Friday, February 25, 2011

Singularity. Singularity.

Technological change, much like population, is measured in exponential rather than linear growth. With linear growth, the line on the graph increases at a steady but even rate. The line on the exponential growth chart starts with a minimal curve then explodes into an almost vertical line. But unlike population growth, where the end result could be an alarming lack of resources like clean air, food, and brain cells in the Utah legislature, technological growth will culminate with each of us having a gazillion Facebook friends, smart-toilets, and robots on the Utah legislature. Oh, and a little something called singularity.

Just what the bleep is singularity, you ask? Well, according to the world's top singularitarians (that just happened) singularity occurs when computers become more intelligent than people. Once this happens, the development and manufacturing of computers and like applications will be too advanced for our simple human brains and eventually be turned over to these computers to make, get this, even faster computers. At this point, artificial intelligence will be far superior to our organic intelligence thus usurping humanity as the top dog on this planet.

Before SkyNet-related anxiety forces all seven of my readers to go the way of the Heaven's Gate Away Team, I'd like to say that singularity is anything but a foregone conclusion. In fact, Ray Kurzweil, singularity's top supporter, claims that the type of artificial intelligence needed to get the ball rolling hasn't been invented yet. In other words, we're not even close to the kind of computing power needed to make computers as smart as people. I can certainly vouch for that. I tried to text my wife that I'd be "coming home late," but the predictive text feature on my smartphone sent "You f***ed up my life!" instead.

Freudian texting snafus and the continual crashing of anything Microsoft may become old news if singularity comes to fruition. In fact, other not so simple problems may also be resolved, such as aging or programming a microwave. Some singularitarians suggest that if the aging process can't be overcome, an easier solution can be used like transferring our minds into robots with parts that can be easily replaced once they break or wear out. For kicks, we may be able to put our minds into something better than a robot, like a toaster or a can-opener or Rep. Christopher Herrod, R-Provo. Whatever scenario you choose, singularity will be an entertaining event.

Or maybe not. Perhaps SkyNet-related anxiety is the correct response from humans. After all, we believe that we're the most rational and intelligent (don't forget moral) beings on the planet and because of that, we can subjugate most other things (including some humans) as a means to our ends. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that, once machines obtain a level of rationality and intelligence far superior to ours, we'll end up being just another thing to dominate. In fact, it's already happening.

On February 10, 1996, World chess champion Gary Kasparov began a set of six chess matches with an IBM super chess computer named Deep Blue. Kasparov defeated Deep Blue 4-2 but didn't fare as well in the 1997 rematch where Deep Blue was the victor 3.5-2.5. Kasparov was discarded like so much human trash. It gets worse. In July of 2008 a poker bot (poker bot!) named Polaris defeated six professional Texas hold 'em players in Las Vegas. But wait, there's more. In October of last year a computer named Akara 2010, defeated the top ranked female Japanese Shogi (Japanese chess) champion. But thankfully, for the good of all humanity, Japan won't cede the victory until Akara 2010 defeats the male champion. And finally, perhaps the most chilling example of machine supremacy, Jeopardy! champions Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter were crushed by something calling itself Watson (another creation from those Godless technophiles at IBM). 

This is scary stuff. The machines have added chess, poker, and trivia to their list of triumphs that already includes Minesweeper, Solitaire, and Spider Solitaire. What are we to think? It looks like we're in the beginning stages of singularity as we speak, but whether the outcome will be rapturous or sorrowful is yet to be determined. Let's look at some of the more popular singularity arguments cited by scientists and compare them to popular expert opinion to figure out what to do. And by 'expert' I mean Hollywood.

Argument 1)
Scientists claim that after singularity, when the computers are designing themselves as well as self-replicating, these super-intelligent computers will realize that human beings are ridiculous creatures and immediately annihilate them with nuclear weapons or turn them into Duracell batteries. Whichever form of the destroyer you choose, enslavement or death are the only options.

Hollywood's take)
Great character names get bogged down by too much philosophical drivel on the one hand and a leading lady with bigger arms than me coupled with a clear time travel paradox on the other. Both films end with a sense of hope, but that eight minute Architect speech really confused me. It's obvious that Hollywood is preaching human perseverance, but conventional wisdom says destroy them before they can destroy you. And so does U.S. foreign policy. Decision: Kill all robots.

Argument 2)
Scientists claim that as the first few machines become super-intelligent, we will recognize their superiority and destroy them before they can replicate and make Ken Jennings look like an idiot again. Hence, there's really no need to worry about singularity at all.

Hollywood's take)
In much the same way that NOVA tried to destroy Number 5 after a lightning strike induced consciousness, we will try to destroy the computers with a simple game of tic-tac-toe. I know that a Matthew Broderick trumps a Steve Guttenberg every time but John Badham's direction was uninspired on both counts. Again, conventional wisdom says to shoot first and try to understand the problem when it's dead. Decision: Robot destruction.

Argument 3)
Scientific supporters of singularity want to focus on the relationships that these super-intelligent computers will have with each other and what we can learn from those relationships. They claim that destroying these machines before we can understand them may be a mistake. After all, it could be important for humanity to observe how truly intelligent beings treat one another with new-found levels of respect and dignity.

Hollywood's take)
When Val Com 17485 (a valet and an expert in lumber commodities) and Aqua Com 89045 (a pool-side parties specialist) try to give love a shot they still encounter societal backlash even though they're super-smart robots. And they're straight robots to boot! We all know everyone's perfect example of robot love is a gay one. And, no, I'm not referring to C-3PO and R2-D2 but to Twiki and Dr. Theopolis. The way that little guy wore that even littler guy around his neck while Draconian lasers blasted all around him was nothing less than Brokeback Mountain in the 25th century--minus Erin Gray, of course. Unfortunately, the robotic gay community will end up being just as marginalized as their human counterparts, at least until full singularity is realized and the robots kill or enslave everyone. Decision: De-rez the bots.

So what have we learned? Well, singularitarians believe that super-intelligent computers will benefit humanity while orthodox Hollywoodians believe that super-smart computers and their capabilities represent a significant threat to our species. Or maybe we shouldn't be that frightened of something that doesn't even get the first search return on Google or refuses to open the pod bay doors? Whatever the true answer is, regardless of the consequences of singularity, we won't know it until a computer tells us.

Twiki (left) and life partner Dr. Theopolis (center) with special guest star
 Gary Coleman (not a robot) on Buck Rogers in the 25th Century.
Just in case you didn't know.

 

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Protecting Our Children One Bill at a Time

I'm like most Americans in that I believe that our children are an important resource. When I say 'resource' I don't mean in a Swiftian sense (this isn't Ireland) or that, like most resources, we discard them when we're finished using them like an Aquafina bottle or a Prius battery. Children as a resource merely means that children will help ensure the American Dream for future generations. Now, I can't help you define the American Dream since that's relative to the American, but certainly every American Dream contains several of the same features. These features might include a 10,000 square foot house (with a moat) on 20 landscaped acres (with an airport) for a family of three, or a car that, because of its sheer size, needs more than six tires. Whether or not we can all agree on what constitutes the American Dream, I'm quite sure we can agree that children, as an integral part of the Dream, need protecting. But protection from what?

Quite simply: alcohol. That's right: alcohol. Let me spell it to emphasize its danger. A-l-c-h- ...Wait... Let me try that again. A-l-c-o-h-o-l. Funny, I thought the Red Bull would counteract the vodka. Anyway, the evil people that produce, market, and retail alcoholic beverages are after our children. At least that's what the Utah State Legislature believes. And from listening to their arguments, I believe they're right.

Currently, our legislature has several people acting as champions of the children. Senator Chris Buttars, R-South Jordan, Senator Curt Bramble, R-Provo, Senate President Michael G. Waddoups, R-Taylorsville and Senator John L. Valentine, R-Orem, to name just a few. Together, these State Senators (SS for short) are doing more to protect our children than UNICEF, McGruff the Crime Dog, and the Ronald McDonald House combined.

Bramble, with the help of Buttars, claimed the first victory against the spirited forces of evil in 2008 with Senate Bill 211. This bill did away with a real children's favorite from the adult beverage world known as "alcopops." I had no idea what, exactly, an alcopop was until I asked a fourth grader, since no adults knew what the hell I was talking about. I've since been educated on the matter. Alcopops are those really yummy alcoholic beverages that taste like Kool-Aid and are packaged to look exactly like a comic book cover or wrapping paper. This carefully developed packaging drives any child that sees it into a Christmas morning of berserker-like consumption right there in the beverage aisle. It looks as though Buttars was right when he said on The Senate Site that "selling or promoting alcopops in retail stores represents nothing less than an insidious ploy to introduce our kids to the liquor industry and their products."

Currently, the SS are battling the forces of evil with a new piece of legislation. Senate Bill 12, sponsored by Valentine, and rigorously defended by Waddoups from claims such as "Draconian," "unreasonable," and "retarded," is up for vote during this legislative session. The bill is titled "Alcoholic Beverage Control Act - Modifications" but I believe a more appropriate title would be "Protecting the Children from Evil." According to the SS, once again, our greatest resource is in imminent danger from the mind-controlling likes of Clydesdale horses, that super-interesting Mexican guy and Sammy Hagar.

Once SB12 passes, new restaurants and dining clubs will face something the alcohol lovers call the "Zion Curtain," which, I believe, is a reference to a local bank. According to SB12, all alcoholic beverages will be sequestered behind a wall large enough to prevent any children from ever knowing that alcohol even exists. I would assume that this will also work for adults with an IQ equal to or less than a house plant. Maybe. At any rate, alcohol won't be the only thing kept behind the Zion Curtain if this new legislation passes: say goodbye to bartenders as well.

I'm of two minds when it comes to this bartender stuff. My first mind thinks that putting Tom Cruise behind a wall is a bad idea (remember how much we hated that Vanilla Sky mask!). As far as the food service industry goes, the more visible the people are that make your food (or drinks) the better. Giving the Tyler Durdens of the world a secret stage might be a bad idea. My second mind thinks that the bartender is a pawn in the game known as chess. That's not right. I mean the game known as "make young children alcoholics." In this game the bartender is just another means of passing a corrupting influence to our youth. Given the serious role that bartenders play in this, I might suggest that merely sequestering them behind some wall, or curtain, or whatever, isn't enough. Perhaps we can amend SB12 to have any known bartenders put into stocks or boiled to death or whipped or pressed to death or made to wear the drunkard's cloak? Surely SB12 shall be limitless in its reform!

With alcopops gone and the Zion Curtain about to be closed, we can sleep peacefully knowing how hard our legislators have worked to ensure the safety of our children. But Waddoups isn't done yet. In 2009 he gave us a hint about the direction of future legislation. According to The Salt Lake Tribune, Waddoups claimed that upon entering the popular American chain restaurant Chili's "any lay citizen would go in and say, 'This is a bar.'" Alas, you have a keen eye, Senator! When I enter a Chili's I only see all the crap nailed everywhere. But this very response is the reason why I'm not a state senator. When I see a possible bad influence on children, I instruct them regarding the possible consequences of succumbing to that influence. When the SS sees a possible bad influence they use their power to make it disappear. I'm not complaining. After all, the more they legislate, the less I have to do.

The effects of alcohol on a 12-year-old girl.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

This Is an Original Idea. (Post Edit)


I've started this blog for the simple reason that I have thought of something completely original and must share it with the world. This announcement might scare many of you so let me address what I feel are your biggest concerns.

1) My safety.

Yes, I did think of something that no one else has ever thought of and that must surely mean that evil groups such as terrorists or super-secret government agencies will abduct me and torture me until they have what I have. While I can assure you that my idea, once fully realized, will reshape humanity from a fractured mess of multicultural political hysteria into a more serene and equitable landscape (think Europe of the Middle Ages or the current state of Israel) my safety will remain a top priority.

2) My bodyguards' safety.

Given that I must, for the sake of humanity, devote all of my time to making this idea become a reality, I am left with no time to focus on my safety (which is your first concern). Given these time constraints I must therefore employ a team of highly skilled personal 'protectors' to shadow my every move. Rest assured, however, that my team of ex-professional soldiers (both foreign and domestic) have put their best feet forward in all parts of the world, most recently protecting the interests of a small, family operated oilfield technologies company in the Middle East. Needless to say, we all feel very safe. I do, however, worry about the safety of encroaching civilians...

3) How much will this idea cost you?

Now that you no longer fear for my safety (a daily regimen of tactical training, high risk logistics, and crisis management on or above the Bagram Air Base in Charikar, Afghanistan ought to make everyone feel safe) you are free to wonder how much I will charge the world for this idea. The simple answer is nothing. That's right, I give this gift freely to all who will listen (or read). I realize that giving away something so important for free, especially in this political climate, might make me seem un-American, Socialist, or perhaps even Communist-like. Allow me to dispel those thoughts by singing every word to our National Anthem appropriately titled 'Stars and Stripes are Beautiful.'

4) I am not a Communist.

Even though I may not know all of our National Anthem's lyrics (or title) I'd like to point out that neither do some of our nation's greatest patriots. Everyone from Roseanne Barr (Jewish) to Michael Bolton (Russian Jew) to Robert Goulet (Canadian) and Christina Aguilera (Mexican) have botched this great song, no doubt succumbing to the heavy pressure of American nationalism and Budweiser.

Now that I've helped allay your fears regarding this endeavor, I am ready to explain my wonderful and original idea. Let me first say that, at this moment, I feel much the same as Val Kilmer's character Simon Templar from the 1997 Phillip Noyce spy thriller The Saint. As you all know, the Russian mob has stolen Dr. Emma Russell's plans for cold fusion and wants to ransom it to the highest bidder. As an aside, the role of Dr. Russell is played by Elisabeth Shue, perhaps best known for her work in the film City of Angles as 'Pregnant Woman' (uncredited). Anyway, in an unexpected turn of events, Templar and Russell stop the sale, vanquish the bad guys, and set up an impromptu cold fusion demonstration in Red Square. Needless to say, both Templar and Russell are of one mind concerning cold fusion: it's so good it should be free.

Well, I think it's time to reveal the first original idea since I don't know when. Here goes: (gulp) I plan to cook every recipe in Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking over the next 365 days and blog about it. I repeat: I plan to cook every recipe in Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking over the next 365 days and blog about it. Let that sink in... That's a whopping 524 different recipes over 365 days. I know, I know, there are more recipes than days but I believe I can do it. I have to do it. My journey will be long and full of suffering but my inevitable victory will serve as a reminder to the people of Liberia, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo that their problems pale in comparison to mine. And that if I can overcome this--this--they can surely overcome their petty and ridiculous problems if they would only put their minds to it.

Welcome to Abandoned Shopping Cart.

Post Edit (2/14/2011)

Many of you have mentioned that last week's post (see above) detailing my original idea was anything but. After doing some quick web research I found that you were, indeed, correct. The deed has been done to the Julia Child cookbook and then blogged about in what can only be described as a cathartic and meaningful exercise for the betterment of man. In the spirit of honesty that permeates blogs specifically and the Internet in general, I must say that some of you sounded rather pleased with my failure. Those that know me understand how loathe I am to one-up someone, but to the group of fools that are currently savoring my schadenfreude let me tell you something about my original idea: they made a movie about it!

Julia Child and friends.