Our robotic future

January 20, 2011

I’ve often thought that I was born in the wrong time.  While others may think wistfully of the past, I have always been someone who holds tremendous excitement about the future.  Being of the geek persuasion, I have watched the incredible progression of computers, cell phones, the Internet, and hundreds of other technologies that have made our lives so much better (well, at least for the most part).  It leaves me feeling that the future is very bright, assuming we don’t manage to wipe ourselves out before it gets here.

Two news stories stuck out to me in the past couple weeks that brought my level of anticipation to even higher levels.  The first was this story about an upcoming enhancement to the translation software available on Android devices that will allow the phone to translate real conversations on the fly.  While the tech behind it is certainly in its infancy, the concept of being able to translate a conversation in real time is mind-blowing in its potential for improving and facilitating human communication.  Just to name a few examples, it would be a tremendous boon to police in immigrant communities, to diplomats working abroad, and to tourists traveling in foreign lands.  When this technology finally reaches a fully mature state, it could potentially eliminate many of the linguistic barriers we face in the world.

The second story is about the upcoming matchup between IBM’s Watson computer and two of the top champions on the game show Jeopardy!. This much-ballyhooed contest holds great importance in the evolution of artificial intelligence.  It is the first time a computer has been developed that can parse and process natural human speech, and represents an amazing achievement that was the stuff of sci-fi novels just decades ago.  While Watson is far from perfect and is still extremely large and expensive, anyone who follows computers can tell you it will soon be neither.  One can hardly begin to imagine the potential of a computer that can understand human language.  Indeed, the computer of Star Trek fame is not impossible to dream of.

Both of these technologies are in the early stages and have a long way to go.  But both also give me great hope for the future of mankind to create systems that solve many of our most intractable conundrums.  It may be only decades before we have computers that can interact with us in much the same way as people do.  While some will surely tell us that we should fear this, I see it as something to embrace… well, at least as the robots all have an “off” switch!

Cross-posted at Pundit League.

There are a few things that animate people on Twitter like no other.  In my sphere a major political event does the trick.  Other potential culprits include a popular TV show, awards show, or movie.  But often all of these pale compared to a major event in sports.  One team winning, another losing, an amazing accomplishment, or an athlete’s stupid behavior can all get Twitter going quite well.

Tonight’s event was the near perfect game by Armando Gallaraga of the Detroit Tigers.  In the next 24 hours many people will see the video, so I won’t bother posting something that will be on many sites and on TV.  The short story is this – an umpire, Jim Joyce, blew a call on the final out, ruling a runner safe when he was clearly out.  This blown call resulted in a single hit that destroyed the perfect game.  Fans of all allegiances were justifiably outraged.  Within seconds, all manner of nasty things were being said about the ump.  Only after he graciously apologized for his error did the attacks die down.

Now, clearly an inevitable result of this event will be the resurrection of the debate regarding instant replay in baseball.  Replay is something well known to fans of football, hockey, tennis, and other sports.  Each of these sports utilizes cameras and technology to help correct erroneous calls.  Fans have become completely accustomed to the football challenge especially, and the red flag that signifies such a challenge.  I don’t see any significant movement in play to go back to the days before the challenge.  The idea essentially amounts to this – fans want the right call to be made.  With the game often on the line, being accurate is important.

With baseball, though, some fans tend to react quite differently.  This is largely because baseball, unlike football or hockey, has a great deal of romance to it.  It is deeply linked with American history and is viewed as a quintessentially American thing.  Baseball fans, then, view any change to the game with skepticism, especially one that removes what is viewed as part of baseball’s “magic.”  These fans, then, argue that instant replay expansion would destroy the crucial human element of the game.  To them, the failure of the umpires to make perfect calls is one of the important parts of the game.

In my view, these fans are misguided.  I can understand the need to preserve the “essence” of baseball – it is my favorite sport, after all.  But fans that refuse the introduction of modern technology into baseball are ignoring the fact that such technology could potentially eliminate many of the questionable or flat-out wrong calls that plague every team.  When something as meaningful as a perfect game is on the line, it is simply too big to be robbed by an obvious human error.  The fans who oppose replay seem to be fetishizing this sort of preventable error, as if the baseball gods will be pleased that we kept their sport unblemished. (Though, in terms of blemishment, I’d say baseball is pretty damn damaged already by widespread steroid abuse.)

An analogy I could make here is to those who are purists in the political arena.  There is a certain subset of any political group that insists on total purity, and in candidates meeting every requirement and proper opinion.  They are willing to accept defeat and minority status in order to maintain such standards.  In a similar way, baseball fans who oppose replay seem willing to accept that their beloved sport will be filled with easily-correctable mistakes, including earth-shattering ones like tonight’s, in order to maintain the sanctity of the sport.  They are willing to see history prevented, games lost and won wrongly, records affected, and seasons changed by generally honest mistakes that could be erased.  And all to preserve this sense of baseball as something more than a sport, in almost a religious fashion.

I come at it from the complete opposite direction.  I’ve long thought, for instance, that computer assistance could be used in many parts of the game.  While I am sure such changes won’t be adopted, I’ve thought computer-assisted strike zones and safe/out base calls could be implemented using current technology.  Both of these changes would be accepted in time and eliminate a huge amount of uncertainty and frustration for players, managers, and fans.  And in time, such events as occurred to tonight could be avoided entirely.  The game would change, for sure, but it would be into one where winning and losing is not affected by an umpire being distracted or a constantly changing strike zone.  And I, for one, think that it would be a better game for it.

More scary stuff

March 30, 2010

In yet another expansion of government power that would have been decried had it come from a Republican president, a Senate panel has now passed a new cybersecurity law that would give the President significant new powers.  In the event of a declared “emergency” the White House would have the power to unilaterally, without the consent of Congress, block any and all websites desired.  Now, the defenders of this bill will say this is only for during a real cyber attack, but as with all things, we should be wary to give any government, especially this one, more power.

I say this in specific light of the tendency in this administration, and its allies on the Left and in the media, to label all sorts of innocuous criticism as potentially dangerous.  Again and again, liberals have tried to smear the entire conservative movement as radical, extreme, and violent.  It is not beyond the imagination, then, that if something were to happen that major Tea Party and right-wing sites could be blocked.  They have already established the narrative that even mainstream sites are “breeding grounds” for possible terrorism.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – the Obama team and liberals in general desire to shut down and scare all of us for daring to dissent.  Everything they claimed the Bush administration was doing in terms of stifling criticism, they are doing ten times over.  We can see this now in the commonplace labeling of activists as racists and bigots.  They have no desire to debate or discuss, but to attach pejorative labels to us as a way of invalidating our viewpoint.  In this world, then, I don’t think it’s nuts at all to wonder if this new cybersecurity power could be abused.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,652 other followers