Don’t Fear the AI
May 14, 2015
Will intelligent machines bring about the downfall of the human race? Unlikely, says The Technium, in “Why I Don’t Worry About a Super AI.” The blogger details four specific reasons he or she is unafraid: First, AI does not seem to adhere to Moore’s law, so no Terminators anytime soon. Also, we do have the power to reprogram any uppity AI that does crop up and (reason three) it is unlikely that an AI would develop the initiative to reprogram itself, anyway. Finally, we should see managing this technology as an opportunity to clarify our own principles, instead of a path to dystopia. The blog opines:
“AI gives us the opportunity to elevate and sharpen our own ethics and morality and ambition. We smugly believe humans – all humans – have superior behavior to machines, but human ethics are sloppy, slippery, inconsistent, and often suspect. […] The clear ethical programing AIs need to follow will force us to bear down and be much clearer about why we believe what we think we believe. Under what conditions do we want to be relativistic? What specific contexts do we want the law to be contextual? Human morality is a mess of conundrums that could benefit from scrutiny, less superstition, and more evidence-based thinking. We’ll quickly find that trying to train AIs to be more humanistic will challenge us to be more humanistic. In the way that children can better their parents, the challenge of rearing AIs is an opportunity – not a horror. We should welcome it.”
Machine learning as a catalyst for philosophical progress—interesting perspective. See the post for more details behind this writer’s reasoning. Is he or she being realistic, or naïve?
Cynthia Murrell, May 14, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Explaining Big Data Mythology
May 14, 2015
Mythologies usually develop over a course of centuries, but big data has only been around for (arguably) a couple decades—at least in the modern incarnate. Recently big data has received a lot of media attention and product development, which was enough to give the Internet time to create a big data mythology. The Globe and Mail wanted to dispel some of the bigger myths in the article, “Unearthing Big Myths About Big Data.”
The article focuses on Prof. Joerg Niessing’s big data expertise and how he explains the truth behind many of the biggest big data myths. One of the biggest items that Niessing wants people to understand is that gathering data does not equal dollar signs, you have to be active with data:
“You must take control, starting with developing a strategic outlook in which you will determine how to use the data at your disposal effectively. “That’s where a lot of companies struggle. They do not have a strategic approach. They don’t understand what they want to learn and get lost in the data,” he said in an interview. So before rushing into data mining, step back and figure out which customer segments and what aspects of their behavior you most want to learn about.”
Niessing says that big data is not really big, but made up of many diverse, data points. Big data also does not have all the answers, instead it provides ambiguous results that need to be interpreted. Have questions you want to be answered before gathering data. Also all of the data returned is not the greatest. Some of it is actually garbage, so it cannot be usable for a project. Several other myths are uncovered, but the truth remains that having a strategic big data plan in place is the best way to make the most of big data.
Whitney Grace, May 14, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
The Forgotten List of Telegraph
May 13, 2015
Technology experts and information junkies in the European Union are in an uproar over a ruling that forces Google to remove specific information from search results. “The right to be forgotten” policy upheld by the EU is supposed to help people who want “inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant” information removed from Google search results. Many news outlets in Europe have been affected, including the United Kingdom’s Telegraph. The Telegraph has been recording a list called “Telegraph Stories Affected By ‘EU Right To Be Forgotten’” of all the stories they have been forced to remove.
According to the article, the Google has received over 250,000 requests to remove information. Some of these requests concern stories published by Telegraph. While many oppose the ‘right to be forgotten,’ including the House of Lords, others are still upholding the policy:
“But David Smith, deputy commissioner and director of data protection for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), hit back and claimed that the criticism was misplaced, ‘as the initial stages of its implementation have already shown.’ ”
Many of the “to be forgotten” requests concern people with criminal pasts and misdeeds that are color them in an bad light. The Telegraph’s content might be removed from Google, but they are keeping a long, long list on their website. Read the stories there or head on over to the US Google website-freedom of the press still holds true here.
Whitney Grace, May 13, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
The Philosophy of Semantic Search
May 13, 2015
The article Taking Advantage of Semantic Search NOW: Understanding Semiotics, Signs, & Schema on Lunametrics delves into semantics on a philosophical and linguistic level as well as in regards to business. He goes through the emergence of semantic search beginning with Ray Kurzweil’s interest in machine learning meaning as opposed to simpler keyword search. In order to fully grasp this concept, the author of the article provides a brief refresher on Saussure’s semantics.
“a Sign is comprised of a signifier, or the name of a thing, and the signified, what that thing represents… Say you sell iPad accessories. “iPad case” is your signifier, or keyword in search marketing speak. We’ve abused the signifier to the utmost over the years, stuffing it onto pages, calculating its density with text tools, jamming it into title tags, in part because we were speaking to robot who read at a 3-year-old level.”
In order to create meaning, we must go beyond even just the addition of price tag and picture to create a sign. The article suggests the need for schema, in the addition of some indication of whom and what the thing is for. The author, Michael Bartholow, has a background in linguistics and marketing and search engine optimization. His article ends with the question of when linguists, philosophers and humanists will be invited into the conversation with businesses, perhaps making him a true visionary in a field populated by data engineers with tunnel-vision.
Chelsea Kerwin, May 13, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Math and Search Experts
May 10, 2015
I found “There’s More to Mathematics Than Rigor and Proofs” a useful reminder between the the person who is comfor4table with math and the person who asserts he is good in math. With more search and content processing embracing numerical recipes, the explanations of what a math centric system can do often leave me rolling my eyes and, in some cases, laughing out loud.
This essay explains that time and different types of math experiences are necessary stages in developing a useful facility with some of today’s information retrieval systems and methods. The write up points out:
The distinction between the three types of errors can lead to the phenomenon (which can often be quite puzzling to readers at earlier stages of mathematical development) of a mathematical argument by a post-rigorous mathematician which locally contains a number of typos and other formal errors, but is globally quite sound, with the local errors propagating for a while before being cancelled out by other local errors. (In contrast, when unchecked by a solid intuition, once an error is introduced in an argument by a pre-rigorous or rigorous mathematician, it is possible for the error to propagate out of control until one is left with complete nonsense at the end of the argument.)
Perhaps this section of the article sheds some light on the content processing systems which wander off the track of relevance and accuracy? As my mathy relative Vladimir Igorevich Arnold was fond of saying to anyone who would listen: Understand first, then talk.
Stephen E Arnold, May 10, 2015
Google Glass: A Harsh Assessment
May 8, 2015
I read “The Debacle of Google Glass.” As a 70 year old wearer of trifocal lenses, I failed to see (pun alert) the future in this wonky product. I haven’t thought too much about Google Glass, although I did a research report for one of those really stable financial outfits.
“Debacle” comes at Glass with some zest. I read:
When Google introduced their Google Glass, this was the first thing that came to mind about this project. I wondered if Google even had a clue how tech adoption cycles develop. While it is true glasses had been used in vertical markets since 1998, even after all of this time, we saw no interest by consumers. Google’s decision to aim Glass at consumers first, yet price them as if they were going to vertical markets, stumped me. Even the folks who had spent decades making glasses for use in manufacturing, government applications, and transportation were dumfounded by Google’s consumer focus with Google Glass, priced at $1500. Apparently, Google found out the hard way how tech products get adopted. They lost hundreds of millions of dollars on this project and, worse yet, they soured the consumer market for similar products. Even those with disposable income who could afford to be a Glass Explorer have to feel taken as Google used them as beta testers at their personal expense. I have seen a recent report that details the damage in consumer minds about Google Glass and, even if a competitor came to market with a cheaper product better than Glass, they would have a hard time getting anything but vertical users interested.
The idea that Google has some weak spots is not a new one. The write up includes what strikes me as a positive nod to the Apple Watch. My hunch is that the idea is that Apple is better at some things than Google.
The write up pops the “debacle” word again in this passage which I highlighted with my trusty pink marker. I reserve pink for anti Google sentiments, by the way:
Google glasses was a debacle for multiple reasons. It gave Google a black eye in the minds of consumers and cost them a lot in the way of consumer confidence when it comes to their efforts in hardware. It also tainted the market for consumer glasses for them and competitors in the future beyond how these products can be used in vertical markets. It also proved to be a debacle for a lot of partners who lost serious money on the Google Glass project. I spoke at a major customer conference of a company who was highly focused on the optical side of the glass. For years, they were very successful in vertical markets but were pulled into the consumer glasses area by Google and the media hype and tried to convince their own customers to jump into the space with competitive products. To their chagrin, most of their customers passed on this and I am sure they are glad they did.
Like most Glass analyses, this write up ignores some of the points I still find interesting; for example, the Babak Parviz (yep, the smart contact lens person with the multiple versions of his name) Microsoft-Google-Amazon adventure, the impact of the senior manager-marketer interaction on intra company inter personal processes, the fascinating sales approach, the likely re-emergence of a more fashionable and stylish Glass, and the concomitant use of the festive neologism “glasshole.” Not many products warrant a coinage like “glasshole.”
If you are interested in Glass, you will find the write up fascinating. Perhaps the full story of Glass will emerge as a Netflix original series?
Stephen E Arnold, May 8, 2015
Annual Ranking of Legal Sector Puts Omnivere at the Top
May 6, 2015
The article titled Omnivere Voted Best National End-To-End Ediscovery, Managed Ediscovery & Litigation Support, and Data & Technology Provider in 2015 Best of the National Law Journal on Blackbird discusses the ranking and what it means. This is an annual ranking that is conducted with readers of The National Law Journal & Legal Times casting ballots based on their experiences with their own legal services. Omnivere won this year’s legal sector “best in show.” The article states,
“In less than a year, OmniVere has established itself as a trailblazer in the next wave of data and technology consulting, eDiscovery services and litigation support. In creating an in-house team of expert, veteran data consultants, including former senior leadership from FTI, Navigant Consulting, Integreon, Recommind, Xerox and Berkeley Research Group, OmniVere is well positioned to deliver a range of products and services on a global playing field.”
Omnivere was launched in May 2014 and rapidly grew into one of the biggest and most sought-after companies for its work in litigation support and discovery management. Erik Post, Omnivere President, is quoted in the article celebrating the win and the overall success of the company. He suggests that in spite of their new brand, the work and abilities of the staff is “resonating across the country.”
Chelsea Kerwin, May 6, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
IBM and SAP: More Power Delivered for Big Data
May 5, 2015
I read “IBM Creates Power Systems Servers for Big Data Crunching in SAP HANA.” The story line is easy to grasp: Struggling IBM has purpose built fast servers for the IBM like SAP. According to the write up:
BM has expanded its partnership with SAP by creating Power Systems server configurations specifically designed to enhance the way SAP HANA is deployed for big data projects.
IBM said its Power Systems Solution Editions for SAP HANA will allow users of IBM’s Power8 systems to deploy the in-memory database management platform faster and in a more cost-effective manner.
What’s interesting is that both companies have compute intensive content processing systems. The challenge of making sense of structured and unstructured information is a need IBM and SAP customers have.
The fix is big iron. Crunching large volumes of data in real time appears to be an issue both IBM and SAP wish to resolve.
The implication is that cloud services like those available from Amazon and HP are not up to the task. The tie up sounds good. The article references content processing as well:
Powering big data analytics and database management appears to be a major part of IBM’s strategy. The company recently entered the healthcare big data market by creating Watson Health after snapping up big data and cloud startups. Big Blue is also teaming up with Twitter to analyze big data harvested from the social network.
One minor point: Will customers be able to realize cost savings? Are IBM and a company with IBM’s DNA cost effective? “Cost savings” are easy to say and sometimes difficult to deliver. I assume one can ask Watson.
Stephen E Arnold, May 5, 2015
Juvenile Journal Behavior
May 5, 2015
Ah, more publisher excitement. Neuroskeptic, a blogger at Discover, weighs in on a spat between scientific journals in, “Academic Journals in Glass Houses….” The write-up begins by printing a charge lobbed at Frontiers in Psychology by the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (JNMD), in which the latter accuses the former of essentially bribing peer reviewers. It goes on to explain the back story, and why the blogger feels the claim against Frontiers is baseless. See the article for those details, if you’re curious.
Here’s the part that struck me: Neuroskeptic supplies the example hinted at in his or her headline:
“For the JNMD to question the standards of Frontiers peer review process is a bit of a ‘in glass houses / throwing stones’ moment. Neuroskeptic readers may remember that it was JNMD who one year ago published a paper about a mysterious device called the ‘quantum resonance spectrometer’ (QRS). This paper claimed that QRS can detect a ‘special biological wave… released by the brain’ and thus accurately diagnose schizophrenia and other mental disorders – via a sensor held in the patient’s hand. The article provided virtually no details of what the ‘QRS’ device is, or how it works, or what the ‘special wave’ it is supposed to measure is. Since then, I’ve done some more research and as far as I can establish, ‘QRS’ is an entirely bogus technology. If JNMD are going to level accusations at another journal, they ought to make sure that their own house is in order first.”
This is more support for the conclusion that many of today’s “academic” journals cannot be trusted. Perhaps the profit-driven situation will be overhauled someday, but in the meantime, let the reader beware.
Cynthia Murrell, May 5, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Listen Up, Search Experts, Innovation Ended in 1870
May 2, 2015
I just completed a video in which I said, “Keyword search has not changed for 50 years.” I assume that one or two ahistorical 20 somethings will tell me that I need to get back in the rest home where I belong.
I read “Fundamental Innovation Peaked in 1870 and Why That’s a Good Thing,” which is a write up designed to attract clicks and generate furious online discussion and maybe a comic book. I think that 1870 was 145 years ago, but I could be wrong. Ahistorical allows many interesting things to occur.
The point of the write up is to bolster the assertion that “society has only become less innovative through the years.” I buy that, at least for the period of time I have allocated to write this pre Kentucky Derby blog post on a sparkling spring day with the temperature pegged at 72 degrees Fahrenheit or 22.22 degrees Celsius for those who are particular about conversions accurate to two decimal places. Celsius was defined in the mid 18th century, a fact bolstering the argument of the article under my microscope. Note that the microscope was invented in the late 16th century by two Dutch guys who charged a lot of money for corrective eye wear. I wonder if these clever souls thought about bolting a wireless computer and miniature video screen to their spectacles.
The write up reports that the math crazed lads at the Santa Fe Institute “discovered” innovation has flat lined. Well, someone needs to come up with a better Celsius. Maybe we can do what content processing vendors do and rename “Celsius” to “centigrade” and claim a breakthrough innovation?
Here’s the big idea:
“A new invention consists of technologies, either new or already in use, brought together in a way not previously seen,” the Santa Fe researchers, led by complex systems theorist Hyejin Youn, write. “The historical record on this process is extensive. For recent examples consider the incandescent light bulb, which involves the use of electricity, a heated filament, an inert gas and a glass bulb; the laser, which presupposes the ability to construct highly reflective optical cavities, creates light intensification mediums of sufficient purity and supplies light of specific wavelengths; or the polymerase chain reaction, which requires the abilities to finely control thermal cycling (which involves the use of computers) and isolate short DNA fragments (which in turn applies techniques from chemical engineering).”
Let’s assume the SFI folks are spot on. I would suggest that information access is an ideal example of a lack of innovation. Handwritten notes pinned to manuscripts did not work very well, but the “idea” was there: The notes told the lucky library user something about the scroll in the slot or the pile in some cases. That’s metadata.
Flash forward to the news releases I received last week about breakthrough content classification, metadata extraction, and predictive tagging.
SFI is correct. These notions are quite old. The point overlooked in the write up about the researchers’ insight is that pinned notes did not work very well. I recall learning that monks groused about careless users not pinning them back on the content object when finished.
Take heart. Most automated, super indexing systems are only about 80 percent accurate. That’s close enough for horse shoes and more evidence that digital information access methods are not going to get a real innovator very excited.
Taking a bit of this and a bit of that is what’s needed. Even with these cut and paste approach to invention, the enterprise search sector leaves me with the nostalgic feeling I experience after I leave a museum exhibit.
But what about the Google, IBM, and Microsoft patents? I assume SFI wizards would testify in the role of expert witnesses that the inventions were not original. I wonder how many patent attorneys are reworking their résumés in order to seek an alternative source of revenue?
Lots? Well, maybe not.
Stephen
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
