The brilliant minds over at The Onion have answered this question. I just ran across this video and it gave me a good chuckle. I hope you like it also.
In The Know: Are We Giving The Robots That Run Our Society Too Much Power?
What if robots took over the world?
Categories:
Related Post
Arthur C. Clarke dies at age 90Arthur C. Clarke dies at age 90
Arthur C. Clarke died early this morning after a long battle with post-polio syndrome. The New York Times has an interesting summary of his life and major accomplishments. I’m ashamed to say that I still haven’t read 2001: A Space Odyssey, but it is on my ever expanding reading list. Hopefully I can review it some time in the near future. Clark is well known for his laws of prediction, which are as follows:
- When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
- The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
IBM’s Watson beats Jeopardy champions Ken Jennings and Brad RutterIBM’s Watson beats Jeopardy champions Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter
For all of you geeks that have had your head in the sand, artificial intelligence has hit a milestone. Yesterday, IBM’s Watson trounced these bags of meat known as Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter in Jeopardy. If I ruined the result of the match, I apologize, but I figure posting a day after is enough notice for anyone that was following this from the start. For some more background on Watson and behind the scenes info, check out my original post on this. I have to admit that I was rooting for Watson from the start. I was a bit worried when after the first day in the tournament Watson was only tied for first place. I’m not sure what happened between the first and second matches, but Watson rocketed ahead in the second day and never looked back.
I think IBM might have been in a rush to show off their new creation. It was interesting to see the answer confidence levels during the rounds, often revealing some really wacky possible answers. Watson crashed several times during the second day of filming, nothing a regular viewer would notice while watching the recorded match on TV. One criticism I’ve heard about the match was that Watson was fed the questions electronically rather than relying on voice and character recognition. I have to agree that the electronic delivery could have been an advantage. Had voice recognition and OCR functionality been used in Watson, the victory would be quite a bit more impressive. I could clearly see the two mere mortals struggling to buzz in and shake in frustration when Watson was faster. The producers touted the physical buzzer plunger that Watson had to activate, but I still think that Watson had the advantage.
I would be interested to see a rematch in a year but with only inputs into Watson be voice and video of the Jeopardy board. After all, Deep Blue was given a second chance versus Garry Kasparov, so why not give the humans a second chance on more equal footing? It is quite possible that programming algorithms over the year would improve enough so that Watson still would win, despite the reliance of voice recognition and OCR. In that case, the victory would mean that much more. Even if you know the outcome already, I still recommend watching the matches. I already saw the Nova special, so I skipped through most of the background stuff from the IBM folks. Here is a link to my YouTube playlist that has the three episodes broken into 6 videos. Check it out! Then you can tell your grandchildren how you watched a computer beat humans in Jeopardy for the first time. Then they’ll ask, “Humans were allowed to play Jeopardy back then?”
Surrogates (2009) Directed by Jonathan MostowSurrogates (2009) Directed by Jonathan Mostow
I wasn’t really expecting much when I heard about Surrogates, so waited to watch it until it came out on DVD. From the previews it looked like many other science fiction action films that seem to be pumped out by Hollywood. The main premise of the movie is that humans live their lives through “surrogate” (robot) bodies. I’m a huge fan of Asimov and his robot novels, so this was enough to catch my attention. The human interface is kind of like how control worked in Avatar, but instead of an organic body as the host, it is robotic. I would definitely not classify the surrogates as the cyborgs that Ray Kurzweil thinks we will eventually become. One of the main advantages to using a surrogate is that the owner is always protected, so in some ways they are better than cyborgs. There was no way for any harm to come to a user, until now.
Tom Greer, played by Bruce Willis, is in charge of investigating the destruction of a couple of surrogates. This is usually not that big of a deal, but one of the owners is found dead. Whoever wrote the script really wasn’t trying anything new as far as the murder/mystery approach is concerned. I was expecting a lot more action based on the previews that I saw. It felt like I was watching for 40 minutes before things started to get moving. This move was all around average in most respects. Nothing really stood out. It wasn’t bad, but not great.
One completely unrelated observation is that I found Bruce Willis’ upper lip (stash zone) alarmingly long. It looked almost twice the size I’d normally expect. I think of most of the roles I’ve seen him in, he’s got a beard of some sort, so that kind of hides that feature of his face. Am I alone here? Check out the pic on IMDB