Tag Archives: artificial intelligence

running through walls

 running through walls

“… People are waking up and swimming to the surface through layers of deception. They’re returning to themselves. They’re recognizing group-ism for what it is: a meltdown into self-sabotage. The artifact is the collective. The self is real. Power, choice, and freedom never go away. They may hide, but they can be resurrected. Then the whole fake game crumbles.”






A.I. Will Eliminate Millions of Jobs. Time to Prepare. | RealClearScience

Posted by Michele Kearney at 11:22 AM 


What is Artificial Intelligence?

A useful overview of artificial intelligence.

Topics: Guest Post, Technology and innovation

Posted by Yves Smith at 9:55 am | 101 Comments »

By Georgios Petropoulos, a resident fellow at Brugel with extensive research experience from among other things, holding visiting positions at the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, Banque de France in Paris and the research department of Hewlett-Packard in Palo Alto. Originally published at Bruegel


As new technologies yield humans with much longer battery lives, killer apps and godlike superpowers, within the next six decades, if Harari is right, even the finest human specimens of 2017 will in hindsight seem like flip phones.

How Upgrading Humans will become the next Billion-dollar Industry 

Market Watch | 08 April 017




‘For the first time in history it will be possible to translate economic inequality into biological inequality.’



Daniel Siegel, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, UCLA, speaks on 

“Interpersonal Connection, Self-Awareness and Well-Being: The Art and Science of Integration in the Promotion of Health”



vettejoevette1 year ago

I find it bewildering that a brilliant mind like Dr Siegel is sharing scientific information that has such transformative implications for health and well being is speaking to an audience where a large percentage of members are multi-tasking on their laptops instead of paying focused attention.




The Feynmann Technique




Feynmann on curiosity




Simon Sinek: How great leaders inspire action

Simon Sinek has a simple but powerful model for inspirational leadership — starting with a golden circle and the question “Why?”

His examples include Apple, Martin Luther King, and the Wright brothers …

Includes 17 minute TED video.


His books include Start with Why and Leaders Eat Last.






source of featured image:


AI for bipeds

AI for bipeds

Google has released a handful of AI experiments that tap into advances in machine learning in creative ways.

They include Quick, Draw!, a game in which an algorithm tries to guess what you’re sketching, A.I. Duet, which lets you compose pieces of music with a creative computer, and ways to visualize how neural networks represent information and see the world.

The projects show off some new AI features Google has built into an overhauled cloud computing platform. But they also help make AI less mysterious, and hint at ways in which the technology may become more accessible to all of us.

Take Quick, Draw!, for example. You have 20 seconds to draw six simple objects, and a computer tries to guess what you’re working on in the allotted time. Under the hood, the game runs a learning system that Google uses for character recognition. The system analyzes not only the shape, but also the strokes you used to draw it. It’s a neat way to understand a machine-learning approach that’s used by millions on their smartphones. It’s also quite addictive, even if it always seems to mistake my ducks for potatoes.

In in A.I. Duets, you get to make music with an algorithm. Through an effort called Project Magenta, Google researchers are exploring ways of using neural networks to mimic human creativity. The results are fascinating, especially because how musical creativity works remains rather mysterious. Part of the motivation for Google’s project, indeed, is exploring human intelligence by copying its musicality.

Among the projects aimed at elucidating the inner workings of neural networks is one called Visualizing High Dimensional Space. Created by several experts in data visualization, this effort shows how a large neural network stores and draws connections between different pieces of data.

The results are often beautiful, but they also highlight one way that we might be able to understand powerful machine-learning systems that would normally be inscrutable.

This could be pretty important for everyone. Imagine, for example, an algorithm that just flagged an apparently healthy patient as likely to develop a particular disease. The ability to inspect a network’s inner connections could make that decision less difficult to understand, and make treatment easier to justify.

So if you want to understand the revolution in machine intelligence that’s upending just about every industry, Google’s online AI laboratory is well worth a visit.

(Read more: A.I. Experiments, Silicon Angle, “OK, Computer, Write Me A Song,” “The Hit Charade,” “AI’s Language Problem”)

by Will Knight November 18, 2016


Learn more about artificial intelligence at EmTech Digital 2017.

Register now 


source of featured image



On September 20, 2016, Accenture Strategy presented Symphonologie: The Music of Business debuted at the Louvre Museum in Paris. This unique sensory experience featured a full orchestra performing a 3-movement symphony inspired by the top stories of business and technology and interpreted though artificial intelligence. Symphonologie was brought to life by a team of strategists, creative technologists and musicians, and designed to reveal how strategy and technology together can unlock a new way to view the world. Learn more at http://www.symphonologie.com/

See also http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orchestra-music-symphonologie-by-artificial-intelligence-human-composers/




You can have a conversation with an AI bot here: http://alice.pandorabots.com 




Here was my conversation with Captain Kirk:


Lieutenant: I am a bosun’s mate in training 

James T. Kirk: I know you are. 

Lieutenant: how long will my training take> 

James T. Kirk: Hopefully not too much longer. 

Lieutenant: It is difficult to learn this material about AI. 

James T. Kirk: I don’t see the difficulty. 

Lieutenant: That’s because you have graduated and you are the Captain. 

James T. Kirk: Explain.. Lieutenant, our heading takes us near the Ceti Alpha star system.. Not necessarily, Lieutenant. I’ve heard of the theoretical possibility of life based on silicon. A silicon-based life would be of an entirely different order. It’s possible that our phasers might not affect it. 

Lieutenant: How long will that journey take? 

James T. Kirk: Hopefully not too much longer. 

Lieutenant: You ave a sly sense of humor. 

James T. Kirk: I can’t quite place him, but. What about Miss Hedford? 

Lieutenant: I should have typed “You have a sly sense of humor.” 

James T. Kirk: Perhaps you were. Both Nancy and Crater went out of their way to mention one item they needed. 

Lieutenant: Who are Nancy and Crater? 

James T. Kirk: Too much recursion in AIML.

Perhaps some form of mediation can be helpful in your difficulties. The Federation Bureau of Industrialisation may be of aid to you.


For more of this kind of thing, go here:




Very highly recommended, especially for the graphics, and purchasable in pdf format





The modern definition of artificial intelligence (or AI) is “the study and design of intelligent agents” where an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions which maximizes its chances of success.[1] John McCarthy, who coined the term in 1956,[2] defines it as “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines.”[3] Other names for the field have been proposed, such as computational intelligence,[4] synthetic intelligence[4][5] or computational rationality.[6] The term artificial intelligence is also used to describe a property of machines or programs: the intelligence that the system demonstrates.

AI research uses tools and insights from many fields, including computer science, psychology, philosophy, neuroscience, cognitive science, linguistics, operations research, economics, control theory, probability, optimization and logic.[7] AI research also overlaps with tasks such as robotics, control systems, scheduling, data mining, logistics, speech recognition, facial recognition and many others.[8]

Much much more here: 



“We are in the midst of a revolution in machine intelligence, the art and engineering practices that let computers perform tasks that, until recently, could be done only by people…. For the record, most experts believe that strong machine intelligence will arrive before the century is over, assuming current trends continue.

Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies deals with the aftermath of that event. The book’s author, Nick Bostrom, a professor of philosophy at the University of Oxford, has a background in theoretical physics and neuroscience. His scholarly work is focused on understanding and mitigating emerging risks that threaten the very survival of the human species: full-blown nuclear warfare, massive climate change, synthetic biology, nanotechnology or runaway machine intelligence.

Superintelligence deals with the last. I warmly recommend the opening and the closing chapters for their enticing arguments, soaring metaphors and insightful fables. You will come away unsettled, if not downright frightened…..

To constrain what could happen and ensure that humanity retains some modicum of control, we need to better understand the only known form of intelligence. That is, we need to develop a science of intelligence by studying people and their brains to try to deduce what might be the ultimate capabilities and goals of a machine intelligence. What makes a person smart, able to deal with a complex world that is in constant flux? How does intelligence develop throughout infancy, childhood and adolescence? How did intelligence evolve?

How much does intelligence depend on being embedded in social groups? What is the relation between intelligence and emotion and between intelligence and motivation? And what about consciousness? Will it make a difference to the AI’s action if it feels something, anything, and if it, too, can experience the sights and sounds of the universe?

In a field largely defined by science-fiction novels and movies acting as laboratories for exploring the possible, Bostrom’s Superintelligence is a philosopher’s Cassandra call to action (adorned with more than 40 pages of endnotes). Woe to us if we don’t eventually tackle the questions that the book throws out. Doing so effectively will be possible only once we have a principled, scientific account of the internal constraints and the architecture of biological intelligence. Only then will we be in a better position to put effective control structures in place to maximize the vast benefits that may come about if we develop smart companions to help solve the myriad problems humankind faces.”




A philosopher worries about computers’ ever accelerating abilities to outpace human skills

By Christof Koch on September 1, 2015
“We are in the midst of a revolution in machine intelligence, the art and engineering practices that let computers perform tasks that, until recently, could be done only by people…. For the record, most experts believe that strong machine intelligence will arrive before the century is over, assuming current trends continue.

Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies deals with the aftermath of that event. The book’s author, Nick Bostrom, a professor of philosophy at the University of Oxford, has a background in theoretical physics and neuroscience. His scholarly work is focused on understanding and mitigating emerging risks that threaten the very survival of the human species: full-blown nuclear warfare, massive climate change, synthetic biology, nanotechnology or runaway machine intelligence.

Superintelligence deals with the last. I warmly recommend the opening and the closing chapters for their enticing arguments, soaring metaphors and insightful fables. You will come away unsettled, if not downright frightened…..

To constrain what could happen and ensure that humanity retains some modicum of control, we need to better understand the only known form of intelligence. That is, we need to develop a science of intelligence by studying people and their brains to try to deduce what might be the ultimate capabilities and goals of a machine intelligence. What makes a person smart, able to deal with a complex world that is in constant flux? How does intelligence develop throughout infancy, childhood and adolescence? How did intelligence evolve?

How much does intelligence depend on being embedded in social groups? What is the relation between intelligence and emotion and between intelligence and motivation? And what about consciousness? Will it make a difference to the AI’s action if it feels something, anything, and if it, too, can experience the sights and sounds of the universe?

In a field largely defined by science-fiction novels and movies acting as laboratories for exploring the possible, Bostrom’s Superintelligence is a philosopher’s Cassandra call to action (adorned with more than 40 pages of endnotes). Woe to us if we don’t eventually tackle the questions that the book throws out. Doing so effectively will be possible only once we have a principled, scientific account of the internal constraints and the architecture of biological intelligence. Only then will we be in a better position to put effective control structures in place to maximize the vast benefits that may come about if we develop smart companions to help solve the myriad problems humankind faces.”


Christof Koch is president and chief scientific officer at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle. He serves on Scientific American Mind’s board of advisers.





“… This profoundly ambitious and original book breaks down a vast track of difficult intellectual terrain. After an utterly engrossing journey that takes us to the frontiers of thinking about the human condition and the future of intelligent life, we find in Nick Bostrom’s work nothing less than a reconceptualization of the essential task of our time.”





 [Nick Bostrom’s TED Talk on “a future full of human enhancement, nanotechnology and cloning long before they became mainstream concerns. Bostrom approaches both the inevitable and the speculative using the tools of philosophy, bioethics and probability.” ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOhb7wkyMVo [107] [Nick Bostrom on Superintelligence]


How artificial intelligence is changing economic theory

July 17, 2015 by Leah Burrows



The Three Breakthroughs that Have Unleased AI



“Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a science and a set of computational technologies that are inspired by—but typically operate quite differently from—the ways people use their nervous systems and bodies to sense, learn, reason, and take action. While the rate of progress in AI has been patchy and unpredictable, there have been significant advances since the field’s inception sixty years ago. Once a mostly academic area of study, twenty-first century AI enables a constellation of mainstream technologies that are having a substantial impact on everyday lives…..”




The Stanford 100 Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (AI100)




“The human brain has many interesting properties. Raj Reddy speculated that there are about one hundred billion neural cells in the human brain and the brain might be performing 200 trillion operations per second if not faster than that [12]. In problem domains such as vision, speech and motor processes, “it is more powerful than 1,000 supercomputers; however, for simple tasks such as multiplication, it is less powerful than a four bit microprocessor” [12]. These processing events taking place in the brain require little conscious effort and awareness on the part of humans and they are extremely difficult for machines to emulate. Conversely, machines can excel in some processes that are difficult if not impossible to a human being. Reddy went on to argue that silicon-based intelligence, if it’s ever achieved, might just have different attributes after all.”

[12]. Foundations and Grand Challenges of Artificial Intelligence. Reddy, R. Winter, 1988, AI Magazine, p. 9.  

The History of Artificial Intelligence, p. 15

full pdf here:




Preparing for the Future of Artificial Intelligence

Executive Office of the President

National Science and Technology Council

Committee on Technology

October 2016

58-page pdf: preparing_for_the_future_of_ai 


A tutorial on AI and video games




President Barack Obama on How Artificial Intelligence Will Affect Jobs | WIRED


[10 minutes]

See also 

The White House today release a report on the future of artificial intelligence. The document covered a number of concerns. Perhaps the shortest major section was “AI, Automation, and the Economy.”





Other Videos


An 8-minute video primer on AI


Artificial Intelligence and the Future

Deep Mind’s Demis Hassabis at the Royal Society of the Arts


[48 minutes]


Artificial Intelligence and Robotics



[50 minutes]


Blurring the Lines Between Humans and Machines


Pascale Fung, Professor, Department of Electronic and Computer Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Ben Goertzel, Chief Scientist, Hanson Robotics; Chief Scientist, Aidyia Ltd.

Hsiao-Wuen Hon, Corporate Vice President, Microsoft Corp.; Chairman, Asia-Pacific R&D Group, Microsoft

Filmed Sept 2016


[60 minutes]


OpenAI – Deep Learning for Computer Vision

Andrej Karpathy


[85 minutes]




A major source for symposia, conferences and a magazine


Journals and Books


See the bibliography here



Artificial Intelligence, which commenced publication in 1970, is now the generally accepted premier international forum for the publication of results of current research in this field.



Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach

(Third edition) by Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig

The leading textbook in Artificial Intelligence.

Used in over 1300 universities in over 110 countries.

The 22nd most cited computer science publication on Citeseer (and 4th most cited publication of this century).



Ai4u: Mind-1.1 Programmer s Manual (Paperback)

Arthur T Murray

Published by iUniverse, United States (2002)

ISBN 10: 0595259227 ISBN 13: 9780595259229

New Paperback

Item Description: iUniverse, United States, 2002. Paperback. Book Condition: New. 215 x 172 mm. Language: English . Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****. AI4U: Mind-1.1 Programer s Manual has the following positive and negative points. + It describes the rapidly evolving AI Minds on the Web. – It quickly becomes obsolete as the AI hyper-evolves. + On-demand publishing (ODP) makes for quick updates. – The Mentifex project is considered oddball on the Net. + You ve got the first book about the first real AI Mind. – There are other, better, more authoritative AI textbooks. + AI4U makes a good supplement for actually coding AI. – Artificial intelligence is too hard to understand. + AI4U describes the AI while it is still easy to learn. – I would rather build robots than study AI programming. + If you want to build a smart robot, then AI4U is for you. – I m only a high school student/teacher; what s the use? + This book will challenge even the most gifted student. – I am not a programmer and so I can t code AI. + AI4U teaches you how to operate an AI, not just code it. – I just want to do Web design, not artificial intelligence. + AI4U provides an AI that you may install on your website. – I am more interested in neuroscience and/or psychology. + AI4U teaches a theory of how the brain works psychologically. Bookseller Inventory # AAV9780595259229


See also:





[four-month self-paced nanodegree]


source of image:



MIT’s Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory


https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-034-artificial-intelligence-fall-2010/lecture-videos/ [open courseware at MIT]

https://www.edx.org/course/artificial-intelligence-uc-berkeleyx-cs188-1x [free course at Berkeley]



click on large image


Artificial Intelligence in Law – The State of Play in 2015?

Added on the 3rd Nov 2015 at 12:17 pm

by Michael Mills, the co-founder and chief strategy officer of Neota Logic Inc., developers of a no-code software platform with which non-programmers can build expert systems to automate advice, documents, and processes.



On the validity of the Turing Test



Artificial intelligence, machine learning and advanced algorithms are at the heart of an emerging digital world.

That was one of the chiefs components of Gartner’s Peter Sondergaard, senior vice president and global head of Research opening remarks at today’s Gartner Symposium/ITxpo show in Orlando.

“Machine learning and artificial intelligence move at the speed of data, not at the speed of code releases. Information is the new code base.”

CIOs will participate in the building of a new digital platform with intelligence at the center,” Sondergaard said told a crowd of more than 8,000 CIOs and IT leaders. “The new competitive differentiator is understanding the customer’s intent through advanced algorithms and artificial intelligence. Creating new experiences that solve problems customers didn’t realize they had.”

Gartner says “advanced machine learning algorithms are composed of many technologies (such as deep learning, neural networks and natural-language processing), used in unsupervised and supervised learning, that operate guided by lessons from existing information.”

Advanced machine learning not only enables a smart machine to understand concepts in the environment, but enables it to learn. Through machine learning, a smart machine can change its future behavior. For example, by analyzing vast databases of medical case histories, “learning” machines can reveal previously unknown insights in treatment effectiveness. This area is evolving quickly, and organizations must assess how they can apply these technologies to gain competitive advantage, Gartner said last Fall in presenting trends for 2016.

Gartner says artificial intelligence “is technology that appears to emulate human performance typically by learning, coming to its own conclusions, appearing to understand complex content, engaging in natural dialogs with people, enhancing human cognitive performance (also known as cognitive computing) or replacing people on execution of nonroutine tasks. Applications include autonomous vehicles, automatic speech recognition and generation and detecting novel concepts and abstractions (useful for detecting potential new risks and aiding humans quickly understand very large bodies of ever changing information).”

“We are building machines that learn from experience and produce outcomes their designers did not explicitly envision. Systems that can experience and adapt to the world via the data they collect,” Sondergaard said. “Machine learning and artificial intelligence move at the speed of data, not at the speed of code releases. Information is the new code base.”



How smart is today’s artificial intelligence?

multi-media (video, audio and text) from PBS


[with 54 comments]


“… In response to AIs rapid developments, more than 8,000 leading researchers and scientists — including Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking — have signed an open letter alluding to AI’s potential pitfalls and possible detriment to humanity. Their main concern is that an existential risk faces humanity: an AI in control of autonomous weapons.

The letter goes on to state that autonomous weapons are quickly becoming the third revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms, and that AI researchers must focus their research on what is beneficial for humanity, and not just what is profitable. However, much of what is researched with AI may not be public knowledge, and is likely internal research that’s closely held by just a few very wealthy corporations. How can the public make informed decisions about something that is kept secret?….”



Artificial intelligence researchers have developed software that is capable of making complex decisions to accurately predict the outcome of human rights trials.

The AI “judge” was developed by computer scientists at University College London (UCL), the University of Sheffield and the University of Pennsylvania using an algorithm that analyzed the text of cases at the European Court of Human Rights.

Judicial decisions from the court were predicted with 79 percent accuracy by the machine learning algorithm.

“Previous studies have predicted outcomes based on the nature of the crime, or the policy position of each judge, so this is the first time judgments have been predicted using analysis of text prepared by the court,” said Vasileios Lampos, co-author of the research.

More: http://www.newsweek.com/ethical-artificial-intelligence-judge-predicts-human-rights-trials-513012 


Artificial intelligence-powered malware is coming, and it’s going to be terrifying


The future is on its way, and there’s nothing you can do about it.


How to Hold Algorithms Accountable

“… algorithms fed by big data can also amplify structural discrimination, produce errors that deny services to individuals, or even seduce an electorate into a false sense of security. Indeed, there is growing awareness that the public should be wary of the societal risks posed by over-reliance on these systems and work to hold themaccountable…..”

Algorithmic systems have a way of making mistakes or leading to undesired consequences. Here are five principles to help technologists deal with that.

November 17, 2016



The Future (Probably) Isn’t as Scary as You Think 

Internet pioneer Kevin Kelly tries to predict the future by identifying what’s truly inevitable. How worried should we be? Yes, robots will probably take your job — but the future will still be pretty great.


Robots and Artificial Intelligence

Starwood Hotels Trials Robots That Make Deliveries to Guests

August 12th, 2014

Via: CNBC:

Look out Rosie the Robot, Starwood Hotels’ Aloft brand has a taskmaster of its own.

His (or her?) name; A.L.O. pronounced “el-oh”, the hotels’ first Botlr (short of robotic butler.) Standing just under 3 feet tall, A.L.O. comes dressed in a vinyl-collared butler uniform and will soon be on call all day and night to fulfill requests from guests.

Forget your toothpaste? Need more towels? How about a late-night chocolate bar? All guests of the hotel have to do is call the front desk, where staff will load up the Botlr with requested items, punch in the guest’s room number and send it off to make the delivery, navigating hallways and even call for the elevator using Wi-Fi.

Posted in Economy, Rise of the Machines, Technology



Here’s an idea for an awesome dogfighting aircraft. Make it small, light, and fast. Build it out of materials that are hard to detect on radar. Even give it a laser cannon.

Oh, and don’t put a human in the cockpit. In fact, don’t even closely tie the drone to human ground control. Because in an aerial knife fight, a computer-controlled machine will beat a human pilot.

That’s the idea behind a controversial proposal by U.S. Air Force captain Michael Byrnes, an experienced Predator and Reaper drone pilot. Byrnes is calling for the development of a robotic dogfighter, which he calls the FQ-X, that could blow manned fighters out of the sky.

“A tactically autonomous, machine-piloted aircraft … will bring new and unmatched lethality to air-to-air combat,” Byrnes writes in Air and Space Power Journal.

In Byrnes’ conception, machines have the edge in making the lightning-fast decisions necessary to win a close-quarters aerial battle. “Humans average 200 to 300 milliseconds to react to simple stimuli, but machines can select or synthesize and execute maneuvers, making millions of corrections in that same quarter of a second,” he writes.

Byrnes focuses on famed fighter pilot John Boyd’s classic observe-orient-decide-act decision cycle — the “OODA loop” — which predicts that victory in combat belongs to the warrior who can assess and respond to conditions fastest.

Like a fighter pilot trying to out-turn his opponent in a dogfight, the trick to OODA is quickly making the right decisions while your enemy is still trying to figure out what’s going on.

It’s a battle of wits in which computers are superior, according to Byrnes. “Every step in OODA that we can do, they will do better.”

Byrnes envisions a drone designed from the start to utilize the full potential of an unmanned dogfighter. The FQ-X would be constructed of advanced, difficult-to-detect “metamaterials.” It would have extremely powerful computers that could determine an enemy aircraft’s position from even the scantest of sensor data.

“The principle of ‘first look, first kill’ belongs to the aircraft with the most processing power and the best software to leverage it,” Byrnes writes.

The FQ-X would also have multispectral optics and computer vision software that would enable it to distinguish friendly from enemy aircraft. The drone would pack a laser or a cannon firing armor-piercing incendiary rounds.

To sweeten the robot’s victory, on-board machine-learning systems would analyze the encounter and transmit tips to other combat drones.

It should be pretty obvious we’re not talking about some plodding, prop-driven Predator drone being steered by humans sitting in a trailer in Nevada, but rather a fast- and high-flying robot jet that functions without much need for human guidance.

“With FQ-X, autonomy for the conduct of the engagement would return to the air vehicle to take advantage of its superior processing speed and reaction times,” Byrnes proposes.

But there’s a tension in robotic warfare between the machines’ incredible speed and lethality and we human beings’ natural desire for direct control. Inserting a man into the loop inevitably limits a drone’s potential.

Without human control, we effectively grant robots licenses to kill.

Byrnes suggests breaking a dogfighting drone’s actions into different phases, including searching, stalking, closure, capture, and kill. Operator control would vary with the phase. And in the heat of direct combat, when milliseconds matter, the robot calls most of the shots.

It’s a bold proposal — one the Air Force as a whole has showed little interest in pursuing. Only the Navy has openly discussed adding air-to-air missiles to jet-powered drones. Considering the bureaucratic resistance, Byrnes worries that the flying branch could eventually have no choice but to borrow dogfighting robot technology from the sea service.

“Aviators may dislike it, the public will question it, science fiction imagines harbingers of the Cylon apocalypse and we are uncertain about how to best utilize it within the context of a larger Air Force,” he writes.

“Nevertheless, the FQ-X concept is too dangerous to our current thinking to ignore forever.”





Google search=robots+and+artificial+intelligence 

Google search=pros+and+cons+of+artificial+intelligence 


New Watson-Style AI Called Viv Seeks To Be the First ‘Global Brain’

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday August 12, 2014 @08:10PM

from the siri-why-does-my-cat-throw-up-so-much? dept.

paysonwelch sends this report from Wired on the next generation of consumer AI:

Google Now has a huge knowledge graph—you can ask questions like “Where was Abraham Lincoln born?” And it can name the city. You can also say, “What is the population?” of a city and it’ll bring up a chart and answer. But you cannot say, “What is the population of the city where Abraham Lincoln was born?” The system may have the data for both these components, but it has no ability to put them together, either to answer a query or to make a smart suggestion. Like Siri, it can’t do anything that coders haven’t explicitly programmed it to do.

Viv breaks through those constraints by generating its own code on the fly, no programmers required. Take a complicated command like “Give me a flight to Dallas with a seat that Shaq could fit in.” Viv will parse the sentence and then it will perform its best trick: automatically generating a quick, efficient program to link third-party sources of information together—say, Kayak, SeatGuru, and the NBA media guide—so it can identify available flights with lots of legroom.

Read the 40 comments



Burger-flipping robot could ‘completely obviate’ the need for human employees

Are our jobs doomed? Report shows the potentially devastating effects of robots on the job market

28 jobs endangered by technology

Machines were going to usher in an age of wealth and enable humans to live in leisure. — RF

The New NSA-Funded Code Rolls All Programming Languages Into One

Twitter admits that as many as 23 million of its active users are actually bots

Links from RiceFarmer.blogspot.com



Column by Glen Allport.

Exclusive to STR

Here’s a taste:

“… How long do we have? No one knows, in part because AI/ASI researchers are all over the globe in dozens of nations, and many efforts are being conducted in secrecy. Chillingly, much of the funding (perhaps the majority) is coming from military sources such as DARPA, with, one can only believe, the explicit intent to use machine intelligence to kill the enemy or to destroy the enemy’s infrastructure — which would, as we have sene in Iraq, kill thousands, millions, or (in, say, the United States or China) perhaps hundreds of millions of civilians. Another reason we can only guess at the time remaining in the Human Era is that for many types of thinking, machines are millions of times faster than humans and they never sleep. At the point where turning an AI into something a thousand times smarter than Einstein might take a human team decades, the AI itself might do the same job in minutes — and do it in the background, without people even noticing what was happening. We can say this with certainty: Time grows short…..”


Glen Allport co-authored The User’s Guide to OS/2 from Compute! Books and is the author of The Paradise Paradigm: On Creating a World of Compassion, Freedom, and Prosperity. He maintains paradise-paradigm.net. This is one in a series of columns on the human condition.





The slice by Gordon Allport noted above helps humanity keep the focus and phyxation on how Robin Williams died in perspective. 



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q10Bmr9ssg (6:20)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_qfC3utQwI (2:05:02)


Isn’t it ironic that this film won the Oscar for Best Make-Up, and that it cost an estimated one hundred million to make the movie?


Andrew Martin… you can lose yourself. Everything. All boundaries. All time. That two bodies can become so mixed up, that you don’t know who’s who or what’s what. And just when the sweet confusion is so intense you think you’re gonna die… you kind of do. Leaving you alone in your separate body, but the one you love is still there. That’s a miracle. You can go to heaven and come back alive. You can go back anytime you want with the one you love.

Rupert Burns: And you want to experience that?

Andrew Martin: Oh, yes, please.

Andrew Martin: [Very fast] Two cannibals were eating a clown. One turns to the other and says “Does this taste funny to you?” How do you make a hanky dance? Put a little boogie in it! What is a brunette between two blondes? A translator! Do you know why blind people don’t like to sky-dive? It scares their dogs! A man with demensia is driving on the freeway. His wife calls him on the mobile phone and says “Sweetheart, I heard there’s someone driving the wrong way on the freeway.” He says “One? There’s hundreds!” What’s silent and smells like worms? Bird farts. It must have been an engineer who designed the human body. Who else would put a waste processing plant next to a recreation area? A woman goes into a doctor’s office, and the doctor says “Do you mind if I numb your breasts?” “Not at all.” *makes ‘motor-boating’ noise. “Num-num-num-num.”

* * * * * * * *

UPDATED Friday August 15th, 2914 with this additional tidbit

from Kevin @ Cryptogon:

The Kilobot Project: A Low Cost Scalable Robot System for Demonstrating Collective Behaviors

August 15th, 2014

Here’s one for your This-Will-End-Badly file folder.

Via: Harvard:

In current robotics research there is a vast body of work on algorithms and control methods for groups of decentralized cooperating robots, called a swarm or collective. These algorithms are generally meant to control collectives of hundreds or even thousands of robots; however, for reasons of cost, time, or complexity, they are generally validated in simulation only, or on a group of a few 10s of robots. To address this issue, we designed the Kilobot, a low-cost robot designed to make testing collective algorithms on hundreds or thousands (“kilos”) of robots accessible to robotics researchers. Each robot has the basic capabilities required for a swarm robot, but is made with low-cost parts, and is mostly assembled by an automated process. In addition, the system design allows a single user to easily and scalably operate a large Kilobot collective, such as programming, powering on, and charging all robots. systems.

We are now using the Kilobot swarm to investigate algorithms for robust collective behavior, such as collective transport, human-swarm interaction, and shape self-assembly, as well as new theory that links individual robot capabilities to acheivable swarm behaviors. See our publications and movies to learn more about this research.

robotic answers to kids’ questions



The first part is re-posted from http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/07/u-s-government-invests-in-robot-personal-trainers-for-children-3000604.html 

U.S. Government Invests in Robot Personal Trainers for Children

Saturday, July 26, 2014 9:34

(Before It’s News)

Nicholas West
Activist Post

The evolution of humanoid robots continues to quicken with greater strides being made toward applying artificial intelligence to create emotional robots.

The commitment to reverse engineer the human brain coupled with the exponential increase in computing power is now forcing the discussion toward the social impact robotics is beginning to have as humans and robots begin interacting with greater frequency.

Consequently, newer robots are being produced with the intention of manipulating emotional triggers that guide human-to-human interaction. It’s all part of a move to make robots seem less creepy and more like real members of society. Researchers are taking multiple angles to establish these connections. The U.S. government is now getting involved with a $10 million investment into developing robots that can serve as personal trainers for children with the stated intention to “influence their behavior and eating habits.”

In loco parentis (in the place of a parent) – the legal charge given to educators when you hand over your children to school – might take on a strange new meaning. A 5-year, multi-university project is being led by Yale and includes researchers from MIT, Stanford and the University of Southern California; it is funded by the National Science Foundation, which has fallen under the umbrella of the federal BRAIN neuroscience initiative.

The ultimate goal of the “Robots Helping Kids” project is to send robots into homes and schools to provide children with education as well as fitness. This comes at a time when we have witnessed a push by America’s first lady toward controlling what children eat as well as introducing her concept of fitness; the results have been underwhelming to say the least.

A Yale press release doesn’t hide the fact that they are looking to robots for additional help with social engineering:

A Yale-led research team will spend the next five years developing a new breed of sophisticated “socially assistive” robots for helping young children learn to read, appreciate physical fitness, overcome cognitive disabilities, and perform physical exercises.

The purpose of the $10 million, federally funded effort, announced April 3, is to create self-adapting machines capable of cultivating long-term interpersonal relationships and assisting pre-school-age children with educational and therapeutic goals.

“The big idea is that we’re building robots to help kids,” said Brian Scassellati, the Yale computer scientist who is leading the intensive, multi-university project. “At the end of five years we’d like to have robots that can guide a child toward long-term educational goals, be customized for the particular needs of that child, and basically grow and develop with the child. We want the robot to be the equivalent of a good personal trainer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8m65cawkMc (3:11)

The language used here is disturbing. While at once it is claimed that these robots will only augment the instruction of parents, trained educators, and therapists, the targeting of pre-school-age children for “cultivating long-term personal relationships” to “motivate individuals toward a specific goal” while the robots “guide the  child toward a behavior we desire” clearly opens the door for more training than merely the physical.

As if government-run school isn’t brainwashing enough, now a literal programmed entity filled with all of the indoctrination of that system will be able to devote full-time – in school and at home – to ensure whatever it is the programmers wish to send their way.

What could possibly go wrong?








[Apparently Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street weren’t good enough….]






So here is today’s quiz (my answers will follow below):

  1. Name the top three people who were responsible for your personal skill development and education/training or who were instrumental in your emergence as a functional human being. Stick with those who knew or worked closely with you through the sixth grade.
  2. Name the top three robots you can think of.  You can cheat and use movie figures or actual androids. But go with your immediate answers.
  3. Name 5-10 top educators you learned about much later in life that you’d now like to invite to join you for an extended period of time at a relaxed environment and for a nice meal and then a two-hour after-dinner discussion.  Describe their impact on you.  Note two questions for each one of these people you’d like to ask them.


Here’s today’s open book take-home essay questions:  In 50-100 words, describe Helen Keller’s teacher Anne Sullivan as a robot.


For extra credit (but you don’t have to “turn it in”) compare all the people you name in questions #1 and #3 to the best teaching machines you know or can conceive of.


My answers:

  1. Mrs. Helming, Miss Watson, Miss Dale. (Honorary fourth place: Evelyn Shade Shaner.) Mrs. Helming was the Mennonite nanny who took care of me from birth through about age 4.  My birth mother died from complications of my childbirth, and Mrs. Helming loved me and nurtured me in a way I can only guess at. When I went away to college, she sent me the only picture of my mother I’ve ever seen. Miss Watson — I am guessing here or assigning her the role played by others — chided me to sit up and pay attention (caling me ‘jellyfish’) but probably also did the basic educational testing that got me into a much smaller and much more accelerated educational setting.  Evelyn Shade Shaner gets an honorary vote because, as my step-mother, she went to work as a secretary to the principal at that school so they could afford to send me. Miss Dale — whose water color of the distant mountain named Cadillac hangs in my bedroom— was the prototypical ramrod-straight “brooks-no-excuses” schoolmarm spinster who taught English, grammar and Latin to me in fifth and sixth grade.
  2. R2D2 , Yoda  and Andrew. I don’t own or use a “smart phone”.
  3. Guy Dushanek, Ted Nielsen, Eric Booth, Richard Strozzi Heckler, Ken Ravizza, Tim Gallwey and Eliot Levine.  Guy (Duke) Dushanek and Ted Nielsen are both dead, so I’m gonna have to wait to ask them my questions, or have one of those deeply-meditative “visitations”.  The first was my high school AP English teacher and gave to me (after Miss Dale) my skills at writing. He had me fired up for the long haul when he went positively apoplectic over my effective choice of the word “jaded” in some long forgotten essay. He extended my love of reading. There are two questions I’d ask: why he never leaned on my parents to let me play sports (he was the high school baseball coach and had hands like mitts because he was a damn good catcher), and — more importantly — why he never leaned harder on me to get me to go to North Adams State Teachers College, where he taught too. Ted’s dead too; he was my college professor for film production, TV production and broadcast news and public affairs. I’d ask him about the state of affairs in today’s media, and ask him how we could best learn and apply skills in today’s world of social media and digital media to break the monopolistic control on information. The remaining five are alive and have links and books and other media that you can find to learn more about them; all of them were leading figures in my auto-didactic study of performance psychology and have prominent places on the bibliography I mention frequently. Eric Booth’s book “The Everyday Work of Art” sits at the top of all the books I’ve read and recommend. I’ve actually met Ken Ravizza twice at post-graduate seminars, and have read several of his books. He is regarded as one of the world’s leading consultants in performance psychology.  He wrote his masters thesis on peak experience. Richard Strozzi Heckler’s curriculm vitae is stunning. I own and have read six of his eight books. He is listed as one of the top 50 executive coaches in the world. W. Timothy Gallwey “has written a series of books in which he has set forth a new methodology for coaching and for the development of personal and professional excellence in a variety of fields, that he calls ‘The Inner Game.’” “Tim Gallwey’s work went on to found the current movement in business coaching, life coaching and executive coaching.” Eliot Levine wrote a book called “One Kid at a Time”.  “Any one interested in creating an education system that is child centered, flexible and interesting should read this book.” “Imagine a high school where there are no classes, grades, or tests; where each teacher is responsible for only 14 students, and students stay with the same teacher all four years; where the learning style of each student is accommodated; and where students complete internships in the real world based on their interests. This is the concept practiced at the Metropolitan Regional Career and Technical Center (the Met), a public high school in Providence, RI. Students are selected from a lottery of applicants and come from a variety of economic and academic backgrounds. Levine, who immersed himself in the Met for two years, describes the school’s first four years. It’s to be expected that such a unique school would have its critics, but few could argue with the school’s successes. Even its creators say that it’s not the answer to all that ails American education, but they believe that it holds many of those answers among them, small, personalized schools, teachers and administrators who know the students well, and a focus on learning through the students’ interests. Levine succeeds in bringing the Met to life for readers. Most libraries will welcome this volume into their collection.”  It would be real nice if I could somehow conjure up Mr. Dushanek for that conference; he was thrilled, as was the principal and the superintendent, with the impromptu surprise of a scripted and improvised skit that I wrote and which was acted out by me and Ron Lanoue and Steve Moitozo which featured Walter Crankit and Harry Unreasonable interviewing Nanook of the North, dressed in fur coat, mukluks and carrying his spear. But for the five living folks, I’d have two questions which I’d ask them to answer individually and as a group (after having asked and received permission to record their answers). A) What do you think about the current situation in America?  B) What can we do about it?    Booth’s answer will be along these lines: http://ericbooth.net/the-changing-grammar-of-community-engagement-past-imperfect-present-future/. And check this out: http://ericbooth.net/firsts/#   Gallwey’s inner game approach [There is always an inner game being played in your mind no matter what outer game you are playing. How you play this game usually makes the difference between success and failure.” ] has lots of public offerings. Heckler will probably draw from his book The Art of Somatic Coaching: Embodying Skillful Action, Wisdom, and Compassion.  And I know you’d really love to hear Guy Dushanek’s answers… 



Oh, and we have a surprise sixth guest…! Rafe Esquith. 


His book is called “Real Talk For Real Teachers: Advice for Teachers from Rookies to Veterans: ‘No Retreat, No Surrender!,‘ ”

“If my kids are learning about baseball and you ask them what they are doing, they will say they are working on concentration. You can’t throw a baseball without focus. And I say to them, ‘When in real life do you have to have focus: Well, if you drive a car or do surgery, you have to have focus.’ This is meaningful to teachers. So that’s what the book is about.”  [Ken Ravizza would understand this and applaud.]

“I was at a school were only 32 percent of the students finished high school. That’s when I saw the tragedy of all. Shakespeare says that tragedy isn’t just bad. It’s something that could have been good that goes bad. I got angry.” [Eliot Levine would understand and add more insights.]

Q) What is different about public education today versus when you started?
A) The obsession with testing. We always gave tests, but basically now it’s the entire day. Basically if it’s not on the test don’t teach it. Teachers spend hours and hours and hours trying to figure out what’s going to be on the test. They will teach that there are four chambers of the heart, but not why we have a heart or why it works…. “ [I would understand….]

“If you want to be a guitarist it takes thousands and thousands of hours of disciplined practice. You don’t’ get to be Eric Clapton in a week. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efFo-Clq844(8:49)]  But it’s ironic that an organization that believes there are no shortcuts trains teachers in five weeks.”



Hey, to be honest, I pooped out by the time I got around to the open book take-home essay question about describing Helen Keller’s teacher Anne Sullivan as a robot. The sun is about to come up, the Down Easter express just came through, and I’m gonna have to crash soon. Esquith talks about the need for sleep, and I’m gonna get me some soon.

But here’s what I’ll do to make your own efforts at that open book take-home essay question a little easier.

First, here are two copies or versions of the script from the movie “The Miracle Worker”:



They should give you some fodder for your questions.


Secondly, there are four AI bots I found and you can do some sampling to come up with the best and worst examples of how a robot might respond to Helen Keller.

In alphabetical order, they are:

Alice: http://alice.pandorabots.com 

Cleve R. Bot: http://www.cleverbot.com use with discretion and at YOUR OWN RISK and, if you are a minor,  use ONLY WITH OVERSIGHT

Elbot: http://www.elbot.com  

Splotchy: http://www.algebra.com/cgi-bin/chat.mpl 


Have fun, don’t stay up too late, and keep a diary about what you learn from it.

And you can do some further research here: http://www.ted.com/conversations/topics/artificial%20intelligence