Like many of the skeptical and sciency community, I'm also irritated at Randi. He Did Not Do the Research and posted an opinion. When experts - not even strangers, but friends and acquaintances - called him on it, instead of Doing the Research he did a song and dance. Poor.
That got me thinking. A lot of denialists for any given scientific theory are driven by religious or financial bias, but some, especially young ones, are actually just clueless. How difficult is it to Do the Research, from scratch, without a long history of reading and researching sciency stuff?
Well, me, my first stop is Wikipedia. But while Wikipedia is an excellent resource for me, it occurs to me that it's a painful thing for folks who aren't science geeks. Scientific Wikipedia articles are generally pretty close to accurate, but they are dry as dust, and have so many blue links that lead to other places that are dry as dust. Easy to choke on a Wikipedia entry.
Fortunately, there's an alternative! Youtube! Instead of us reading the research, we can have the research read to us. Some really excellent teachers using really excellent visual techniques can teach even a schoolchild the basics of both the science and controversy surrounding any theory!
Unfortunately, none of these folks are on the first page of a search. Or the second. Or the fifth.
Let's pretend we're James Randi in an alternate universe, and we want to know about global warming. Searching for global warming gives us a stack of ancient videos, conversations by politicians, and Glenn Beckites. We don't want the controversy yet, we don't even know what a greenhouse gas is.
Maybe we'll watch a few of these, with the understanding that these are the same people who would side with spoon-benders under different situations. We've spent 114 years of our life fighting this kind of nonsense: ever since we retired from magic shows. At the age of 72. Okay, I'm making old jokes. I'm upset with Randi.
Anyway, we want something with science to it. We could just pop off to Potholer's channel, but the point is to get to something like that from scratch.
Let's change the search terms. Science of global warming.
Okay, now it's 90% denialists.
Suddenly I, the author, amn't as upset as I was. It does appear that science is fractured, that there is a debate.
This is, unfortunately, not true. The problem is that Goog-era search engines function on some measure of popularity rather than usefulness. Great if you want cats riding bicycles, terrible if you're looking up something with an objective truth.
Don't be fooled, our fake Randi in an alternate dimension! There must be science here somewhere! These videos we're looking at now are cherry-picked from a wide, wide field. Just because they've been promoted to the front doesn't mean they deserve to be there. It certainly doesn't mean they are representative of the science!
"Global warming explained" is no better, youtube doesn't know what "explained" means, and returns basically the same videos despite their lack of the word "explained". "Global warming skeptic" is even worse, of course.
No, no... none of these searches lead anywhere!
I, the imaginary James Randi, give up! Why I don't ask any of the tens of thousands of experts that would happily spend the day explaining it to me, I don't know. But limiting ourselves to anonymous explainers - IE Youtube - is a failure. Because Youtube's search is SO BAD.
What you want is there, but Youtube search doesn't know that.
This is not optimal.
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Friday, December 18, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
Songish
(This is a parody of "Hallelujah" with the lyrics bastardized into a song about the discovery of pulsars. I woke up and it was in my head, so I wrote it down. Hope you enjoy it.)
I heard there was a secret star
that pulsed clear beats from afar,
But you don't really care for physics, do you?
It went like this, every second and a third,
A pulse that could clearly be heard,
Baffling and delighting with little green men!
Little green men! Little green men.
It was clear to most that the distant tone
Was long distance from an alien phone
But some math came in and stabbed right through you
You read it in your kitchen chair,
You checked that math in your underwear,
And every breath you drew was little green men!
Little green men.
Well, maybe deep in outer space
Is a suitably little green alien race
But ignoring the facts just isn't in you.
It's not a cry we heard at night,
It's not somebody's distant light,
And it's so cold and lonely without little green men.
Little green men. Little green men. Little green men.
Little greeeee-eee-eee-eee--eeeeeen men.
:D
I heard there was a secret star
that pulsed clear beats from afar,
But you don't really care for physics, do you?
It went like this, every second and a third,
A pulse that could clearly be heard,
Baffling and delighting with little green men!
Little green men! Little green men.
It was clear to most that the distant tone
Was long distance from an alien phone
But some math came in and stabbed right through you
You read it in your kitchen chair,
You checked that math in your underwear,
And every breath you drew was little green men!
Little green men.
Well, maybe deep in outer space
Is a suitably little green alien race
But ignoring the facts just isn't in you.
It's not a cry we heard at night,
It's not somebody's distant light,
And it's so cold and lonely without little green men.
Little green men. Little green men. Little green men.
Little greeeee-eee-eee-eee--eeeeeen men.
:D
Monday, March 24, 2008
Games Can't Do That...
It's always on the back burner: the idea that games are The Big Thing that will Enable Us To Solve The Big Problems. Well, I don't think that's true. If something vaguely gamelike does those sorts of things, it will be about as similar to today's games as we are to plankton.
To give a specific example, let's talk artificial intelligence. Real artificial intelligence - hard, general intelligence.
It would seem that games are just perfect for "training up" such an intelligence, don't you think? They've got clear rules, clear rewards and punishments, and a wide variety of situations. Plus, they have the ability to interact with other players! I mean, sure, you aren't just going to plunk one down in front of Final Fantasy MMCXLVIII, but surely you could start simple and work your way up to it, right?
No, not really.
You see, any general intelligence algorithm is going to build a mind out of experiences. There are a few algorithms out there already that might work... but they can't really be tested due to some very specific constraints.
One major constraint is hardware: even the biggest, nastiest supercomputers can't simulate the kind of data wrangling that these algorithms require. This is especially true because of the confusing high-fidelity inputs we receive from cameras and microphones and gyrometers.
To get around this constraint, we can try to use these algorithms on simpler data. Instead of using cameras, we use a short movie clip that can be analyzed at leisure. Instead of microphones, we might try text.
But the thing is, this doesn't end up working. The "encoded" data might be simpler, but it carries with it a huge slew of assumptions that the algorithm cannot learn because they are wholly outside its realm of perception. It's theoretically possible to create "neutered" encoded data that will "train up" an algorithm, but not only is it painfully difficult, it's also obviously not a terribly good example of general intelligence. Even then, it won't fix anything.
For example, text is very simple to represent. And there are just cartloads of algorithms out there that can analyze vast swaths of text and come up with something resembling a good representation of text language.
But this doesn't really allow the algorithm to discuss things. The algorithm can build a representation of the text, but even if it could "think" about things like context, it really has no way to determine context. Context is not really part of our written language. Instead, context is learned through exchanges of language. Interactions.
On the surface it's possible that, given enough time and enough people chatting with it, a general algorithm could learn to represent context and whatever other details need representing. The general algorithm could "think". But, unfortunately, this never happens.
Why?
Well, let's look at a game. Let's skip the easy steps and move straight to a game you would think would be suitable: WoW.
Let's put a general intelligence in WoW. WoW has a few big advantages which should be obvious: easy to understand rules, other players, conversations at every level.
In theory, the general intelligence would learn (if it was built correctly) how to fight, how to scout, how to run away.
Things like buying equipment and grouping aren't in the same domain, but our general intelligence has a miraculous set of fundamental systems, so he will eventually pick up on those things too.
Okay, so now our general intelligence is running around in WoW, understanding "LFG TS13+" or whatever.
Or is he?
How is he understanding these complex things?
Through that algorithm, right?
Yes, that algorithm and many many months of experience. Many, many months of experience. All carefully analyzed and collated. He's built up a massive set of interpretive systems to deal with this complex data and produce a decent result.
He has to know that this land slopes too steeply for anyone to run up... which means that he can't escape if he's on the bottom, but the monster can't reach him if he's on the top. He has to understand that the monster over there can heal, and the monster over there is a DPSer. He has to know that when someone says "orly" they are going to suck in a party and need to be ignored.
Even if his algorithm can handle that amount and diversity of data, what is it running on? What computer is running this maze of information? What system is supporting this nightmarishly complex structure that - I guarantee - will be at least fifty gigs of compressed data.
There is no possible way to exaggerate how much computation this level of sophistication requires. Regardless of whether you're very sophisticated in a game or very sophisticated in real life, that sophistication has to be calculated.
See, getting around the complex inputs from cameras and speakers doesn't actually solve anything. The amount of computation required to process complex inputs is significantly less than the amount of computation required to deal with the sophistication on how to put the processed result together intelligently.
So, sure, if you had the computational power to run a general intelligence, you might be able to run it in a game. Personally, I think that 99.99999999% of games - certainly all non-MMOGs - simply don't have enough interactive complexity to allow such an algorithm to learn adequately. But, in theory, you could run it in a game.
Why would you?
Why wouldn't you slap a camera and a microphone on it?
I can see reasons you might want to develop a game-like environment for such a thing, but those are specific applications, not general research. You could argue that hardware is irritating and faulty, but games are buggy, shallow, and have very poor interactivity compared to real life.
No, games are not The Key to this issue...
Although, obviously, feel free to disagree and tell me why.
To give a specific example, let's talk artificial intelligence. Real artificial intelligence - hard, general intelligence.
It would seem that games are just perfect for "training up" such an intelligence, don't you think? They've got clear rules, clear rewards and punishments, and a wide variety of situations. Plus, they have the ability to interact with other players! I mean, sure, you aren't just going to plunk one down in front of Final Fantasy MMCXLVIII, but surely you could start simple and work your way up to it, right?
No, not really.
You see, any general intelligence algorithm is going to build a mind out of experiences. There are a few algorithms out there already that might work... but they can't really be tested due to some very specific constraints.
One major constraint is hardware: even the biggest, nastiest supercomputers can't simulate the kind of data wrangling that these algorithms require. This is especially true because of the confusing high-fidelity inputs we receive from cameras and microphones and gyrometers.
To get around this constraint, we can try to use these algorithms on simpler data. Instead of using cameras, we use a short movie clip that can be analyzed at leisure. Instead of microphones, we might try text.
But the thing is, this doesn't end up working. The "encoded" data might be simpler, but it carries with it a huge slew of assumptions that the algorithm cannot learn because they are wholly outside its realm of perception. It's theoretically possible to create "neutered" encoded data that will "train up" an algorithm, but not only is it painfully difficult, it's also obviously not a terribly good example of general intelligence. Even then, it won't fix anything.
For example, text is very simple to represent. And there are just cartloads of algorithms out there that can analyze vast swaths of text and come up with something resembling a good representation of text language.
But this doesn't really allow the algorithm to discuss things. The algorithm can build a representation of the text, but even if it could "think" about things like context, it really has no way to determine context. Context is not really part of our written language. Instead, context is learned through exchanges of language. Interactions.
On the surface it's possible that, given enough time and enough people chatting with it, a general algorithm could learn to represent context and whatever other details need representing. The general algorithm could "think". But, unfortunately, this never happens.
Why?
Well, let's look at a game. Let's skip the easy steps and move straight to a game you would think would be suitable: WoW.
Let's put a general intelligence in WoW. WoW has a few big advantages which should be obvious: easy to understand rules, other players, conversations at every level.
In theory, the general intelligence would learn (if it was built correctly) how to fight, how to scout, how to run away.
Things like buying equipment and grouping aren't in the same domain, but our general intelligence has a miraculous set of fundamental systems, so he will eventually pick up on those things too.
Okay, so now our general intelligence is running around in WoW, understanding "LFG TS13+" or whatever.
Or is he?
How is he understanding these complex things?
Through that algorithm, right?
Yes, that algorithm and many many months of experience. Many, many months of experience. All carefully analyzed and collated. He's built up a massive set of interpretive systems to deal with this complex data and produce a decent result.
He has to know that this land slopes too steeply for anyone to run up... which means that he can't escape if he's on the bottom, but the monster can't reach him if he's on the top. He has to understand that the monster over there can heal, and the monster over there is a DPSer. He has to know that when someone says "orly" they are going to suck in a party and need to be ignored.
Even if his algorithm can handle that amount and diversity of data, what is it running on? What computer is running this maze of information? What system is supporting this nightmarishly complex structure that - I guarantee - will be at least fifty gigs of compressed data.
There is no possible way to exaggerate how much computation this level of sophistication requires. Regardless of whether you're very sophisticated in a game or very sophisticated in real life, that sophistication has to be calculated.
See, getting around the complex inputs from cameras and speakers doesn't actually solve anything. The amount of computation required to process complex inputs is significantly less than the amount of computation required to deal with the sophistication on how to put the processed result together intelligently.
So, sure, if you had the computational power to run a general intelligence, you might be able to run it in a game. Personally, I think that 99.99999999% of games - certainly all non-MMOGs - simply don't have enough interactive complexity to allow such an algorithm to learn adequately. But, in theory, you could run it in a game.
Why would you?
Why wouldn't you slap a camera and a microphone on it?
I can see reasons you might want to develop a game-like environment for such a thing, but those are specific applications, not general research. You could argue that hardware is irritating and faulty, but games are buggy, shallow, and have very poor interactivity compared to real life.
No, games are not The Key to this issue...
Although, obviously, feel free to disagree and tell me why.
Friday, February 01, 2008
On Another Subject...
Everyone who knows me knows I am just about as pro-science as a person can be. I'm one of the relative few who get furious when some idiot starts suppressing or twisting research.
I've been pretty angry for the past seven years.
Although most of my hate is reserved for anyone who says "evolution is just a theory", I have a special, extremely warm place in my heart for people who deny global warming. These people aren't simply deluded, they're often denying global warming for a political or monetary reason. Even when they "tentatively accept some level of change to the earth's global environment", they like to claim it's not proven than it has anything to do with l'il old us.
NASA hasn't been the most... up-front about this kind of thing, largely because they're a massive, top-heavy bureaucracy whose leaders are often appointed by the president's administration. So it pleased me to see this.
I've been pretty angry for the past seven years.
Although most of my hate is reserved for anyone who says "evolution is just a theory", I have a special, extremely warm place in my heart for people who deny global warming. These people aren't simply deluded, they're often denying global warming for a political or monetary reason. Even when they "tentatively accept some level of change to the earth's global environment", they like to claim it's not proven than it has anything to do with l'il old us.
NASA hasn't been the most... up-front about this kind of thing, largely because they're a massive, top-heavy bureaucracy whose leaders are often appointed by the president's administration. So it pleased me to see this.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
What a logical world!
I was in Wendy's. The hispanic thug-types were talking about after-market value on restored classic cars. The aging jock was talking about how disappointed he was that a radio show was using "untenable" assertations. The two high-school kids I couldn't hear very well, but they must have been talking about high-level math. What else could make kids want to kiss so much?
Also, I got Soul Calibre III for $18.
The world seems smarter than yesterday.
"What a Logical World"
I see trees of green... and chlorophyll too.
Creating our oxygen... from cast-off CO2.
and I think to myself,
"What a logical world!"
I see a sky of blue... from refracted rays.
A white sun red... through atmospheric haze.
And I think to myself,
"What a logical world!"
The colors of the rainbow... at 42 ascencion,
Are shining in the eyes... of those who pay attention.
I see friends shaking hands... bumpin' molecules.
They're really saying... "Physics rules!"
I hear babies cry... I watch them grow,
to full-sized youths... from a tiny embryo!
And I think to myself,
"What a logical world!"
(Synthesizer solo!!! Preeeeeow!)
The colors of the rainbow... at 42 ascencion,
Are shining in the eyes... of those who pay attention.
I see friends shaking hands... bumpin' molecules.
They're really saying... "Physics... rules."
The stars in the night... shining ten-thousand fold,
I gaze in awe... at light twelve thousand years old.
And I think to myself,
"That's twice as old as some misguided people think the planet is..."
And I think to myself,
"That's twice as old as some misguided people think the planet is..."
Ohhhhhh yeeaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh...
Try a filk verse for your own favorite subject! It's easy!
Also, I got Soul Calibre III for $18.
The world seems smarter than yesterday.
"What a Logical World"
I see trees of green... and chlorophyll too.
Creating our oxygen... from cast-off CO2.
and I think to myself,
"What a logical world!"
I see a sky of blue... from refracted rays.
A white sun red... through atmospheric haze.
And I think to myself,
"What a logical world!"
The colors of the rainbow... at 42 ascencion,
Are shining in the eyes... of those who pay attention.
I see friends shaking hands... bumpin' molecules.
They're really saying... "Physics rules!"
I hear babies cry... I watch them grow,
to full-sized youths... from a tiny embryo!
And I think to myself,
"What a logical world!"
(Synthesizer solo!!! Preeeeeow!)
The colors of the rainbow... at 42 ascencion,
Are shining in the eyes... of those who pay attention.
I see friends shaking hands... bumpin' molecules.
They're really saying... "Physics... rules."
The stars in the night... shining ten-thousand fold,
I gaze in awe... at light twelve thousand years old.
And I think to myself,
"That's twice as old as some misguided people think the planet is..."
And I think to myself,
"That's twice as old as some misguided people think the planet is..."
Ohhhhhh yeeaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh...
Try a filk verse for your own favorite subject! It's easy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)