What do Terminator and Matrix have in common with Hotel Rwanda? Namely, they all deal with power struggles. OK, it may seem rather strange that I’m drawing a correlation between these films, but bear with me for a moment while I explain my position. It seems to me that most conflicts eventually rest on one of the following two areas: Values and Resources
Value conflicts are wars and battles that spring from a clash of ethnic, ethic, or moral disagreement. While there isn’t anything particularly wrong about an individual defining themselves by their nationality, religion, or ethics, once they take a stand on these things it inevitably causes small conflicts. Even at the most basic level, when one assesses themselves by a certain criteria; he tends to assess other people by these criteria as well. So if I’m proud of my American, Christian, and Pacifist ways I may hold myself in an elevated position over someone who doesn’t share the same beliefs. Even subtle criticism like this lead to bigger conflicts as I interact with those I disagree with. The outworking of my own pride can eventually become war if it’s not tended well.
Watch the Terminator series with this sort of idea in the back of your mind, and you’ll see the direct correlation between Skynet’s decision to wipe out humanity with this value conflict. The self-aware AI, of course, makes the jump from criticism to war much faster than humans would, but the principle seen in the film is very similar to what we can read into historical events like the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and Hotel Rwanda.
Each of these are value-based conflicts where the self-proclaimed superior/powerful group does its best to eliminate or convert those who don’t meet their standard.
Resource conflicts are any kind of disagreement or battle that deals with scarcity. When resources are unlimited and there is plenty of land, food, etc to go around for everyone, competition isn’t nearly as fierce and normally doesn’t result in war or death. But as soon as there are limits in place, humans always try to get as much as they can- even at the cost of others.
When we watch ads from two politicians, trading jabs, it’s basically the same thing. There can only be one President of the United States and so anyone running who wants to win will do whatever they can to grab the most votes. Votes are the limited resource.
I used to work for Universal Orlando Resort where our theme parks were continually “at war” with Disney for market share. We wanted as many tourists as possible to visit our park- rather than Disney. Time was the resources we were fighting over.
If you read into the history of Matrix movies, they basically boil down to a war based on resource problems. Robots need power and after humans nuke the sky- crippling the machines’ ability to gather solar power- their only source of fuel is the humans themselves. Humans are only enslaved because the robots want to continue functioning.
So as we watch movies like Terminator, Matrix, and Hotel Rwanda, I think it’s important to get to the bottom of conflict if we really want to avoid the violence depicted within each film. The bottom line is, we still need to answer these questions if we’re going to do anything about wars and interpersonal conflicts:
What can we do to lessen the value and resource conflicts before they grow out of control and threaten our very lives?
The other day I came home and found that the internet wasn’t working. I didn’t have anything particular that I needed to do- I think I was going to check my e-mail- but I got really nervous for a moment, wondering what I was missing because my link to the world was cut off.
It was strange, though, because for a moment after my initial panic I actually felt a sense of relief. I actually felt free. There was a sudden freedom from any obligation to respond to e-mails, Facebook updates, Tweets, and RSS feeds from GoogleReader. The internet was down and so I had a legitimate excuse to be disconnected from the world and solely focused on my family. The truth is, it’s shocking that I felt this way because only a few months ago I would have been going crazy trying to figure out how to get my connection back.
Remember that scene in Matrix where Joe Pantoliano’s character Cypher begs a Sentinel to allow him back into the Matrix? I didn’t make the correlation until now, but I’m beginning to think that his need for the Matrix is similar to our need for the internet and social networking.
Can you imagine life without our current range of technologies? Could we even go back to the way it was before personal computers, cell phones, Wikipedia, Google, and Facebook inundated our culture?
I’m hard pressed to admit it, but I think we’re already enslaved to technology. Most of us couldn’t figure out a way to grow our own food, weave our own clothes, or find water that’s safe to drink. Whether or not our own technology turns on us, I think it’s pretty safe to say that any sort of major interruption would be more than most of us could handle.
I think that’s why New Orleans eroded so quickly into madness after Hurricane Katrina.
Without our technology, we’re helpless.
So, I don’t believe that AI will kill us. I think it’s much more likely that we’ll kill ourselves off in the wake of a major power failure.
But that’s some of the beauty of these AI Monster Movies. They may not paint an accurate picture of what the world will really be like if the robots take over, but they paint a very clear symbol of the slavery that we’ve created for ourselves. As I mentioned in the first post, it’s all very much like the Tower of Babel- we’ve placed our hope in technology rather than in God and in our fellow man.
And as a result, we’re confused. We don’t understand each other any longer. We only understand our own needs and our own beliefs.
But it doesn’t have to be this way.
The other day, I was unplugged and rather than spending the evening worrying about whether or not the internet would come back on, I played with my son and I spoke with my wife. I’ve been doing that a lot more lately. In fact, last night I didn’t even look at my computer for more than a few seconds.
I spent the evening with them, instead. And I’m going to be really honest… It was much better than the Matrix.
Well for starters, they all begin with the assumption that in the future robots or computers will develop a will, a self-awareness, or a set of ethics based on their own evolution/experience rather than what they were created with. But is this true? Can computers actually transcend their own data and interact with the universe in an intelligent way?
Of course for the purposes of this blog we're going to go with a formidable AI definition, not a weak one where robots are able to make small choices about stacking their parts differently in order to traverse a room. For movies like Terminator to come to fruition, we'd have to assume that computers and robots were able to move far beyond the normal threhold of AI and into something very close to a Human's ability to reason and choose. So, when I say AI- that's what I mean. An Artificial Intellegence that closely resembles a human being's.
The lectures I’ve been listening to by Hubert Dreyfus seem to indicate that on a purely philosophical level it would be almost impossible for true AI to spring into existence within the foreseeable future. The primary reason is that AI is programmed without a holistic ontology. Without a holistic reference for the universe, robots are limited to calculated “symbol shunting” rather than significant, meaningful interactions. So unless there is a significant change in the way we’ve been doing AI- we’re going to continue getting calculated rather than intuitive results.
But how to you create a robot or computer that has the ability to understand the holistic model of how the world works? You know, a better question might be this- how do humans understand the holistic form of life?
This is one of the hardest questions to answer, because as Heidegger noted, trying to describe the way we get around in the world is like trying to describe a really functional light source. We don’t even notice the light source until there’s something wrong with it. We tend to see, instead, the things that are illuminated because of the light. Likewise, our understanding of how the world works is only apparent to us when it’s not working correctly- when we’re disoriented or confused.
And if we’re not yet able to put much of a framework around our own experience regarding how the world works- I’m fairly certain that any framework we try to put around a machine will be inherently flawed.
So, the problem for AI programmers is not just figuring out the algorithms, software, and hardware needed to make some sort of self-aware creation. Their real problem is figuring out how to translate the context of the environment into a computer in a way that will allow it to mimic human understanding of how the world works. And since none of us are really clear on how we truly understand how the world works- it may be quite a while before robots figure it out.
I know I promised some religious implications/thoughts as well… But due to time constraints, I’m not sure that I have them figured out well enough to transcribe here. If you’ve got some religious ideas why computers/robots can or cannot become truly AI let me have ‘em. I’d love to hear from you.
I love Robots and so I'm pleased to announce that Robots are the topic for this week.
Background. I watched Terminator: Salvation on Saturday with my good friend Seth and it got me thinking about AI and robots and whether or not what’s presented in Terminator, Matrix, and a number of other ‘Robots as Frankenstein’s Monster’ movies could actually happen. As it stands, I’m not really sure- but in an effort to fully explore the possibilities, I want to break this week into four different parts so that we can discuss the topic fluidly.
1. Today will be an introduction with some questions to get your reaction. 2. Wednesday will be a religious/philosophical discussion about whether AI can actually become self-aware and what it means to be human. 3. Thursday will be a religious/philosophical discussion about whether or not technology needs to begin killing us off with guns before we decide that it’s enslaved us. 4. Friday will be a political discussion about whether or not governments have the right to target ethnic groups through profiling (and even genocide?).
I can’t do an exhaustive study on robots because there are literally too many religious, philosophical, and political issues at steak in movies like these in order to sum them up in a few days. But I’m pretty sure that in one sense, all of these stories are a reiteration of the Tower of Babel- they’re all about what happens when humans place their faith, hope, and love into technology rather than on God (or even their fellow man).
You might want to read up on the Tower here and here if you’re not familiar with it. In preparation for this week, you may also want to read up on Asimov’s theories about what humans would/should do to prevent a Frankenstein’s Monster occurrence.
Questions to consider today and this week:
Do you think AI (artificial intelligence) will ever become self-aware? Could we already be enslaved to technology/robots? Why (in fiction at least) do the things we create always rise up against us? Do the oppressed have the right to overthrow their oppressors?
There was an interesting social commentary over at socialmediarockstar.com the other day calling out social media users have a lot of people following them, but don't follow-back. There are a few reasons for this complaint, but I think the main one is that the author is frustrated with anyone who expects people to listen to what they have to say without taking the time to listen to what other people have to say.
This commentary, is specifically about Twitter seeing as it's a social networking tool that's supposed to be about interaction and thought transfer rather than a mere one-way street. So a user who has a lot of people reading his tweets without reading anyone else’s tweets or replies is somewhat contrary to some of the cultural experiences within the twitter community.
For those of you who don’t use twitter, basically, the whole thing comes down to this: a lot of folks- especially early adopters- use twitter to hone their ideas and get feedback rather than just telling the world “what I am doing right now.” The community has formed around the theory that the mutual exchange of information causes positive growth and change. Put simply- when individuals converse about thoughts and ideas we’re all better for it.
And I think that to some degree, it’s true.
So, when twitter users encounter another user who likes to talk more than the listen and reply (or worse, won’t follow-back to honor their readers), it makes them upset that their perfect little world of mutual information sharing and connection doesn’t actually exist.
Personally, I think that complaining about it is pretty juvenile. I mean, if someone doesn’t want to participate- so what?
The person who loses out the most in the equation is the one who isn’t getting feedback and response from their ideas. So if a lot of people read what you write and you don’t care to know what they think of it- it really shouldn’t matter to the rest of us.
So, that’s why I wonder if twitter users like the author of this article are really mad about the principle or if they secretly want to be “in the club” and when a user doesn’t follow them it make them feel like they’re back in middle school- wishing they, too, could be a part of the big sleepover that the select “coolest” kids are attending.
From my own perspective, follow-backs are an ideal that should only be implemented when it’s mutually beneficial for both users. If I like what someone is saying, then I can choose to follow them, but if the person doesn’t know me or doesn’t think that I have anything useful to offer to them in return- I don’t see why they should feel obligated to follow-back merely because I chose to follow them in the first place.
I mean, if this idea is taken to an extreme, then:
1. When a company or organization randomly decides to follows me, I’m obligated to follow-back, even if their tweets are merely attempts at viral (or not-so-viral) marketing campaigns.
2. When a “friend-collector” begins following me, I’m obligated to follow-back, even if they don’t care what I have to say and are only trying to boost their follow stats or get me to read their ideas without interacting on mine.
Those are both ridiculous extremes, but they should illustrate the point. Follow-backs that aren’t mutually beneficial shouldn’t be implemented. It’s that simple.
So, in an ideal world where everyone is mutually engaged in discourse and conversation, I’d agree with the author’s sentiment, entirely. And those who make an attempt at mutuality are welcome to participate with Twitter in this manner. But unfortunately, not all of us live there. And be that as it may, there are plenty of people who I don’t really care to engage with, and I’m not going to add them simply because they’re following me.
Here’s my own little algorithm for who I follow:
If I A)Know You B)Like your ideas
I follow you or follow-back if you began following me.
But if I A)Don’t know you B)Don’t like or care about your ideas
I do not follow you or follow-back- no matter how many times you call me a snob. You see, from my perspective, it’s not being a snob to follow people you know and care about and to avoid those you don’t- It’s simply time well spent. After all, I don't have time to follow everyone. It's not humanly possible. So I engage with those I care about and I let the rest engage with someone else!
I don't really think that humans were created to endure alarm clocks.
When we lived in Seattle I had the wonderful opportunity to work for a company who didn't really care that I was "in the office" at exactly 8:30. They were more concerned with whether or not I was coming up with good ideas within my deadlines. So since I didn't have a bus to catch or the requirement to be at work at a certain time each day, I got into the wonderful habit of sleeping until I woke up rather than according to the alarm clock.
Something amazing happened.
I found out that I usually woke up within 15 to 20 minutes of the same time each day so long as I went to bed around the same time each night. The difference was, sleeping until I needed to wake up rather than being awakened felt more natural.
I felt more rested.
I was on my game.
All this changed again when I began working at Advantor last month.
I didn't want to begin my career by coming in later than the official 8:30am office opening and so I began setting my alarm clock to make sure that I was getting up on time. And even though I began going to bed at a reasonable time, I found that I was much more tired and exhausted because of the artificial wake-up time.
I'm not entirely sure what to do to thwart this, because I obviously can't risk going into work habitually late... but I'd like to go back to my body's needs rather than something external. I just don't know that my new boss is going to be happy if I come in late every once in a while because I'm trying to "go natural."
Anyone have ideas on how we can meet the standards of Western Work Schedules and also trust our own internal clock rather than technology to wake us up?
I'm happy to announce that after a week and a half of interviewing and creating e-learning programs I'm back to blogging again!
Thanks for keeping with me through this short hiatus.
***
I had an embarrassing thing happen to me last night.
I shot and edited a short video tour of our new apartment, uploaded it to Youtube.com, and then linked to it through tinyurl.com on Twitter and Facebook (which I typically do with my blog postings, too). Now generally, I check the tiny link before posting it by clicking it to make sure that it directs to the page I want, but last night I was in a hurry and so I simply copied it into the Be Twittered Box on my homepage. A few minutes later, when I realized that I hadn't checked the link, I clicked on my update status and a pornographic picture popped up instead of my video.
You can imagine the terror I felt.
Twitter and Facebook are both very public forums and I had to work quickly to deleted all signs of the tinyurl I had created, all the while hoping and praying that no one else clicked on it and was directed to the same image that I had seen. An image like that can ruin a person, even if it's accidental.
So what happened?
Obviously, I'm not one to post pornography. My Youtube video link was correct when I entered it into tinyurl. All I did was copy/paste the link that tinyurl provided into Be Twittered. So how did the signals get crossed? How did pornography end up on my status update instead of the Youtube Video I intended?
Or perhaps a better question is this: Who is to blame? As far as I'm concerned, there are really only three potential villains in this example. The first is TINYURL. Through some glitch in their system, a link they generated pointed toward content that I hadn't asked for or created. Their service promises a shortened link to the content the user intends and by providing me with a link to something other than what I asked for, they messed up. They broke my trust- especially since the link directed users toward something offensive, rather than simply a different video or website.
The second villain is the person who posted the pornography in the first place. Tinyurl would not have been able to direct me to that picture unless that picture was online with an accessible web address. Online pornography is a blight to the internet and should never be readily available to accidentally stumble upon. Anyone who posts pornography is already a bad guy in my book, but at the very least this person should have protected their content so that only those who were specifically looking for pornography could access it. Anything less is practically criminal as far as I'm concerned.
But the third villain is me. As a content creator and distributor, it's ultimately my responsibility to check links and content for accuracy before I post them. There are hundreds of people who have clicked on my tinyurls in the past. That means that there are hundreds of victims out there who could have clicked on my status link and viewed something different than what they expected. No one should be mislead into viewing offensive material. Especially not when they are clicking on something I've posted.
** With this in mind I'd like to publicly apologize if anyone did click on the link in question. It was completely inappropriate content and I am deeply sorry if you were mislead and viewed it. **
So, for those who distribute content, let this be a lesson to you. In order to avoid the pitfalls of bad links-
1. Always double check embedded content and links before posting. 2. Always click through a post soon after publishing just to make sure. 3. Don't brush off responsibility if you create a bad link. Apologize.
These sorts of problems don't happen very often, but when they do it's the responsibility of the distributor (in this case, me). Whoever "handled" the information last must ensure that readers aren't getting bad content. I didn't do that.
Memory: It's 1980-something and I'm looking through some floppy disks for our Commodore 64. I find one labeled BBS and figure that it's some sort of game- what else is the C64 for? After a half hour of trouble shooting, I've got phone lines connected to our modem and I'm online, only to find out that BBS stands for Boring-Boring-Stupid. I suddenly regret my stubborn curiosity because I now only have 15 minutes of "computer time" left, most of which I spend loading up The Nodes of Yesod.
***
Memory: It's 1991 and I'm over at my friend Tim's house. We play Sim City for a while before he decides to show me this new thing they've got. He loads up CompuServe and we browse around for a few minutes before I tell him that I'd rather get back to building our city.
***
Memory: It's 1995 and my family installs America Online for the first time on our home computer. By this time, I'm in high school and although I'm still interested in video games I'm also very interested in this new form of technology that's beginning to permeate past Compute Magazine and into the mainstream.
***
Memory: It's 1999 and I'm back home from college. My parents are talking about ditching AOL and I'm glad. Other Internet Service Providers have taken its place and now AOL seems somewhat confining since the service wants to control every aspect of my online interactions. I've been away at college using an "ISP only" to explore world wide web. I'm now used to "surfing the net" and getting lost in different pages. AOL wants to bring it all to me, and I'd rather go out there and get it.
***
Memory: It's 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. I'm creating a presence on livejournal, myspace, facebook, youtube, and wikipedia. I'm also visiting the pages for about 10-15 webcomics, news sources, and blogs that I enjoy reading. I'm surfing the net less and less because I'm finding things I like and don't have time to go looking for other things.
***
Memory: It's mid-late 2008 and I'm loading a bunch of applications into my iGoogle homepage. Most of them are designed to bring content from all over the internet directly to me in one place so that I don't have to go to multiple sites a day just to get it. My spirit of exploration and adventure is still there, but it's nice that I don't have to spend so much time blazing through trash just to find things I enjoy.
***
Now: I don't know exactly when it happened, but somewhere between the time I said hello to AOL and the time I streamlined content into my iGoogle page I followed the philosophy behind the Paradox of Choice.
Basically, it boils down to this- choice is a good thing, but too much choice is stagnating.
Too many options paralyzes us and forces us into this place where we can't really do much because we're too busy trying to figure out what we'd like to do. The unlimited world of the web was great for a while- surfing the net was filled with potential and excitement. There were places to explore and new things to see. But, eventually it simply became too much. It was too time consuming and there was too much information.
What Google and other sites that are allowing modifiable content are offering is the chance to customize a limited experience on the web that's filled with options- just not so many options that we're overwhelmed by the experience.
I like that.
I like the less is more philosophy behind the Paradox of Choice and I like that Google is smart enough to allow me limited interactions on the web, but ones that I can optimize and control- unlike AOL who always wanted to force certain things into my online experience and didn't allow the user to define the experience.
And how's this for irony- from what I remember of that BBS program, it looked an awful lot like my current iGoogle homepage. It just took 20 years for me to appreciate it.
