Are we able to create AI (Artificial Intelligence) superior to us?

   Before we dive into this, lets actually see what AI is. Now, in previous blogs I have talked about robots and cyborgs, AI is the programmed list of complex commands designed to make them more human, but is this really where we should be heading with this? Will one day we become sub-superior to the machines we created?

  Technology is at a boom whereby almost every month a new sort of revolutionary bit of tech is created and shown to the public to marvel at. With this in mind it is only a matter of time before the ideologies of film maker, Alex Proyas with his box-office hit I, Robot and Steven Spielberg's emotional film, AI: Artificial Intelligence become reality. These two films are a great starting point in understanding where advances in robot technology can take us:

I, Robot

  Robots have been created to serve humans with a programmed AI that ad hears to some set rules (these will be explained a 'lil bit later on), but when they are ignored there are horrible results. Humans are now slaves to the robots almost like a role-reversal.

Check out the trailer below:

AI: Artificial Intelligence

  This film in my opinion is one that makes the idea of AI wrong. This blurs the line between robots and humans too much, to a point of non-existence. The boy has become almost like a Pinocchio figure, yearning to become a real boy. In Proyas' film the robots still looked different to us, still had qualities that makes them a robot; but here in this film the child would be classed as a human under first impressions, it would be only until you got to know 'him' that you would begin to question his existence.

Check out the trailer below:

After looking at these two films is it right? Is it right that one day we will create AI that over shadows us?

  It is only when computers and robots begin to show human qualities that our humanity becomes questioned. But the laws or rules of robotics mentioned in I, Robot are there to keep a division in us and them. The rules were created by Sci-Fi author Isaac Asimov to make robots acceptable in the population. The three laws are:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

  I find it interesting that all the laws are closely linked, for example, ..."does not conflict with the First or Second Law." It is almost like they are so tight in security, just in case anything could go wrong.

  But it is not only robots that can be human-like, computers can be too. Virtual voices layered over computer systems can have complex AI's, ones that can form sentences with you as if you were speaking to a real person. An extreme example would be Iron Man's computer system Jarvis who acts as another person in the film. Jarvis is the system used to operate Tony Stark's house and his suit, he can make complex calculations in split seconds and sounds very much like a human - but, sadly, this is only a film and isn't real -- yet! (I feel I'm using that word allot lately but it is true, we may have these in the future) That though, is the extreme future, at this moment in time we only have basic Chatterbots, ones that can be seen on MSN or specific websites. These Chatterbots are a type of conversational agent i.e. ALICE. 'She' has been programmed to form a basic conversation but can easily be caught out as being a computer by the user typing some complex and random phrases or questions. It is interesting that when asked about her family she only mentions her father, or indeed 'father' as she calls her.

  If we look at the AI developments at the moment we can see how long it will be until we are at the stage of I, Robot. In Japan there are projects that are going much in the way of Spielberg's film:

  Again, this in my opinion is going the wrong way. I think that making them look like us is wrong, if it was without the silicone and with the mechanics showing, like in I, Robot it would appeal to the public more. 

  This is SLIGHTLY better, I mean, still a tad creepy I'll give it that but to me without it looking human it magnifies the line between human and robot AI.

  I think we will in the future will be able to create AI in computers and robots that will become superior to us, they may be able to 'think' like us or even dream (like in I, Robot). The thing is, do we want it to? Are we to be second class to these created beings? Will they replace us in jobs or basic chores in the house making us so dependent on them? These questions can only be answered in time, as the technology advances to newer levels opening more doors to the future of robotics. 

Augmented Reality: Yummy Food!

  On my way back from the Christmas University Holidays I felt quite peckish on the train and so ordered myself a KitKat. I noticed that there was an augmented reality sticker on the wrapping and thought it was quite clever that they have been implemented on food now - clever advertising!

  When I got back to my little room I checked it out and this is what I found:

 I thought this was amazing (Im sad) as they have not only incorporated video, but a song aswell! Its really clever that they are promoting their already multi-popular food this way with a popular band (not in my opinion but you know..)

  Anywhoo - just thought I'd link this up because I thought it was cool and was related to my previous blogpost: Augmented Reality: What Do They Really Offer to the 'Real World'?

Are We All Cyborgs? and Do We Want To Be?

  Are we all Cyborgs? Or does it take weaponry wired into our bodies, an artificial leg or arm to make us so?

 Can you understand this?:

0100100001100101011011000110110001101111001011000010000001001001001000000010000001100001011011010010000001100001001000000100001101111001011000100110111101110010011001110010000001100001011011100110010000100000011000010110110100100000011011100110111101110100001000000110100001110101011011010110000101101110
        

... if yes, then you are a Cyborg, because what I simply said was,

"Hello, I  am a Cyborg and am not human"

  In today's world we couldn't function without technology. If we had no internet for example the business industry would cease to operate, students wouldn't be able to look on Wikipedia and communication around the world would come to a sudden stop. With this in mind, are we all sort of Cyborgs, dependent on technology to get us through a general working day from waking up (alarm clock on phones), getting to work (via cars/public transport), actually working (computers), and coming home again? In a sense yes, but if we look at the definition of a Cyborg...

"a human being whose body has been taken over in whole or in part by electromechanical devices"

                           ...we're not really...

                                         ...but in a way, our lives have been "taken over" by electromechanical devices, ok, maybe not the electromechanical devices part (yet!) but by technology definitely - you know what I mean right? Take a look at these two pictures:

We may not look like this Cyborg
(granted its from Star Trek but that's
beside the point)
but...

...we do look like this - Bluetooth headsets.
All businessmen around the world beating the rat-race to work.

  Do we want to be cyborgs? Do you? You may want too in the future because there are some pretty awesome stuff that has been developed. If you have seen the Alien films then this vehicle may seem familiar to you:

The Power Loader

Or even the Avatar film:

Similar sort of thing

  These may seem fictional and just in films but in actual fact its now becoming a reality. In Japan (of course) developments are being made on a full body suit called HAL (Hybrid Assisted Limb): 

In the video I like when he says, "expand the physical functions of humans". This is exactly what a Cyborg is, its an extension to the human capabilities - and the fact that he calls us 'humans' implying that we are secondary now :)

This is tech taken from Science Fiction i.e. Robocop (without the weapons - yet!) and implemented into reality for practical use, I mean it will help the less capable and in the future may allow individuals to walk again after being paralysed. But still, is a Cyborg someone that cant live without being 'connected'?

How far will Cybernetics go in the future? 

  Imagine this, your home one day and your browsing the web. Your interested in an an item from an online shop and can spare a mere $30 000 - you add it to your shopping list! A few weeks later you receive a package in the post and your so happy! - its you new pair of Bionic Eyes! 

In the future we may be able to shop for these 'enhancements' making us even more like a Cyborg - check out the mock website : The Bionic Body Shop.

   Imagine this if you will, you have just had an operation for a new set of bio-mechanical organs keeping you alive for longer and need to keep paying in instalments for you to keep them or else Jude Law (erm I mean Remy from the company you bought the organs from) will burst into your house and reclaim their property. Yea - creepy! This is the basic idea of the 2010 film Repo Men, see the trailer here:

  I think I will finish here, but its interesting and abit creepy in my opinion to what is available, what is going to be available and what will be available in the future!  

CopyRight and CopyLeft? What's This All About?

  Discussed previously in my last blog post: 'What user generated content is emphasised by 'Web 2.0'' In it is a large section on mashups in music and the idea of  who becomes the owner of that newly created media. In this weeks post the law CopyRight will be put against its rival and mirrored foe, CopyLeft.

Vs.

 So, I think the ideas of both are explanatory in themselves. CopyRight gives the author the rights to his property and must be asked by anyone who wants to use it i.e. in Mashups - but people doing Mashups use hundreds of clips from dozens of songs meaning that getting permission would most probably take months and so don't bother. CopyLeft, well, its the opposite to CopyRight (hence the mirrored image). This is not a registered law but it makes aware that the media that it is on is and will stay freely available to edit and share, without the worry of large intimidating record companies or publishers handing you a hefty fine or an invitation to join them in a heated debate in the laws of court - with you obviously having no chance of winning btw.

  Much like health and safety, CopyRight is getting out of control as my good friend Stephan Fry discusses here:

(It is quite long but there are some very good points made by the Tech icon and boffin)

I think some good points he makes is that the CopyRight laws compare someone downloading an episode of tv to a criminal stealing a handbag or a car. Also, I think I mentioned this in one of my previous blogs is that if you download a film, watch and enjoy it, you will most probably buy the film when it comes to DVD or BluRay. I do think Fry is right when he says that if someone had downloaded illegally a whole season of tv or a collection of albums and then selling them perhaps stating them as the 'real thing' are the real criminals and should be the ones getting prosecuted, not the general public who are probably fans that love the  music, games or films that they are downloading. In most cases they cant wait for the film or album to come out and some want to wathc it before it is released and then will pay to see it in 3D IMAX at the cinemas.

  

There are some powerful people backing CopyRight (mainly organisations not people) but there also powerful and respected icons like Stephan Fry who back the CopyLeft movement. In a film watched called A Remix Manifesto there is actually a lawyer who is backing the CopyLeft ideas. Here is a speech he did:

The part of the video about the home video footage of the baby is a great example of how ridiculous the CopyRight law has become. The fines recieved for CopyRight infringement seems as equally over the top, in an example a woman was fined for $US220.000 for sharing 24 songs! 

   The Internet was built for one main reason: sharing information around the world; but what good is that if large corporations are blocking and filtering this. I think that CopyRight should still be there but not as persistent and harsh, it just limits the creativity and imagination of others. I think a comment posted by a viewer (judemoir) of the video above has some interesting points and is a good summary to finish this post with:

"I suppose the point is not to completely eradicate copyright laws. Lessig makes it clear that he wants a balance, between artists getting reward for their innovation, and the public being able to use that. He does not support people making money from copying DVDs for example, but he thinks that stopping people from building on culture is detrimental and only benefits the few fat cats that get all the money!"

judemoir 1 year ago 12 

© This blog's whole entirety belongs to Oliver James Swinburne. Any quotes' use without permission may result in unlimited fines of up to £∞ and a prison sentence :P just kidding - im CopyLeft!

What user generated content is emphasised by 'Web 2.0'?

   To fully get into this weeks topic we need to explain what Web 2.0 is; this term has been looked at before in my Citizen Journalism post but now it will be magnified into much more detail.

   Web 2.0's definition from The Oxford Dictionaries is,

 "the second stage of development of the World Wide Web, characterized especially by the change from static web pages to dynamic or user-generated content and the growth of social networking."

  I think the 'user-generated content' is key in the Web 2.0's explanation although previously this was possible in 1.0 but now it is much easier to do as the Internet has become so user friendly your grandma could start having fun. In this weeks blog we we will look at Mashups and The Youtube Symphony both involved in user generated content and how they are shared amongst the Internet.

   Firstly Mashups, this technique of creativity usually involves putting two songs together to create an new sound or indeed 'mashing' them together. A vocal track is placed over the instrumental track of another to create a whole new version of the song or a completely new one, examples include:

"Tick-Toxic" - Mash Up Of Britney Spears and Gwen Stefani

Lady Gaga vs. Black Eyed Peas (Fergie) - Poker Hump Mashup

   

   As seen in the videos two tracks have been 'mashed' together creating a whole new sound. Both licensed songs are now together created by someone halfway across the world in Kentucky or something so who actually owns the newly created sound? Is it the random-er from Kentucky who just had a bit of fun trying out his new editing software? Or is it one of the record labels' property now as their song has been used in the 'mashup'? It is these questions that are raised when thinking about this sort of thing.

   An example revolving around the legal side to this can be seen in an interview with a mashup master, DJ Danger Mouse with his super smash hit album "Gray Album", a mashup of songs from The Beatles' White Album and J-Z's Black Album.

A song can be heard here.

DJ Dangermouse said, 

"A lot of people just assume I took some Beatles and, you know, threw some Jay-Z on top of it or mixed it up or looped it around, but it’s really a deconstruction. It’s not an easy thing to do. I was obsessed with the whole project, that’s all I was trying to do, see if I could do this. Once I got into it, I didn’t think about anything but finishing it. I stuck to those two because I thought it would be more challenging and more fun and more of a statement to what you could do with sample alone. It is an art form. It is music. You can do different things, it doesn’t have to be just what some people call stealing. It can be a lot more than that…This wasn’t supposed to happen… I just sent out a few tracks (and) now online stores are selling it and people are downloading it all over the place.” Burton denied being the agent provocateur, saying it “was not my intent to break copyright laws. It was my intent to make an art project."

DJ Dangermouse

After the albums release the EMI record company (Electric and Mucical Industries Ltd.) proposed against the album due to copyright but in the ideology of Web 2.0 everyone got 'involved' and an activist group protested against this and created a day called "Gray Tuesday" whereby copies of DJ Dangermouse's creation were posted online for the world to download via torrents. It seems that this independent DJ's little project was blown completely out of proportion emphasising today's battle between the creative commons and the copyright laws.  

   Another form of mashup is in games. This is typically when two popular games come together in a 'vs' style to recreate what was originally two completely different classics. This different approach to the musical mashup is still as creative and to an extent more skilled for the user to generate, see some examples below:

Any video game fan will have thought of questions like, "What if Sonic met Pac-Man?" or "What if GTA met Frogger?" These questions have been answered due to user generated contend through Web 2.0 and the support of Youtube as a platform to host them.

The Symphony contains clips of
the sheet music and is played
together

   Moving onto the Youtube Symphony, this ingenious idea grabs innovation and user generated content (although this content is set to a universal piece of sheet music) and edits it together in one 'symphony' as if in the same room but in actual fact they are from all around the world, the trumpet section for example, a bunch of people could be from France and another from Russia. The idea is that if you have musical talent you can be part of the symphony. This example is probably much too complicated so as in this day and age, I hand you over to a video to explain everything...click here!

This mass user created content event in my opinion is fantastic, much like the mashups it emphasises the idea of Web 2.0.

See one of the final 2010 Youtube Symphony performances here! (The 2011 has not been preformed yet...obviously lol)

   Youtube is the most crucial web invention to come alive from Web 2.0 and is essential for any user created media to become seen, heard and noticed. Most of the content generated by random-ers ends up on Youtube racking up views daily and making the 'Most Viewed' list. Without this site a large section that Web 2.0 emphasizes would not be as apparent; it epitomises the social, interactive and usability that Web 2.0 means to.

Is Torrent Sharing Site, PirateBay heading to Davy Jones’ Locker?

 Getting your hands on the latest music releases or box office hits isn't that difficult if your savvy on a computer. Using such programs as LimeWire or UTorrent would seem essential for this but over the last few weeks both LimeWire and Pirate Bay (a site to get torrent files) are in trouble.

   Torrent Sharing sites like The Pirate Bay work on a user basis; the user uploads a file and another user downloads it often from multiple sources know as Peer-to-Peer or P2P using another program; basically you are grabbing different sections of a film or a song from multiple places (often in different countries) and sticking them all together creating the playable file. The same is for LimeWire except all the files are within the program itself whereas for The Pirate Bay the 'torrent' files would have to be downloaded in other programs such as UTorrent, BitTorrent or Bear Share.

   Using Limewire now is impossible because of its long running court battle in which until recently the court won and closed the site down; when trying to access the site a body of text appears:

"ATTENTION

LIMEWIRE IS UNDER A COURT ORDER DATED OCTOBER 26, 2010 TO STOP DISTRIBUTING THE LIMEWIRE SOFTWARE. A COPY OF THE INJUNCTION CAN BE FOUND HERE. LIMEWIRE LLC, ITS DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS, ARE TAKING ALL STEPS TO COMPLY WITH THE INJUNCTION. WE HAVE VERY RECENTLY BECOME AWARE OF UNAUTHORIZED APPLICATIONS ON THE INTERNET PURPORTING TO USE THE LIMEWIRE NAME. WE DEMAND THAT ALL PERSONS USING THE LIMEWIRE SOFTWARE, NAME, OR TRADEMARK IN ORDER TO UPLOAD OR DOWNLOAD COPYRIGHTED WORKS IN ANY MANNER CEASE AND DESIST FROM DOING SO. WE FURTHER REMIND YOU THAT THE UNAUTHORIZED UPLOADING AND DOWNLOADING OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS IS ILLEGAL."

 A spokeswoman to the site said, "as a result of our current legal situation, we have no choice but to wind down LimeWire Store operations".

  It seems that online sharing sites are not having much luck recently as The Pirate Bay has struck a leak and is now slowly sinking with its skippers all recieving hefty fines and prison sentences. But "The Pirate Bay appears alive and well, with no word on when the site will disappear for good."

  I think downloading films does slowdown studio income but if I did download a film -not saying that I did or have lol- then if it was good I would buy it on dvd or defiantly BluRay which is what...£17-20? For music though it is a different story, you can download a good quality song meaning you don't need to fork out any money - and I'm not suggesting that I have...oh well I'll fess up I have downloaded a couple of songs; who hasn't? I have been converted to Spotify anyway - but some people love to have the psychical CD in their possession with the artwork and the case, something which downloading cant replicate. 

Identity: Should Facebook know everything about you?

   With Web 2.0 becoming increasingly popular and the amount of information we share and post online viewable by almost anyone we should stop and spare a thought: who can actually view this?

  Social sites like Facebook and Twitter are amazing and I think a crucial tool when using the internet but information that is posted online especially associated with our personal lives should not be made visible to the World Wide Web to view. Sensitive information such as our full name, home address and email address if posted without a thought of privacy can be a fatal error in your security and identity. Even Facebook's central function of 'status updates' could be jail-worthy or even fired-worthy! The thing about status updates is that its not hard to write "what is on your mind" in relation to a certain person, place, religion or sex. For example, this girl who lost her job due to her insensitive thinking of who could actually read this update:

A certain mistake!

Or perhaps this, a call centre worker who posted his 'sickie' plan on Facebook for all his so-called 'friends' could see.

   It is this exact reason why things like social updates should be thought through as all of your connected people may be able to access your information without actually knowing you. Your friends on Facebook can reach to a high number, such  numbers as 600 or 900 :O wow popular person eh? well, yea on the screen yes but a person with that amount will not know every singe person they have added or  had a 'friend request' from. It seems to have become a social race and popularity contest to see who has the most friends and is more socially active.  But in an article by the Daily Mail as human beings' we only have the capability of  "managing a maximum of just 150 friendships" and that "people obviously like the kudos of having hundreds of friends but the reality is that they’re unlikely to be bigger than anyone else’s." The reason for this is because we actually look at only a handful of peoples' profiles and that some of the other friends may not even be a person you know, trust or would even talk to in the real world. It is here where the Internet can become dark as recent stories have circulated of abductions as the person has changed their identity even as far as sex and age to get on 'the good side' of their targets. Once trust has been gained on both sides of the screen a meeting place is then arranged and horrific terms often end up on the news and in the papers.