack stands dispersed throughout the floor. Chocolate covered pretzels, M&Ms, and cliff bars are just a few of the things they had to offer. I never wanted to leave (I guess that’s the point)! Seeing inside an actual Google office was an incredible experience.

That was my weekend in a nutshell. Hopefully I will be updating this blog more frequently. I want to stray away from the “online journal” approach and actually start writing with a purpose… like my pet peeves or something. Who knows, maybe I’ll be the one who breaks the story on the next U of I or Governor scandal!

Can computers think?

“Conversation: (noun) the informal exchange of ideas through spoken word.” – Webster Dictionary. If a conversation is simply an exchange of ideas, can a computer program that includes a comprehensive set of ideas and responses exist? Is it possible to write a program that can successfully carry out a conversation with a human? Furthermore, can these types of programs eventually trick humans into thinking that they are not in fact a machine, but a real-life, breathing, thinking person?

Currently, you can Google “chatbots” and get a range of different programs that engage in text base conversation. Eliza is one of these chatbots. After asking it questions and engaging in conversation, I have to say that I am rather impressed with the range of questions that the program responds to. The only problem is that Eliza tends to use circular questions, which deteriorates the human-esque nature of the conversation. It doesn’t seem too believable when the conversation’s main protagonist is me.

Alice is another chatbot. This award-winning program is more convincing than Eliza because it not only understands questions and statements made by me, but it also actively moves the conversation along. Although it got tripped up at times, the program seems much more comprehensive. One of the downsides to this chatbot is how expedient the responses are. Immediately after I make a statement, Alice responds. The program should have a couple second delay to make the conversation more human.

Jabberwacky is the final chatbot I engaged in conversation with. This chatbot was designed to be wacky, so its responses are a bit more absurd. This was my least favorite of the three. The wording and responses were poorly thought out, which hindered the effectiveness of the conversation. It seemed that this chatbot asked questions as random. Even though it was meant to be wacky, it is lacking the ability to fluently hold a conversation.

In 1950 Alan Turing wrote a paper entitled, “Computer Machinery and Intelligence.” The main question throughout the books asks, “Can machines think?” For Turing, the way to determine if a machine can successfully demonstrate intelligence is for a human judge to engage in a conversation with two computers, one responder will be human, while the other is a computer program. If the human judge cannot decipher which responder is the human and which is the computer program, then the machine (program) can be said to demonstrate intelligence. This has since been dubbed the “Turing test.” Turing believed that by the end of the 20th century, there would be machines that can successfully pass his test with 70% accuracy.

As demonstrated with the chatbots mentioned above, there are currently programs that do a pretty good job holding a conversation, but I personally knew that I was talking to a machine. Turing Hub gives Internet users a first hand shot at testing the Turing test on a machine. Out of all of the chatbots, this was the most convincing. After a 2 minute conversation, I was still unsure if the text was produced by a human or program. After a few more questions, I was able to determine that it was a machine. Will it be possible for a chatbot to hold a 5-minute, believable conversation within 10 years? I believe so. If the bots have a way of learning and compiling previous conversations, a program can learn to adapt to a wide range of acceptable rhetoric. This is mainly because there is a finite amount of words and grammatical structures that are appropriate in conversation. Eventually, a program will have a (nearly) comprehensive list of questions, answers, and responses to hold a five-minute conversation.

Is the Turing test an acceptable way to gauge whether or not a machine can think? Well that all depends on how you define think. If thinking involves opinions and beliefs, then the Turing test is not acceptable. The program does not choose responses because of emotive forces. But if thinking is defined as calling upon information, the Turing test is perfectly acceptable. Even though the computer possess all acceptable questions, answers, and responses, it still must call upon the appropriate response, which is exactly what a human does during conversation.

If a program can behave in a way indistinguishable from human behavior, than can it be said it can think? As mentioned previously, it depends on how you define think. But if we look at the deeper meaning of though in terms of a conversation, we uncover the main objective of conversation. When humans communicate, they employ certain words and grammar to help structure sentences that portray their emotion regarding the topic at hand. By using words and grammar, which are socially constructed, they aim to share these internal emotions. Since programs like chatbots call upon responses that have been previously marked as appropriate, the element of portraying emotion is lost. Because of this, machines cannot be said to think.

2009 or 1984?

Digital Rights Management (DRM): “technologies used by content owners to control access to data such as software, music, movies, and hardware” (Wikipedia, 2006)

Defenders of DRM argue that this technology enables content providers a way to protect against copyright infringement. Its critics think otherwise. What if a University professor is unable to use a clip from a song for educational purposes because the DRM restricts it? Does this not violate fair-use provisions of copyright law?

Furthermore, these technologies enable providers a much more intimate relationship between their content and our computers. By using a backdoor security method, providers have the opportunity to abuse this technology and “spy” on unsuspecting users. By imbedding DRMs deep in the product’s “rootkit” (programs that can only be altered by the provider of the product), many security and privacy issues arise. Potential flaws in these DRMs can lead to the formation of security holes that can be exploited by malicious software. The DRM technology opens a whole new can of (viral) worms.

Amazon.com made headlines earlier this year when they decided to remove books from their digital reader, the Kindle, due to apparent copyright issues… this is where the story gets good. Ironically, the books removed were George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm. The controversy does not arise because of why Amazon removed the books, but how they removed the books. The companies technological ability to remove the books is what is causing the public outcry. Will companies one day abuse these powers to reach into our computers?

Is there certain legal ramifications attached to this type of behavior? Are digital books any different than physical books? If you buy a book from Borders, they do not have the power to take it back. Obviously, many issues can arise from this sort of behavior. The fact of the manner is, yes, ebooks are different than physical books. When someone uses a Kindle, they are agreeing to its terms of service, which gives the company full rights to “modify, suspend, or discontinue” any of the books the service provides. The important thing is that people are aware of the awesome power corporations have regarding online commerce. I am not saying these technologies should not be used. In fact, this is a great way to limit file-sharing, but I do believe that safeguards should be put into place to ensure that companies do not abuse this technology.

Hopefully Big Brother will not hear about the DRM technology.

Singularity Now

Back in 1965, a man by the name of Gordon E. Moore made a rather startling claim about the inevitable evolution of computing. The Intel C.E.O. predicted that computer hardware technology would continue to grow at an exponential rate. Computer scientists would continue to cram more and more components onto integrated circuits. Moore’s statement, which was first made public in Electronics Magazine, proclaimed that the transistor count would double every year.

This law is not solely based on technological achievements made in computer science. Digital economics also play an important role. The technological advances are directly proportional to a minimum component cost. As circuit integration continues to double annually, the cost remains at a relatively fixed rate. Not only do these advances benefit computing, but they also benefit the checkbook. Moore’s law has been reaffirmed time and time again. It has brought remarkable development in computer processing speed, memory capacity, as well as a plethora of other digital technologies.

Will this growth ever end? Theorists lean towards yes. This will be due to the most fundamental of road blocks, the atom. Transistors can only get so small. But how small have they gotten? In 1995 the Digital Alpha 21164 microprocessor contained a whopping 9.3 million transistors. Six years later, a microprocessor managed to fit 40 million transistors on a processor. These numbers continue to grow today. It is believed that by 2020, these microprocessors will exist on the molecular level.

Once again, will Moore’s Law ever reach a limit? My answer is yes. When the Cyborgs have taken over. Technological evolution will one day reach a critical juncture in history, which is referred to as singularity- the exact point when artificial intelligence overtakes mankind. How do I know that we are already on the way there? Well for one, I am hopelessly dependent on spell check.

Technology will continue to balloon at an exponential rate due to the law of accelerating returns. Eventually, the entire planet will be a massive super computer that not only has supreme intelligence but also physical control over the Universe. I know, I may have been reading a few too many Kurzweil novels, but only time will tell if the function of the human brain will become obsolete and “The Robot” from Lost in Space will one day rule the roost.

Hello World!!

So here it is, my very first blog. To be completely honest, I’m surprised it took this long for me to start one. Now that I can shout for the viral mountain tops, I might as well start yelling.

The actual reason I am writing this is because of an Informatics class I am currently taking at the U of I. I was given several blogging sites to choose from. After some investigation, I really like the way Word Press is set up. On top of being very user friendly, there are many options I will be able to explore throughout the semester. I am really looking forward for this opportunity to become a blogger.

As a Media major, I have learned the ins and outs of every communication medium. For example, did you know that smoke signals are credited for being the first form of telecommunication? Ancient Mayans used smoke as an optical telegraph to communicate across vast distances. But I digress. I’ve studied every communication medium… ever. Strangely, the one that perplexes me the most has to be blogging. My sophomore year (not to date myself, but I am currently a senior) blogging never once came up in class discussion. In fact, online communication was never really something my professors focused on at all. Last semester that started to change. The impacts online had on its users became more prevalent in our society. This semester I have three classes that require me to engage in some sort of blogging! The Internet has reshaped the way we think, receive information, and communicate…. thank you Al Gore.

So many questions run through my head when I think about blogging, like, who chose the word blog? That word sounds so dirty. Blog. You would think that it would be an adjective for Jabba the Hutt. But anyway, there is no doubt blogging has changed the way we exchange information with the viral “Global Village.” It will continue to grow and reinvent how we interact with things like receiving news, keeping up with old friends, or learning how to play “Party in the USA” on the guitar.

I’m not really sure what else to say at this point, but I am really excited to continue blogging. I know with time I will become more prolific with my posts and hopefully persuade some people to actually start reading them!