CLICK HERE for the must-watch short film:
For more see www.norbertwiener.org and www.norbertwiener.com
CLICK HERE for the must-watch short film:
For more see www.norbertwiener.org and www.norbertwiener.com
Well, maybe not. “What Happens When GPS Can’t Find You?” is a commercial concern raised by a Wall St. Journal article. Needless to say a business in today’s world is at risk if the GPS location associated with it is wrong, or just the path that is required to get there is not correct. Consumers at best are frustrated, and may simply write off that operation. In this case it is often not the business’s fault, but one in the GPS location service, or route mapping.
Behind this is a more pervasive and serious problem. Often there is no way to “fix” these problems from the perspective of the consumer or the an affected business. You may know the data is wrong, the route doesn’t work, and correcting the error(s) is not a straight forward path, and certainly not easy enough that the “crowd-source” solution would work. That is, many people might find the error, and if there were a simple way to “report” the problem, after the “nth” report, an automated fix (or review) could be triggered.
This is not just GPS problem. I’ve found many web sites are validating addresses against equally flawed sources (perhaps even the USPS). I can send mail to my daughter (and she gets it), I’ve even seen the mailbox on the side of her street. By one of the web sites I used to deliver items to her location is rejecting the address as “not known”… and of course there is no way to report the error. A related problem is entering an address in “just the right way” — am I in “Unit A101” or “Apt. A 101″ or maybe Apt A101”, note that the delivery folks can handle all of these, but the online ordering system can’t. Technology design consideration: track such ‘failures’, and after some number, check the validation process, or better have a button such as “I know this is right, so please update the database”.
Online operations are losing business, as well as brick-and-mortar activities due to online “presumptions” of correctness .. and no corrective processes available. It’s one thing when the word processor marks your spelling as “wrong”, but lets you keep it anyway. It is another when medications or essential services can’t reach your location because the GPS or delivery address is not in the database, or is listed incorrectly.
The Jan. 4, 2016 Wall St Journal has an article “VR Growth Sparks Questions About Effects on Body, Mind” pointing out, as prior publications have, that 2016 is likely to be the Year of VR. The U.S. Consumer Electronics Show is starting this week in Las Vegas, where many neat, new and re-packaged concepts will be strongly promoted.
The article points to issues of physical health – nasua is one well documented potential factor. But work has been taking place on residual effects (how soon should you drive after VR?), how long to remain immersed before you ‘surface’, etc. Perhaps the key consideration is degree to which our bodies/brains accept the experiences of VR as real — altering our thinking and behaviour. (Prof. Jeremy Bailenson, director of Stanford’s Virtual Human Interaction Lab confirms this is one impact.)
All of the pundits point out that every new technology has it’s potential uses/abuses. But that does not excuse the specific considerations that might apply to VR. A point raised in the article “Scares in VR are borderline immoral”. There is a line of technology from “watching” to “first person” to “immersion” that should be getting our attention. The dispute over “children impacted by what they watch on TV”, moving to first-person shooter video games, to VR is sure to occur. But in VR, you can be the victim as well. I first encountered the consideration of the after effects of rape in a video game environment at an SSIT conference some years ago. Even with the third party perspective in that case, the victim was traumatized. No doubt VR will provide a higher impact. There are no-doubt lesser acts that can be directed at a VR participant that will have greater impact in VR than they might with less immersive technology.
This is the time to start sorting out scenarios, possible considerations for vendors of technology, aps and content, and also to watch for the quite predictable unexpected effects. Do you have any ‘predictions’ for 2016 and the Year of VR?
Volume 34, Number 3, September 2015
4 President’s Message
Coping with Machines
5 Marketing the Moon: The Selling of the Apollo Lunar Mission
7 Alan Turing: The Enigma
Resistance is Not Futile, nil desperandum
MG Michael and Katina Michael
13 Letter to the Editor
Technology and Change
Privacy Nightmare: When Baby Monitors Go Bad
Katherine Albrecht and Liz Mcintyre
15 From the Editor’s Desk
Robots Don’t Pray
17 Leading Edge
Unmanned Aircraft: The Rising Risk of Hostile Takeover
Donna A. Dulo
Automatic Tyranny, Re-Theism, and the Rise of the Reals
23 Creating “The Norbert Wiener Media Project”
J. Mitchell Johnson
A Conversation with Lazar Puhalo
88 Last Word
Technological Expeditions and Cognitive Indolence
SPECIAL ISSUE: Norbert Wiener in the 21st Century
33_ Guest Editorial
Philip Hall, Heather A. Love and Shiro Uesugi
35_ Norbert Wiener: Odd Man Ahead
Mary Catherine Bateson
37_ The Next Macy Conference: A New Interdisciplinary Synthesis
39_ Ubiquitous Surveillance and Security
41_ Reintroducing Wiener: Channeling Norbert in the 21st Century
Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman
44_ Securing the Exocortex*
Tamara Bonaci, Jeffrey Herron, Charles Matlack, and Howard Jay Chizeck
52_ Wiener’s Prefiguring of a Cybernetic Design Theory*
60_ Norbert Wiener and the Counter-Tradition to the Dream of Mastery
64_ Down the Rabbit Hole*
74_ Opening Pandora’s 3D Printed Box
81_ Application Areas of Additive Manufacturing
N.J.R. Venekamp and H.Th. Le Fever
Volume 34, Number 2, June 2015
3 ISTAS 2015 – Dublin
4 President’s Message
Deterministic and Statistical Worlds
Mental Health, Implantables, and Side Effects
8 Book Reviews
Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future
Stealing Cars: Technology & Society from the Model T to the Gran Torino
13 Leading Edge
“Ich liebe Dich UBER alles in der Welt” (I love you more than anything else in the world)
16 Tools for the Vision Impaired
18 Learning from Delusions
Nanoelectronics Research Gaps and Recommendations*
Kosmas Galatsis, Paolo Gargini, Toshiro Hiramoto, Dirk Beernaert, Roger DeKeersmaecker, Joachim Pelka, and Lothar Pfitzner
80 Last Word
Father’s Day Algorithms or Malgorithms?
31_ Guest Editorial
Keith Miller and Joe Herkert
32_ App Stores for the Brain: Privacy and Security in Brain-Computer Interfaces*
Tamara Bonaci, Ryan Calo, and Howard Jay Chizeck
40_ The Internet Census 2012 Dataset: An Ethical Examination*
David Dittrich, Katherine Carpenter, and Manish Karir
47_ Technology as Moral Proxy: Autonomy and Paternalism by Design*
56_ Teaching Engineering Ethics: A Phenomenological Approach*
64_ Informed Consent for Deep Brain Stimulation: Increasing Transparency for Psychiatric Neurosurgery Patients*
71_ Robotic Prosthetics: Moving Beyond Technical Performance*
N. Jarrassé, M. Maestrutti, G. Morel, and A. Roby-Brami
Guest author: Prof. Alessandro Piva (Bio Below)
The wide diffusion of the web and its accessibility through mobile devices has radically changed the way we communicate and the way we collect information about the world we live in. The social impact of such changes is enormous and includes all aspects of our lives, including the shape of social relationships and the process whereby we form our opinions and how we share them with the rest of the world. At the same time, web surfers and citizens are no more passive recipients of services and information. On the contrary, the Internet is more and more populated with contents directly generated by the users, who routinely share information with each other according to a typical peer-to-peer communication paradigm.
The above changes offer a unique opportunity for a radical improvement of the level of democracy of our society, since, at least in principle, every citizen has the ability to produce globally-accessible, first-hand information about any fact or event and to contribute with his/her ideas to general discussions while backing them up with evidence and proofs retrieved from the Internet.
The lack of a centralized control contributes to increase the democratic nature of the Internet, however, at the same time it makes the Internet a very fragile ecosystem, that can be easily spoiled. The ease with which false information can be diffused on the web, and the possibility of manipulating digital contents through easy-to-use and widely diffused content processing tools, casts increasing doubt on the validity of the information gathered “on-line” as an accurate and trustworthy representation of reality.
The need to restore and maintain trust in the web as one of our primary sources of information is evident.
Within the IEEE Signal Processing Society, the Information Forensics and Security (IFS) Technical Committee is involved in the signal processing aspects of this issue, with a particular attention to multimedia data (see the IEEE Signal Processing Magazine special issue on Digital Forensics, Vol 26, Issue 2, March 2009). It is a fact that multimedia data play a very special role in the communication of facts, ideas and opinions: images, videos and sounds are often the preferred means to get access to information, because of their immediacy and supposed objectivity. Even today, it is still common for people to trust what they see, rather than what they read. Multimedia Forensics (MF) deals with the recovery of information that can be directly used to measure the trustworthiness of digital multimedia content. The IFS Technical Committee organized the First Image Forensics Challenge, that took place in 2013, to provide the research community an open data set and protocol to evaluate the latest image forensic techniques.
However, MF tools alone are not the solution to the authentication issue: several key actions must be undertaken involving technological, legal and societal aspects.
What are your opinions about this topic?
Are we irremediably condemned to base our opinions, beliefs and social activity on information whose reliability cannot be determined?
Do you think that the involvement of a critical mass of researchers with different background – technological, legal and social – could find a solution?
Are you interested in working on this topic?
Author: Prof. Alessandro Piva
IEEE Signal Processing Society Delegate on the SSIT Board of Governors
Associate Professor @ Department of Information Engineering – University of Florence (Italy)
Alessandro Piva is Associate Professor at the Department of Information Engineering of the University of Florence. He is also head of FORLAB – Forensic Science Laboratory – of the University of Florence. His research interests lie in the areas of Information Forensics and Security, and of Image and Video Processing. In the above research topics he has been co-author of more than 40 papers published in international journals and 100 papers published in international conference proceedings. He is IEEE Senior Member, and he is IEEE Information Forensics and Security Technical Committee Associate Member; he has served on many conference PCs, and as associate editor of the IEEE Trans. on Multimedia, IEEE Trans. on Information Forensics and Security, and of the IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology. Other professional details appear at: http://lesc.det.unifi.it/en/node/177
The International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS), held annually.
Papers (5,000 – 6,000 words) using the ISTAS2015 Template must be registered on the conference portal by the deadline of 31 May 2015. Workshop proposals have a 8 June 2015 deadline (see site for details)
Christof Koch in an interview with MIT’s Technology Review suggests that computer consciousness is a matter of complexity, and perhaps the way that complexity is implemented.
With the recently released movie on Alan Turing (The Imitation Game) , the public is, once again, exposed to the basic concept … and Turing’s insight that “if it interacts like an intelligent, conscious being, then maybe it is one.” A more ironic concept since the movie pushes Turing a bit further on the autistic scale than is likely — and causes the attentive audience to ask if Turing is conscious (he clearly is intelligent.)
This concept is often confused with the question of “what makes us human” or “how do we know that other entity is human?” … which is not “is conscious?” or “is intelligent”. A WSJ column “Why Digital Gurus Get Lost in the ‘Uncanny Valley‘” touches on this, pointing out that we use a number of unconscious clues to make this decision. (Also why Pixel hires folks with acting backgrounds.)
There is a danger here. If we judge these characteristics by certain clues — like the angle of a dog’s head, the big eyes, (eyes are significant here) .. and so forth, we may dismiss intelligent/conscious entities who fail our (unconscious?) tests. Of course they may fail to recognize us as having these characteristics for parallel reasons.
The good news is that our current primary path for detecting intelligent life is with SETI, and since all of those communications are very “Imitation Game” like, we won’t have the chance to mess it up with our “Uncanny Valley” presumptions.
Chatbot “Eugene Goostman“, created by a team of Russian & Ukrainian software developers: Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko, Sergey Ulasen has “passed” the Turing Test (as of June 6, 2014). I’d like to report my own interactions with Eugene, but the links a current instantiation seem to be ‘temporarily’ disrupted — I suspect for purposes of monetizing the recent notoriety.
Ray Kurzweil, in his 1999 book “The Age of Spiritual Machines” predicts that by 2019 there would be “widespread reports of computers passing the Turing Test although these tests do not meed the criteria established by knowledgeable observers.” It appears that Ray is right so far with claims of earlier successes, and deprecation of this event as being sufficient.
I won’t duplicate notes of prior posts on AI, but will point out that “practical” applications of Chatbots and other AI type software exist and will have ‘social impact’. One impact will be the expansion of online interaction that can provide useful responses to consumers, students, etc. Fooling the public is not needed (and may be unwise) … at times having a clearly ‘computer generated voice’ (audio or otherwise) helps set the expectations of the humans interacting with the system. However, we can expect increasingly sophisticated capabilities along these lines.
What uses/services would you suggest as priority applications for a fairly robust ‘chat-bot’?
Freedom of Speech vs the Right to be Forgotten …. Technology and Society, but whose society? A recent European Court ruled that Google (also Bing, Yahoo, etc.) might be required to remove links that might be “accurate” but objectionable to the affected individual(s). It is easy in a world with a dominating culture (U.S.A.) and particularly for technologists working in that culture (Google, et al) to adopt and apply the values of that culture (Free speech) without being aware of alternative cultural norms.
Apparently in Europe, particularly in Germany and France, have some precedents that suggest that prior offences, actions, public knowledge should become unaccessible in the present and future. This is being considered as part of new E.U. Privacy legislation, and not just a court finding.
It is easy (particularly for those of us in the USA) to hold up the sacred right of free speech (as written in the book of Constitution, verse 1:1) and ignore the concerns, and abuses associated with this. Some folks on-line are surprised that Facebook (or other) postings of their pictures/activities may result in them being expelled from college, fired, or fail to get a job. This “long tail” left by all of us in the exponentially growing web may contain many issues of concern. For example, if I mention diabetes in this posting might I lose health insurance? Or if someone with a very similar name is leading a quite different life style, might I suffer some of the consequences? And of course if I advocate an issue or candidate or religious affiliation could I find that I am persecuted in the media, or worse by police showing up at my door (consider the recent transitions in Egypt… ops, there I go).
Consider one example, the widespread “sex offender” registration required by many US states. This has been a topic of non-academic discussion (Dear Abby) recently but presents an interesting reference. Note that the distinction between an individual found guilty of molesting children many times and a eighteen year old’s indiscretions with a seventeen year old can be indistinguishable in this context. The public “right to know” would seem to apply in one case, and the chances of recurrence seems unlikely in the other — yet both may lead to loss of job opportunities, shunning by neighbors, etc.
Facilitating the oppression of religious groups, political dissidents, or even un-informed misuse of the failings of youth seems a good rationale for a “Right to be Forgotten”. At the same time, and almost in the same breath, we can hear the need to know a political candidate’s racist remarks, the series of lawsuits brought against a used car dealer (the U.S. stereotype for a shady business), or perhaps that my fiance has three divorces in the last five years. (This is hypothetical!) The “Right to be Forgotten” may also be countered with the “Right to Never Be Forgotten”. The Internet has created a global village — with all of the gossip and “everyone knows” implications of the spotlight of a small town.
This challenge is just beginning. With face recognition and public web-cams, and many other sources of personal data being captured explicitly or implicitly how we deal with the diversity of cultural norms is non-trivial.
What are the issues you see?