Dear Professor Brooks,
Boy, that Mr. Kurzweil sure does have some kooky theories. Well, maybe the theories themselves aren't so far fetched, but the dates that he provides are probably a little off base. I think we're still a decade off from having retina screens and a virtual reality internet experience. However, I don't doubt that such things are achievable in the not too distant future. Kurzweil's vision of technology in the years to come does seem overly optimistic, but by the same token, Joy's vision is far too cynical.
Just because the human race can make advancements in technology, does that mean it should? I say why not? Roll the dice, take a gamble. If the world goes to Hell because of it, at least we'll all get to live out our last days in a virtual paradise thanks to our computer specs. If our robot slaves revolt and turn against us, at least I'll know how to reprogram them (assuming of course they're LEGO robots).
The reality is, no one can completely predict the future. I suppose we can assume that Moore's law will hold true, and our technological leaps will continue, but that could just mean more computer space and faster internet. Look how long it took for the telephone to evolve into the iPhone. We're talking hundreds of years. Surely computers have a much longer journey before they start implanting them into our brains. I'm pretty excited for the future, mostly just to see how things will turn out. The experts can predict all they want, as long as I have my flying car by 2020.
Love,
James
Friday, November 30, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
Week 13 Writing Assignment
Dear Professor Brooks,
Net neutrality, what a complex issue indeed. According to the lecture slides, the underlying issue here is rights. Let's be honest though, the real issue is money. Comcast and other network providers want money from big sites like Yahoo and Google, but net neutrality laws prevent that from happening. If those laws didn't exist, network providers could legally tamper with internet traffic, making certain sites load slower for example. In addition, they could give preferential treatment to higher paying internet customers. See, it's all about the bucks.
Of course, that's not the only issue (although it seems to me to be the most important). Without net neutrality, network providers could block certain content for whatever reason. If the internet is anything, it's a place where anyone has the ability to be heard, no matter how annoying. Not everyone can write a story worthy of the New Yorker, but anybody can publish their work on the internet. Without net neutrality, that could all disappear.
The religious right and those lefty liberals, both of which have somewhat controversial opinions depending on who you're talking to, are all for net neutrality. Without it, network providers might choose not to keep their websites around. All those hate groups would be left out as well. Now I for one am not an anti-Semite (just a plain old Semite), but those idiots have the right to free speech just like the rest of us.
It comes as no surprise that our friends the Libertarians apparently oppose net neutrality, however I'm certain that is based purely on principle. The less government involvement the better, as they say. Of course telecommunication companies are opposed as well, and rightfully so. Without the government, they are given free reign over the internet, which sadly gives them a great deal of power, considering the amount of time most people spend surfing the web. They would become more powerful than the Corleones and the Sopranos combined. Just look at the cable industry. I can't express the amount of hatred I have towards Comcast, their horrible customer service, and their lack of the Game Show Network, but I don't really have a choice living in San Francisco. It's either them or satalite. Now if a cable service offered every channel for 30 bucks a month (the same as Comcast), they would be missing out on a ton of cash. Telecommunication companies want a piece of that cable action, hence their opposition of net neutrality.
Yes, I am completely for net neutrality.
Love,
James
Net neutrality, what a complex issue indeed. According to the lecture slides, the underlying issue here is rights. Let's be honest though, the real issue is money. Comcast and other network providers want money from big sites like Yahoo and Google, but net neutrality laws prevent that from happening. If those laws didn't exist, network providers could legally tamper with internet traffic, making certain sites load slower for example. In addition, they could give preferential treatment to higher paying internet customers. See, it's all about the bucks.
Of course, that's not the only issue (although it seems to me to be the most important). Without net neutrality, network providers could block certain content for whatever reason. If the internet is anything, it's a place where anyone has the ability to be heard, no matter how annoying. Not everyone can write a story worthy of the New Yorker, but anybody can publish their work on the internet. Without net neutrality, that could all disappear.
The religious right and those lefty liberals, both of which have somewhat controversial opinions depending on who you're talking to, are all for net neutrality. Without it, network providers might choose not to keep their websites around. All those hate groups would be left out as well. Now I for one am not an anti-Semite (just a plain old Semite), but those idiots have the right to free speech just like the rest of us.
It comes as no surprise that our friends the Libertarians apparently oppose net neutrality, however I'm certain that is based purely on principle. The less government involvement the better, as they say. Of course telecommunication companies are opposed as well, and rightfully so. Without the government, they are given free reign over the internet, which sadly gives them a great deal of power, considering the amount of time most people spend surfing the web. They would become more powerful than the Corleones and the Sopranos combined. Just look at the cable industry. I can't express the amount of hatred I have towards Comcast, their horrible customer service, and their lack of the Game Show Network, but I don't really have a choice living in San Francisco. It's either them or satalite. Now if a cable service offered every channel for 30 bucks a month (the same as Comcast), they would be missing out on a ton of cash. Telecommunication companies want a piece of that cable action, hence their opposition of net neutrality.
Yes, I am completely for net neutrality.
Love,
James
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Week 12 Writing Assignment
Dear Professor Brooks,
The Turing test, a novel idea if I've ever heard one, is a test to determine whether or not a computer is intelligent. However, I would say it's more of a test to determine whether or not the human being chatting with the computer is smart enough to realize he's talking to a robot. Thus the fatal flaw of the Turing Test: it's much too dependent on the human variable. One person might easily be tricked by a chat bot, while another more sophisticated person might find the chat bot to be completely unconvincing. Is it really that impressive that a chat bot was able to convince a couple of pornography enthusiasts? I can only imagine how that chat went.
Much like the IQ test, I don't think the Turing test is very reliable. I can only imagine that a computer's response is completely based on whatever it is asked, so it's possible for two different people to have the exact same conversation with a chat bot. With that in mind, even if it does fool everybody, I don't think it could be called intelligent because it's been programed to think a certain way. I would call HAL from "2001: A Space Odyssey" intelligent because surely he was not programed to feel jealousy, it was something that he learnt on his own. That is a sign of intelligence, not being able to fool a couple of humans.
If there is a better way to test computers for intelligence, I don't want to know about it. Computers should not be made to think. Once that happens, it's only a matter of time before they outsmart us and take over the world. It could already be happening. Maybe the computers are just playing dumb, biding their time for the perfect moment to strike. God help us all.
Love,
James
The Turing test, a novel idea if I've ever heard one, is a test to determine whether or not a computer is intelligent. However, I would say it's more of a test to determine whether or not the human being chatting with the computer is smart enough to realize he's talking to a robot. Thus the fatal flaw of the Turing Test: it's much too dependent on the human variable. One person might easily be tricked by a chat bot, while another more sophisticated person might find the chat bot to be completely unconvincing. Is it really that impressive that a chat bot was able to convince a couple of pornography enthusiasts? I can only imagine how that chat went.
Much like the IQ test, I don't think the Turing test is very reliable. I can only imagine that a computer's response is completely based on whatever it is asked, so it's possible for two different people to have the exact same conversation with a chat bot. With that in mind, even if it does fool everybody, I don't think it could be called intelligent because it's been programed to think a certain way. I would call HAL from "2001: A Space Odyssey" intelligent because surely he was not programed to feel jealousy, it was something that he learnt on his own. That is a sign of intelligence, not being able to fool a couple of humans.
If there is a better way to test computers for intelligence, I don't want to know about it. Computers should not be made to think. Once that happens, it's only a matter of time before they outsmart us and take over the world. It could already be happening. Maybe the computers are just playing dumb, biding their time for the perfect moment to strike. God help us all.
Love,
James
Friday, November 2, 2007
Web 2.0
Dear Professor Brooks,
Dig to the Other Side is easily the most useful thing I've stumbled across on the internet. Dig answers the question I and many others like me have asked since the beginning of time: where would I end up if I were to dig a hole to the other side of the world? Using this Google Maps mashup, I "dug a hole" from my apartment in Hayes Valley. Where did I end up? Smack dab in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Thankfully Dig exists, otherwise I would have wasted my life digging to the other side of the world only to end up drowning.
Although I fancy myself a master of the culinary arts, sometimes there are just too many dirty dishes to deal with, leaving only one option: eating out. Along with this comes the difficult decision of where to eat. There are just so many restaurants in San Francisco to choose from, it takes hours just to decide which one to go to. Thanks to Wheel of Food, a mashup using Yahoo Local Search, the decision is no longer mine. All you have to do is type in your zip code, choose which meal you'll be eating, and spin the wheel. Unfortunately, the selections are somewhat limited, however later version will surely correct that.
For those of us that are 21+, Pub Walk is a great tool for a Saturday night of debauchery. Coming Google Maps and Geocoder, this mashup catalogues the various drinkeries within your neighborhood and allows you to actually create your very own bar crawl. You can even customize your adventure to only include Karaoke and Biker bars. Let's just say I know what I'm doing this weekend.
Love,
James
Dig to the Other Side is easily the most useful thing I've stumbled across on the internet. Dig answers the question I and many others like me have asked since the beginning of time: where would I end up if I were to dig a hole to the other side of the world? Using this Google Maps mashup, I "dug a hole" from my apartment in Hayes Valley. Where did I end up? Smack dab in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Thankfully Dig exists, otherwise I would have wasted my life digging to the other side of the world only to end up drowning.
Although I fancy myself a master of the culinary arts, sometimes there are just too many dirty dishes to deal with, leaving only one option: eating out. Along with this comes the difficult decision of where to eat. There are just so many restaurants in San Francisco to choose from, it takes hours just to decide which one to go to. Thanks to Wheel of Food, a mashup using Yahoo Local Search, the decision is no longer mine. All you have to do is type in your zip code, choose which meal you'll be eating, and spin the wheel. Unfortunately, the selections are somewhat limited, however later version will surely correct that.
For those of us that are 21+, Pub Walk is a great tool for a Saturday night of debauchery. Coming Google Maps and Geocoder, this mashup catalogues the various drinkeries within your neighborhood and allows you to actually create your very own bar crawl. You can even customize your adventure to only include Karaoke and Biker bars. Let's just say I know what I'm doing this weekend.
Love,
James
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)