The Computational Universe

After re-reading Searle’s article and scanning over a few of the other students posts, I am probably as confused as I started when it comes to this AI business. I think the best way to go about understanding AI and making either an argument for or against its potential is to first just speak openly and not worry about potential counterarguments. I found that when I would try to argue that the Turing Test really wasn’t a suitable test of AI, that I could easily tear my own argument down. So I’m going to stick to one side of the debate in this one and simply say that I find a major difference in thinking and performing human-like functions.

To me, there is a very real difference between the abilities of AI to convince people that it is “human” and actually proving its ability to think. To be human is very much contingent on thinking and reasoning, two factors that make up general speech and conversation. Sure, you could probably hold a respectable conversation with a strong AI machine, and maybe that machine could even pass the Turing Test…but what does this mean for society at large? In my opinion, it does not mean much. I think that the Turing Test is an oversimplified and convenient way of seeing if AI is “smart”. As I sat in lecture the other day, I couldn’t help but think about the number of incredibly smart people in the world who would not pass a Turing Test. Does this not make them real or human or intelligent? If anything, it makes them incredibly more human than the oversimplified machines that exhibit AI. It is a confusing and messy thing to try to determine, but I will certainly maintain that a machine will never reach the level of human interaction and intelligence that occurs in real beings.

Well I never though I’d be voluntarily posting on our blog, but due to my recent obsession with understanding everything we talk about in class so that I don’t fail the final I have spent many a night googling the terms we discuss. After trying to figure out the “traceroute” question on the lab that asked why the route from Princeton to Yale would go through Philadelphia, I did some investigating and came across this diagram/image of how our university is connected to other networks. I found it on the website for “magpi”, which apparently serves institutions of higher education in the Mid-Atlantic. Check it out…

http://magpi.net/topology.jpg

Like many others in this class, I found Sir Tim Berners-Lee speech to be exceptionally difficult to understand. Nonetheless, the opportunity to see such a technological genius up close was well worth my time. While his speech contained some general ideas that I certainly understood, I found that I learned far more from simply reading about him and his discoveries online. Having said that, I think just sitting and absorbing his words led me to reflect greatly on just how massive the world wide web is, and how impressive it is that any one man could have such a grand vision. Even as I write this I realize how I am taking part in the kind of interconnectedness that Sir Tim Berners-Lee spoke about at Princeton. I believe that this type of blogging in COS is precisely the goal of the World Wide Web - the free exchange of information. Yet Sir Timothy’s warning to those who utilize the WWW is to carefully consider the social impact of their interaction with the internet at large. The idea that web users must be socially conscious is one that I completely agree with, and I think Tim Berners-Lee was wise to include it in a discussion with a young campus community such as ours. All in all, I found the speech enlightening despite any confusion I may have walked away with…looking back on it now I realize I actually learned quite a bit from his philosophies.

When I first read about Boolean logic I immediately thought of the depth of online search engines. So many times in academic research or out of general interest, a web user will input words into a search engine unaware of the power that Boolean logic has in specifying limiting or broadening factors. In fact, it is Boolean logic that creates the most powerful searches at all - through just three operators or ‘gates’: and, not, and or, a user can explore any database in the range it indicates through these commands. Though Boolean logic seems incredibly simple given the fact that it functions under a binary system of 1s and 0s, the combination of these numbers can lead to surprisingly complex results. One of the easiest ways to understand Boolean logic is through the creation of truth tables. The “and” truth table is quite simple - unless both inputs are 0, the output will be 1. The “not” truth table is the easiest to understand - it states that the output will be the opposite of the input. Thus if 1 is inputted, 0 will be ouputted. Finally, the “or” truth table indicates that the output will always be 1 (due to the breadth of the command) unless both inputs are 0.

It is hard to grasp as a non “computer person” how such simplicity can lead to the types of programs we see in today’s technology. I take particular aim at the “not” gate - I can see in the Scribbler, for example, that if we say, essentially “not go” it will stay in place. Furthermore if we say “not stop”, the Scribbler will go. But in other circumstances is this always true? What if we wanted to tell the Scribbler to “not turn right”…would the Scribbler turn left or would it simply stay in place? I believe it would stay in place, and is that the true opposite of turning right? Forgive me if this is either confusing or simplistic (I can’t figure out which it is), but I do have a hard time understanding the application of Boolean logic to certain things.

Though I have only completed one lab with the Scribbler (seeing as I signed into the class so late), I have found my experience with the little robot rather interesting. Even though the Scribbler is limited by its inexpensive cost and simplicity, it has shed some light on the world of robots and how they can contribute to production, society, etc. As I watched the Scribbler move back and forth and complete basic tasks, I was able to envision similar technology in a factory setting. With its ability to sense lines or a change in lighting, the Scribbler proves that seemingly simple technology is actually rather complex. One of the things that I hope to explore further in this class is how exactly the Scribbler is capable of understanding basic commands. For example, how does the light sensor know when bright light is present? How does the Scribbler “read” the thick black line we had to draw in our construction paper?

Another aspect of the Scribbler I hope to further explore is its subjectivity and often times random deviations from the norm. For example, during our lab, one of my partner’s hands was undetectable by the robot, while my other partner’s hand was completely detectable at the same distance. This led me to wonder how an error or flaw in robotics might cause problems of a grander scale if the robotic device had a more important purpose in aerospace technology, for example.

Let’s see, where to begin…as you may have noticed, this posting is a bit late. My name is Kyle and I switched into this course a few days ago. Zaneta and I both found some spots in this class after I was put through the torture of dropping marbles into sand for a different ST that required graphing and confusing math concepts (calculating volume, weighing things, etc.) Even though I thought I would be able to focus my attention and get the two labs I missed done this weekend, I quickly realized that I had neither a username or a robot. Now that I can do the blog I feel some sense of accomplishment. Zaneta is sitting across from me in Frist on her computer making me feel awkward about everything I’m writing, but in all honesty, her life isn’t really much more interesting than mine. She might be going to Bangkok next year, but it’s not too thrilling.

Other than that, I grew up in Connecticut with the rest of my extended family but moved to Long Island just in time for a terrible middle school experience. Then I went to high school but peaced out after 2 years and studied at Stony Brook University because I could take interesting classes and schedule them so that I could intern/study photography/work in NY, as well. I suppose I have a normal amount of experience with computers, but I can’t do anything exciting with them. The typical internet + word processing + itunes process is about the extent of my knowledge. Hopefully this class will help me understand what a computer is and how it works, which is far more helpful in life than knowing what would happen if a meteor hit the earth (see GEO210 Lab #1).

I hope to major in Art & Archaelogy Program 2, which is the closest you can come to majoring in visual arts at Princeton. I will also be pursuing a certificate in African-American studies. Outside of class I am the Projects Coordinator for the College Democrats, making me responsible for bringing interesting/radical/famous speakers to campus and forcing liberal propaganda on the student body. Blogs are actually a rather large part of the political scene (on both sides of the political spectrum), so it’s helpful for me to understand how they work and what people can do with them.

Update at 5:32PM on 02/20/06: I use a Powerbook G4 which seems to do the job for everything I need, plus it’s sleek and edgy, which is basically what I aspire to be. I switched to Apple when I came to Princeton because a) I was sick of spyware and my computer running really slowly and b) because I use Photoshop alot when I work with digital photography and it is far more effectively used on a Mac.