Ex Machina is an excellent movie that explores artificial intelligence.
There’s a lot more to artificial intelligence than the impossible-to-beat chess game on your computer.
Digital assistants on your smartphone (think Siri, Google Now and Cortana) can figure out how to fulfil many of your wishes, but they are just the start.
The original inventors of Siri, for example, have started up a new company devoted to going way beyond their first child’s capabilities. Siri can do whatever it’s programmed to do. The next step, called Viv, will be able to learn and anticipate what you want.
But even that feels kind of old. OpenAI, a non-profit research company with a billion dollars in backing, started up this week to explore artificial intelligence and ensure that it is used for humanity’s benefit — not its downfall.
Eminent British scientist Stephen Hawking predicted just one year ago that artificial intelligence could eventually catch up with humans and surpass us.
It would take off on its own, and re-design itself at an ever increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete, and would be superseded.
The researchers at OpenAI see the future going either way.
It’s hard to fathom how much human-level AI could benefit society, and it’s equally hard to imagine how much it could damage society if built or used incorrectly.
A good way to forecast the future is by looking at current trends. I find Siri on my iPhone to be hit and miss. Sometimes I get a decent answer, sometimes I get nothing. It still seems easier and more reliable to type in a search.
But it’s easy to forget that even search has come a long way. There was a time when search engine results were mostly a mess of links to items that may have contained your keywords but little else of interest.
When Google came along with the smarts to figure out how to give us search results that are actually useful, we sat up and took notice. Now we take it for granted.
One day the successors to Siri will be that good, and it will seem normal for your phone to know you so well that it can anticipate your every whim.
The truly amazing breakthrough will come when computers create things for us without being asked. It might start with Siri suggesting that it could write a blog post for you about a recent vacation — based on things in your phone such as airline bookings, travel itineraries and photos taken on certain dates and at certain place.
Or maybe Siri could check your LinkedIn account and see that you’re between jobs. It might take the initiative of searching the Internet for job postings that fit your skill set, tailor some cover letters and resumés, then fire them off.
The tipping point will come when we realize that Siri’s blog posts and cover letters are better than anything we could have done for ourselves. The artificial intelligence would not only surpass human intelligence, but discourage us from learning to do things on our own.
Will this be a good thing or a bad thing? Every technological advance has had tradeoffs. Just be aware of what’s going on and be ready to scramble to make sure the tradeoff is in your favour.
It was only a matter of time before terrorists figured out how to use the gaping hole in U.S. security. The pair of Islamic State supporters who killed 14 and wounded 21 in San Bernardino took advantage of lax gun control laws to amass thousands of rounds of high-powered ammo and bomb-making equipment in their home.
In the midst of its latest tragedy, America appears to be searching for answers. Data from Google shows that normally searches for “gun shop” easily outpace those for “gun control” in most states. But after a mass shooting, there is a spike for searches on “gun control” in almost every state.
My hunch is that most Americans would be in favour of at least some kind of better regulation of gun sales, but they’re up against powerful forces.
For example, a day after the massacre, the U.S. Senate voted down broader background checks for people buying guns despite widespread support for the measure. It might have something to do with the fact that there’s a lot of money in gun sales, with the industry privately crowing about how mass shootings are good for business.
Here’s how it works. Following a mass shooting, there is talk of gun control, which the National Rifle Association and other gun advocates attack as an assault on the Second Amendment. Notably, gun and ammunition manufacturers often donate, either directly or as a portion of each sale, to the NRA. The fear of losing gun rights leads to panic buying, which brings greater profits to gun retailers, gun companies and their investors.
The enemies of America see this as an opening. If you want ammunition to attack the United States, why not get it from one of the most wide-open markets in the world — the U.S. itself.
In case you were wondering, yes there is an app for that. Terrorists are using the encrypted messaging app Telegram for crowdfunding guns. The owners of the app have cracked down, but one campaign apparently remains active.
And just to rub it in, one of the San Bernardino terrorists pledged allegiance to Islamic State on one of the most American of modern institutions, Facebook.
The post has been removed, of course. But I’m wondering if we’re reaching a point where mass shootings have become as American as apple pie.
Google has become so dominant that we often don’t even talk about searching any more. We google it.
Worldwide, Google’s search engine market share is estimated at around 90 per cent. It makes you wonder why Bing and Yahoo even bother trying.
But the trouble with a having near monopoly on a service is that there is always the temptation to abuse that position. This happened recently when Google changed its search results so that its own products ranked higher than those of competitors.
When looking at search results, people tend to believe that the closer the result is to the top, the better it must be. And generally speaking that’s the way it’s supposed to be.
So if you do a search on “restaurant reviews,” then it is fair to expect that the best ones are at the top. I tried this search with Google and got results from TripAdvisor and Yelp. That seems about right. These are both popular sites for restaurant reviews, and you would expect them to have enough reviews to make a visit to them worthwhile.
Now, apparently Google Plus has a similar service that you’ve probably never heard of. Google Plus has never reached mainstream popularity, and could use a little help with promotion. And what better way to do this than with search results.
That’s what happened last weekend. Suddenly, the most “popular” place to find reviews was with Google Plus. TripAdvisor and Yelp were buried.
Google claims it was a mistake and that things are now back to normal. But just a few days of this “error” cost Yelp millions of dollars.
“Far from a glitch, this is a pattern of behavior by Google,” said its CEO Jeremy Stoppelman.
This kind of goosing of the rankings is so obvious that Google was bound to get called on it. But it makes me wonder if they’re also doing it in more subtle ways that fly under the radar. If this company, with so much power, is to maintain any kind of credibility, it needs our trust.
Take privacy, for instance. It’s fairly well know by now that when we use Google’s services — search, email, docs, maps, etc. — we’re paying by giving up a little bit of our privacy. Everything we do is logged and aggregated to help them sell advertising.
As long as we know we’re making this deal, it seems fair. After all, Google does offer some excellent services, so why not take advantage of them.
I just wish they would be more transparent about it.
For example, recently when clicking on Google search results, I found it took a long time for the websites to load. It got so bad that the web browser timed out — essentially gave up trying.
The reason for this might be the incredibly long web addresses you get in Google’s search results. Try right-clicking on one of the results and choose Copy URL (or something similar), then paste this into a text editor.
What you’ll get is something like this: https://www.google.ca/url? plus a string of gobbledygook that only the most dedicated computer programmer could love. In the midst of it all will be something familiar: the actual web address that you were looking for.
Search “food network” in Google and look at the mess you get. Try the same search in a competing search engine called Duck Duck Go and you get this, plain and simple:
http://www.foodnetwork.com/
So what’s the deal?
Google is not content to merely present you with a list of search results. It wants to know which one you clicked on. So instead of going directly to the website of your choice, you first have to make a little side trip to Google’s servers.
Normally, this happens so quickly that you don’t even notice it. But it’s something to keep in mind if you’re thinking that your computer or the Internet is slow. It might be Google’s fault.
Lately I’ve been trying out Duck Duck Go. This is a fairly new service that promises complete privacy — no tracking of any kind. Their results are good and getting better, plus they take you directly to the websites.
On the other hand, my Google result for “food network” was better in the sense that it gave me the Canadian (.ca) version of this website, while Duck Duck Go gave me the U.S. (.com) version. Google can track your location, right down to the city. And this helps provide more relevant results. In some ways this is good thing and in some ways it’s creepy. Duck Duck Go won’t automatically track your location, but you can use its settings to let it know what country you live in.
I just wish they would tell us in plain, open language what exactly is going on. The explanation needs to be up-front where everyone can see and understand it.
Back in 1962, Neil Sedaka sang Breaking Up Is Hard To Do. Too bad they didn’t have apps back then because these days technology makes breaking up easy — even fun — to do.
For example, our friend Facebook, now used by three-quarters of the online population, has a new feature that hides your ex from your newsfeed without blocking or unfriending them.
When you update your relationship status after a breakup, all you have to do is select a couple of options and you no longer have to see their posts. Their picture won’t show up either if their name is tagged in a photo.
No fuss, no muss.
But what about the actual breakup. Simply changing your Facebook status unfortunately isn’t quite enough. You somehow have to directly communicate with the person you want to break up with. But who wants to deal with anger, hurt feelings and the rest of it?
Luckily, there is a new service that will do this for you, and the cost is a bargain.
For $10, The Breakup Shop will send your soon-to-be-ex a standard text. For $20, they’ll send an email, and for $30 they’ll personalize the message.
Here’s a sample message:
Hi Gordon
Hope you’ve been having a great day so far.
We regret to inform you that your girlfriend Lindsay is breaking up with you. Although you’ve had a good run and shared some great memories along the way, it’s time to move on.
While you’re likely quite shocked and understandably saddened by this news, we just know that you’ll be back on your feet in no time.
Here are some helpful links to get you started:
Exaholics
Self Growth – How to Get Past a Devastating Breakup
Ben & Jerry’s online store
The Breakup Shop – Gifts for Exes
Netflix
We offer you our deepest sympathies, and wish you all the best in the future.
I especially like the attempt at up-selling with an offer of gifts from their website.
But really, your ex shouldn’t have trouble moving on, because we have apps like Tinder that match you with new partners. The emphasis on casual sex might seem shallow, but CEO Sean Rad has plans to raise the bar.
“I need an intellectual challenge,” he said in an interview.
He went on to mistakenly refer to intellectual attraction as “sodomy,” so I’m not really sure how much actual brain power will be involved. Did he mean “synergy?” I’m not sure, but give them time and they’ll work it out.
According the condom maker, young people find it easier to communicate with emojis in their text messages, especially when it comes to matters of intimacy. Oxford Dictionaries’ selection of the emoji as word of the year seems to back that up.
Just in time for World AIDS Day on Dec. 1, Durex is pushing to have a new emoji created for the condom. Young people all over the world will thank them.
So there you have it — progress in our modern times. Breaking up, and hooking up, are easer than ever.
I was going to write about pet finders on Facebook. They work great. If ever you lose your dog or cat, go to Facebook and search “missing pets.” You can also add the name of your city.
You’ll discover that there are hundreds of caring people in your home town who will go out of their way to help reunite you with Fido or Fluffy. Two success stories have come to my attention recently.
I was going to write about that, but it somehow seems trivial when over a hundred people were massacred Friday in Paris. When an atrocity like this occurs, I search for meaning but increasingly I find it unfathomable.
Revenge? Cycles of violence? Ideology? Those things kind of make sense but always to seem to fall apart. Surely there are limits to the evil people are capable of.
If there is any comfort to be found, it is with the knowledge that in the midst of horrific events, there are always good people trying to do whatever they can to make things better. I read, for example, about a man finding an injured teenage girl among the dead, scooping her up, and running 200 metres to get her to a cab that could take her to a hospital.
I was impressed to see the Twitter hashtag #porteoverte (French for “open door”) along with people’s home addresses. They were offering shelter to strangers who, for whatever reason, had no way of getting to safety after the attacks. It takes guts to publish personal information at any time, but especially at a time of crisis when you can’t be sure what to expect.
I was also impressed that Facebook activated a check-in feature that I hadn’t heard of before. If you’re in a danger zone, you can check in and let your friends and relatives know you’re OK. This no doubt saved a lot of people a lot of grief.
Unfortunately, there were also some disappointments. You have to wonder what goes through someone’s mind when they see a tragedy and think about how they can use it to promote a personal agenda.
Such was the case when U.S. politician Newt Gingrich tweeted about how much safer the victims would have been if they were allowed to carry concealed weapons. Former New York Times writer Judith Miller responded with a snarky, almost incomprehensible, tweet about whiney college students.
Even here in Kamloops, I saw journalists goading each other about finding a local angle. I’ve been there, so I can understand being caught up in the moment, but it certainly wasn’t their finest hour.
As always, social media is a reflection of humanity — the good and the bad. It’s no wonder so many people prefer to concentrate their efforts on missing pets — less complex and always appreciative.
A 13-year-old girl ask about taxes for the middle class during a Google Hangout session with Justin Trudeau. (Toronto Star photo)
Our new prime minister has taken to social media like a duck to water.
Soon after winning the election, Justin Trudeau posted on Facebook an answer to a woman’s list of hopes and dreams that she had also posted on Facebook.
Within hours of being sworn in, he was using Google Hangouts to chat with young students at five schools across Canada.
Reddit users have submitted several requests for him to take part in a question-and-answer session known as Ask Me Anything. U.S. President Barack Obama once did it, so this is not a stretch for heads of state.
Facebook struck again when the mother of a scientist with Fisheries and Oceans shared his great relief at again being allowed to speak publicly about science without asking for permission.
The mother, Jody Patterson, described it in a blog post as being “like the fall of our own little Berlin Wall. I could practically feel everyone running into the streets and calling from the rooftops: ‘The scientists are unmuzzled! We’re free! We’re free!’”
Despite being a jaded former journalist, she has been inspired to write a letter of thanks to the prime minister. I wouldn’t be surprised if he answers.
It’s almost impossible to image Trudeau’s predecessor, Stephen Harper, being so open with Canadians. I still remember that picture of him shaking hands with his son after dropping him off at school. Compare this with the image of Trudeau having a free-wheeling discussion with a whole bunch of kids from all over the country.
For many Canadians, the great unmuzzling of scientists is symbolic of hope that the new government will turn out to be more open, even after the honeymoon period.
But the science is also important. For the most part, people tend to trust scientists because they make statements based on measurable evidence supported by their peers. That’s a far cry from politicians who make statements based on whatever will get them elected.
There is always the fear, though, that science can be tainted by politics. We see it here in Kamloops where some opponents to the proposed Ajax mine don’t trust the environmental review process. Government scientists might tell us that everything is fine, but will they be telling the truth or will they be saying what they’ve been told to say by their political masters?
It’s true that ultimately politicians decide, and it’s hard to know how much of a role science played. For example, both sides in the Keystone XL pipeline debate claimed to have science on their side, but it was left to Obama to determine which science he believed to be in his country’s best interest.
Still, if scientists are allowed to speak freely, there is always hope that if there is corruption involved, then they will have the option of speaking up about it. Freedom of speech has alway been about holding politicians accountable. Fewer restrictions almost always work out to be for the greater good.
With Steve Jobs the movie, Steve Jobs the man has made the transition from real life to mythology.
If you want to watch a drama about a person who resembles the man who built Apple into the success it is today, then by all means go see the movie. Just don’t expect to learn much about really happened.
The best comparison I’ve seen is with Citizen Kane. The classic by Orson Welles was loosely based on the life of newspaper magnate William Randolph Heart. Welles changed the names so he could freely use creative licence — and in the process created a masterpiece.
Aaron Sorkin did more or less the same thing, offering an interpretive drama about Jobs’ life, but instead kept the real names. The result is outright inaccuracies and a heavy emphasis on Jobs’ initial denial surrounding a daughter born out of wedlock.
Every book about Jobs mentions this tragic episode, but Sorkin dwells on it. I can’t say I blame a movie maker for doing this. After all, most people — even though computers are an integral part of our lives — aren’t really that interested in the technology behind them.
Jobs spent most of his life creating products, but in the end we all know that no matter how great the fruits of our labours might be, the thing that really counts in life is our relationships with family and friends. Anyone who has ever had a child will respond emotionally to a father rejecting his daughter.
Many people think he did this because he was obsessed with succeeding in his career — that he feared having to help raise a baby would be a fatal distraction. And yet, amid all this denial, he named a computer after her — the Lisa. This computer is long forgotten, but the story behind its naming will long endure as an example of the complexity we are capable of when it comes to family.
Of course, he later came to accept her, raised her as part of his family, and there was a happy ending.
Still, this is not the movie I want to see. In fact, now that Jobs is dead, I don’t know if it’s possible to tell the kinds of stories about him that were truly exciting.
The books I enjoyed about Jobs and Apple were written while he was alive — and refused to co-operate with the authors. Many of the people interviewed for these books were afraid to have their names used for fear of angering a powerful man.
Jobs had a reputation for having a quick temper in his younger years, and people working in the tech industry didn’t want to get on his bad side. So these books read like secrets revealed. You knew that people were taking risks by talking.
Perhaps the best of these was Apple Confidential by Owen W. Linzmayer. You can still find it on Amazon.
These days, you can say anything you like about Jobs — even make stuff up. If Sorkin’s movie takes off, Jobs could turn into a commodity to be exploited, like other dead celebrities. That would be shame because his real story — tons of stuff I haven’t mentioned — was already fascinating.
I’ve read the eponymous biography by Walter Isaacson that was authorized by Jobs. It’s accurate but the writing is kind of ho-hum. A new book, called Becoming Steve Jobs, is supposed to be better. People who knew him say it is not only historically accurate, but also does a good job of capturing the essence of the man. Maybe I’ll put it on my Christmas wish list.
Over the years, I’ve accumulated dozens, perhaps hundreds, of passwords. Most of them I keep stored in an app, which itself requires a password. Scrolling through the list there are passwords for things that have been long forgotten.
For example, it looks like I at one time decided to sign up for the MacCentral discussion forum. MacCentral was at one time a popular website for Mac users. It no long exists — hasn’t for years.
I could delete some of those old passwords, but it wouldn’t do much good — at least not in terms of bringing down the total. It seems like everything you want to do on the Internet requires a password of some sort.
I’ve been looking at the possibility of using a service for an embedded calendar of events. There are a number of options out there, but it’s hard to decide if they’re any good unless you create an account and give them a try.
So that’s a bunch more passwords.
Every once in a while there is a glimmer of hope that passwords are becoming a thing of the past. As far as I’m concerned, it can’t happen soon enough. I try to keep all my passwords in a safe place, but sometimes I forget, and frustration ensues when I can’t remember one of them.
The latest assault on passwords comes from Yahoo Mail. They’ve just rolled out a system that allows you to securely log in to their service without a password. You read that right — NO PASSWORD.
Here’s how it works: you download the Yahoo Mail app to your smartphone and set it up so that it receives a notification when you want to sign in to Yahoo Mail. If you tap “Yes” then you’re in.
My first reaction was that it would be quicker and easier to type in a password, assuming you remember it. Also, even now, not everyone has a smartphone on them all the time.
Still, when you think about, this is a far more secure way of doing things. Thieves love Internet-based security systems because you can eventually crack them. Set up computers to hack away millions of times a day, and you’re bound to get lucky.
But using Yahoo’s new system would make that approach impossible. That’s because the only password (the one you use to set up the app) is on your phone. Communication between the app and Yahoo Mail is by random tokens that are impossible to guess.
That means the thief would pretty much have to come to your house and steal your phone in order to get into your Yahoo account. Even then, of course, he would need to get past whatever password or fingerprint technology you have used to secure the phone.
This, of course, would be a major inconvenience for bad guys. Balance this with the small inconvenience of tapping a “Yes” when you want to log in and you come out ahead.
I tried it out myself and found it a little weird, but I could get used to it. Once I had everything set up on the app on my iPhone, I tried using Yahoo Mail on a computer. I received a text message asking for permission to log in. I swiped to the left and found the options. I tapped “Yes” then waited.
Not really knowing what to expect, it seemed like it wasn’t working. But after a few seconds, I was in. Impressive. The down side is that I discovered I have over a hundred unread emails, but that’s a whole other thing.
I suspect that if Yahoo’s system catches on with Apple, Google and the rest, it will become further refined, more intuitive and easier to use. When that day arrives, passwords may finally become a thing of the past. I can hardly wait.
(Glenn Fleishman, a respected writer for Macworld, outlines how the new Yahoo Mail system works. Well worth a read.)
The most popular movie this weekend would never have seen the light of day before the Internet.
Andy Weir, an author with a background in computer science, couldn’t get The Martian published the old-fashioned way, so he put it on his website instead — one chapter at a time.
The story involves an astronaut using physics, chemistry and biology to survive after being stranded on Mars, and Weir wanted the science to be as realistic as possible. He did a ton of research, but readers of his website also chimed in with corrections that made the story even more science-y.
The next step was to publish a Kindle version. Even though they could read the story for free on his website, 35,000 fans bought The Martian for 99 cents each and made it a best-seller.
That’s when a paper-and-ink publisher finally took notice. The book sold many more copies and is now a blockbuster starring Matt Damon and directed by Ridley Scott. Variety estimates the movie will make $50 million this weekend.
The movie doesn’t go into as much detail on how the main character is able to pull off scientific wonders such as creating water or growing food on a desolate planet. But it does maintain the can-do spirit that serves as inspiration regardless of whether you’re into gadgetry.
I found the book a bit tedious at times because we really are given full explanations for everything. I was tempted to skim, but didn’t want to miss anything important, so I kept forging ahead to find out he solved one crisis after another.
It’s too early to say at this point, but The Martian could be the science fiction movie that helps define this generation. Yes, there is human drama, but it is tempered with solid logic that is fitting for our times.
Compare this with 2001: A Space Odyssey. That movie was all about the wonder and mystery of space exploration. It seems we’ve moved past that and see space travel as simply a more complex version of driving a car or flying an airplane.
This becomes especially true now that we know so much about the destination. NASA and the European Space Agency have been bringing back ever more detailed extraterrestrial photos and analysis. We now know there is flowing water beneath the surface of Mars and have stunning photos to prove it.
As we come to understand the reality of Mars, Pluto or a passing comet named Philae, movies like The Martian seem less fictional and more aspirational.
With all the fuss lately about ad blockers in the latest version of iOS, don’t forget that both mobile and desktop Safari have long had a built-in way of clearing the clutter — Reader.
Have a look at these screenshots from The Next Web:
If you tap on the icon to the left of the web address, it reverses colour and produces a version of the article with nothing but easy-to-read text.
You can go a step further and tap the icon to the right when you’re in Reader mode. This gives you options for text size, background colour, text colour and font.
It’s also guilt-free. Your visit to the website still counts as a “view” for the ads, and the publisher continues to get revenue for it.
Reader doesn’t block tracking, but you can turn on that option in your Safari settings.
The big downside is that Reader doesn’t actually speed up page load times because it’s only hiding ads, not blocking them.
Still, it’s a good option for those who feel uneasy about using blockers.
