Stephen Hawking Claims We Are At Risk Of Being Colonized By Aliens--Consider Us Warned.

Consider us warned--about aliens. No, really this time...

Steven Hawking now claims that we are at risk of being colonized by advanced alien intelligence, according to El Pais. This is coming from the same person who has been part of a $100M project to contact aliens! (as we've noted in a previous post.)  Does this sound in any way inconsistent at all? This was the nature of the question posed to Hawking by journalist Javier Salas for El Pais: 

Salas: You recently launched a very ambitious initiative to search for intelligent life in our galaxy. A few years ago, though, you said it would be better not to contact extraterrestrial civilizations because they could even exterminate us. Have you changed your mind?

Hawking: If aliens visit us, the outcome could be much like when Columbus landed in America, which didn’t turn out well for the Native Americans. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they can reach. To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational. The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.

 Hawking later advocates for space travel as the saviour of humankind, especially within the context of an alien invasion scenario, which is more than likely. He maintains that life arose spontaneously on earth, and thus it is simply mathematically certain that life has arose similarly on other planets. He also maintains that we could fall prey to nomadic alien tribes trolling the galaxy for places to invade. In such a scenario, we'd be overtaken and subjugated.

But why this seeming inconsistency? Why is Hawking a part of a large search for alien life on the one hand, while concerned about its unintended consequences on the other? Could it be a way to further speed up the capabilities for space travel, or for conscious artificial intelligence? (Maybe we could have armies of AI on hand to destroy alien nomads; but how then would that sit with Hawking's signing of a petition, along with Elon Musk, against AI warfare?)

For someone as supposedly brilliant as Hawking, he's lacking in the wisdom department--much like  Hugo de Garis who are building conscious AI knowing the likelihood of being subjugated by them. Here's where indeed rationality can very easily veer into the absurd; where the supposedly logical becomes more than apparently paradoxical. 

To me, again, I think Ridley Scott and Bill Joy have it right: leave the aliens alone.

Why Cities Of The Future Need To Be Designed For Cars And People

I read a tweet today from #WalrusTalks: "Let's design cities for people, not cars." Of typical slogans that are more propaganda than perspicacity, @BrentTodarian has it wrong. In designing cities, we don't want to fully omit cars, but simply put them in their place. 

I've heard people like Todarian before with their arguments that rely on the exponential rate of change. By the year 2050, automobiles will exceed 5 Billion on the planet earth and we'll be swallowed up by them with nowhere to walk, no green spaces, no more wildlife, etc--just cars. I do agree with Todarian that cities should accommodate people (look at places like Milan or Florence in which there are streets for people); but there should also be ways in which you can drive the city. Who doesn't like a good drive through the city? One of the things I've enjoyed since a child is getting in the car at night and driving through downtown Toronto. And we've seen what Le Corbusier and others have done to the city with high-rises and large empty green spaces that look good on city working drawings, but in reality have done more to victimize people (with green spaces around apartments being breeding grounds for crime) that liberate them to their natural selves. And let's not forget that every day there are places being reclaimed for wildlife; places humans are banned from entering. 

The vehicle offers an element of human freedom that public transit simply doesn't accommodate, and thus it remains important to the urban experience. In a world of growing cities, the landscape ought to accommodate those who want to walk and those who want to drive--how those two travel media work and operate together is a matter of masterful design. But to throw out the vehicle de facto casts all city dwellers into some kind of socialist soup that creates a hegemony on its own: the hegemony of some kind of uncritical eco-socialism that makes choices for people rather than gives them greater freedom of mobility. 

And let's not forget the times of unpredictability we're living in. I still remember standing on Yonge and Bloor Street in Toronto at 9/11: the subways were jammed, people were hightailing it west on Bloor on foot, and the buses at over-capacity were passing people at the stops. If a city is in a time of crisis and does not accommodate its citizens from fleeing it, how humane is that? 

It's up to urban planners for the future to design the right balance of human liberation: the liberation of movement and rhythm (people) and the liberation of autonomy and comfort (cars). How to do that is beyond my skills and training--we'll leave that up to the brilliant urban planners like Todarian.

IBM Watson Wants Robots To Have Social Skills--Here's Why That's A Bad Idea.

We know that artificial intelligence could be a bad idea. 

We've read about, at least in this blog, the artilect wars, and Hawking and Musk signing a treaty to ban AI weaponry and warfare. 

We see a number of people warning against the development of artificial intelligence out of fear of unintended consequences. 

We have watched shows like Humans that deal with the broader issues of AI beings infiltrating our homes, becoming our nannies, friends, and even lovers. 

And yet, in spite of all the signals, in spite of all the warnings, in spite of all the knowledge we have about them, those who are building them, equipping them with consciousness and social skills and faces that are a verisimilitude of the human face, are lauded as geniuses and even creators. 

Case in point: Robert High, Chief Technology Officer of IBM's Watson Project, recently claimed at the Robobusiness show the importance of teaching robots social skills, according to MIT Tech Review. According to the article, 

"The robot, a Nao model from the company Aldebaran, spoke with realistic intonation and made appropriate hand gestures during a conversation with High. It even exhibited a little impatience and sarcasm, miming looking at its watch, for example, when asking High to hurry up with his talk." 

According to High and others it is important that robots have social skills as they are being integrated into places alongside humans, such as offices, stores, and homes. 

While since the first Star Wars movie hit theatres 35 years ago it has been every person's dream to have an R2D2 in the home, the reality of this is not so 'cute'. We have already seen how autonomous vehicles will destroy the courier and transport industries--thus wiping out jobs--; and now we are seeing technology moving deeper into human managed environments. Oh it might start off rather harmless, even sweet, with AI serving coffee and running errands; but the problem is that they're intelligence has limitless growth capability while human intelligence--even with enhancements--offers very little. 

Once these cute little robots cross the threshold of surging exponential growth, their emergence as superior beings would be incredibly fast, and would terribly disrupt human life as we know it. 

People like Robert High, Ray Kurzweil, and others know this, yet they continue to work on AI, perfect the algorithms, advance its capabilities, and gleefully anticipate its emergence as a conscious race of beings. 

If this sounds crazy to you, I suggest you take a look around at some of the blog posts here, as well as at videos like Bill Joy's TED Talk, Ray Kurzweil's Transcendent Man, Hugo de Garis, Peter Diamandis, and James Barrat's book Our Final Invention--to name only a few sources. 

This is our future. The human race as we know it, our jobs, our careers, our financial and professional security, are being undermined by technologists whose penchant for pride exceeds the necessary predilection for prudence. 

What Would You Do If Your Driver Seat Knew More About You Than You Did?

You're in rush hour traffic, and your neck tenses up, shoulders are hiked up to your ears, and your lower back is in a knot; your heart's resting rate is 180, and you've just shouted at an old lady who just inadvertently cut you off. Suddenly, your seat begins to shift and vibrate, sending a soothing massage to your muscles that immediately calms you down. Your heart rate lowers to a cool 65 beats per minute, and you feel your shoulders moving down to where they should be. The whites of your knuckles clutching the steering wheel dissipate to their usual pinkish hue. Sounds too good to be true? Hey--c'mon! This is the 21st Century--of course it's not!

Faurecia Active Wellness had designed a car seat that does just that tracks a drivers sleepiness or stress and delivers countermeasures to alleviate it. The Faurecia website says it all:

The Faurecia Active WellnessTM seat employs unique types of sensors to detect the heart, breathing rhythm of drivers and/or occupants and other data based on the most recent medical research. It then provides a very specific massage pattern, along with air flow through the seat’s ventilation system, either to re-energize a tired occupant or to relax a stressed individual, making life on board a more healthy experience.

So here we have a carseat that tracks the driver's stress levels, then mitigates them through various forms of stimuli. 

It sounds like a great idea--who wouldn't want a seat to do that; and yes, it could drive down incidents of road rage and other driver stress related accidents.

However, as we've read in other posts in this blog, there are always trade-offs for such comforts. Like the autonomous car in which the driver gives up his/her own autonomy and desire to mechanically control the vehicle, this seat on the surface sounds like a dream, but under the surface could in fact be a nightmare. 

Imagine this: the information the seat gathers from you being sent to a third party, whether your government, your doctor, your insurance broker, or even your employer? Imagine if you were put into stress management classes, or given a fine, or lost that promotion simply because your car seat delivered the goods on your very bad day? We all have stress. A simple walk through the public library will show you entire aisles of books on work-related stress. But till now it's something private, untraceable by your vehicle, and nobody else's business but those whom you choose to let into your life. And of course the info will be sent to a third party--you can guarantee that. And in these times of hyper-awareness of psychological and emotional issues, it's very easy for one to have a simple bad day and suddenly become pathologized. 

The seat sounds wonderful--don't get me wrong. But not when it holds such powerful information about my cognitive and emotional states; and not when the threat looms for third parties to become privy to that information. 

One day we'll all look back at the old Buick Regales and Oldsmobile 98 and dream of being able to drive without recourse or being tracked by the driver's seat. Those cars that now seem cheesy and old will indeed be collectively salivated upon. 

The time's a comin' just around that bend....

5 Reasons Why Apple's 2019 Electric Car Will Destroy The Big Car Manufacturers

Apple launched another bomb into the world today: the (tacit) announcement of a ship date of an electric-car for 2019. Here are 5 reasons why BMW, Mercedes, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Bugatti, and the rest should be very afraid:

1. Disrupted Music Industry: Apple wasn't in the business of MP3s or music downloading, until the iPod, which not only took down the likes of Napster, but an entire industry of production companies, CD sales, and expanding into DVDs, university lectures and the like. It wasn't just the hardware, but also the software of iTunes and Garage Band that took down the middleman from producer to consumer, as well as the whole business model of the Apple Store. In 2011, when iTunes turned 10 years-old, and according to the Recording Industry Association of America, record sales had plummeted from $11B to $7B--but, music sales were skyrocketing like never before. 

2. Disrupted News Media: When Jobs launched the iPad, he completely disrupted the way news media would be consumed: suddenly giants were scrambling to create apps to prevent themselves from going out of business, and subsequently finding ways to make a profit while putting their entire news online. The same can be said for books and magazines.

3. Don't forget the iPhone: One day Jobs came into the design lab at Apple and threw his cell phone on the table in frustration: the device was crap, and he wanted to make a better one just to save himself the bitter agony of having to use the one he had. Apparently the iPad was being developed, which became the template for the iPhone--the rest is history. Just take a visit to Blackberry HQ...

4. The Store: While Apple was revolutionizing the digital marketplace with iTunes, it was doing the same for bricks and mortar retail with their Apple Stores; and it wasn't just the architecture, the design of which matched the aesthetic of the product, but the whole service of merchandise, sales personnel, and the use of technology to speed up the process. 

5. Big Money + Vision: It was Mercedes's CEO who claimed at the Frankfurt Auto Show last week that Apple has the money to pull a big disruption off in the auto industry. Everyone knows that. And kudos to them. Instead of squandering dollars on putting another NHL team in California, they're investing it into disruption. It's not just the big dollars, but the vision to keep innovating, keep disrupting, keep creating. And it is this spirit within Apple that is the biggest reason why they could seriously take over the auto industry. 

What we will most likely see with Apple is that when the electric-car is launched--whenever it's launched--it won't just be a car, but a series of processes and experiences that will make the whole interaction between machine and user like nothing else in the marketplace--including Tesla. We'll see a revolutionary system not only for packaging, promoting, and purchasing, but also for fuelling and maintenance. It will be an experience like nothing else in the market; and it will blow the big car manufacturers away, or leave them scrambling for the scraps left by Apple's dust. In fact, for companies like BMW and Mercedes and Volkswagen--sophisticated in their own right--the writing may already be on the wall. 

Why Lamborghini, Ferrari, And Bentley May Some Day Be Swallowed Up By Apple

The Frankfurt Car Show is the place for the future of automobiles: Alfa Romeo, Bentley, Porsche, Lamborghini all sporting eye-popping new designs.

But there were two companies at the car show that directed a great deal of attention that as of yet have not mass manufactured a vehicle: Google and Apple. Why are two silicone valley tech companies causing such a buzz at Frankfurt among the growling Lamborghinis and luxurious Bentleys? It's not the CEOs; it's not the companies themselves--as brilliant as they are--but quite simply technological change itself. 

Ten years ago, did car manufacturers ever think their big competitors would be a company known for search engines? Did it ever think the maker of the iPod would be possibly driving it out of business? For those who are prescient, like Mercedes, they have foreseen this disruption. Those who don't see it, who think they can compete with Apple and Google because they've been manufacturing vehicles for the last 100 years won't have a chance, regardless of how big they think they are. 

For the shift is from the standard parlance of 'torque', engine size, and horsepower, to autonomous, self-driving, and battery-powered. And with this shift in technology, vehicles will be rolling software platforms--and who better at designing that than Google and Apple. 

The fear factor, well-expressed by Jack Ewing of the New York Times, is not so much that Apple and Google will take the likes of BMW and Mercedes literally out of business--as it did to Nokia--but that they would turn these great car companies into mere hardware manufacturers, and steal all the profits. 

The CEO of Lamborghini, Stephen Winkelmann put it well: sustainability to digital to self-driving are the three stages of the automotive revolution. And it is what every car manufacturer must wrestle with. 

We are living in amazing times of technological disruption. How will this automobile revolution play out? Who will be the ones to come out standing? The classic car manufacturers of the past century, or those right now advancing search and creating mobile technology? What happens if the great Lamborghini or Bentley are destroyed by a company making mobile phones and watches?  

The way out for the car manufacturers would seem to be collaboration--to not compete but partner. However, then we have the scenario in which the car manufacturers are only hardware providers--not a great deal. Brand might give some leverage, in that one could still own a Lamborghini; but Apple and Google sport some of the heftiest brands in the world. To me, the technology landscape favours Apple and Google, regardless of how intentional a car manufacturing company would be to 'learn' software. 

Why George Clooney Bashed Tesla, Then Changed His Mind...

There was a time in 2013 when George Clooney had nothing good to say about Tesla. In a New York Post interview, the no less than suave superstar had this to say, “I had a Tesla. I was one of the first cats with a Tesla,” Clooney bragged to Esquire in a recent interview. “But I’m telling you, I’ve been on the side of the road a while in that thing. And I said to them, ‘Look, guys, why am I always stuck on the side of the...road? Make it work, one way or another.’” 

Soon after, Elon Musk of Tesla dropped the Roadster--the bane of Clooney's vehicular existence--to focus his sights on the Model S, which has become a favourite among Hollywood celebrities--including, you guessed it, George Clooney. Here are a few celebs who own the Model S.

• Jay Leno
• Jennifer Garner
• Steven Spielberg
• James Cameron
• Lawrence Fishburne
• Don Cheadel
• Morgan Freeman
• Leonardo Di Caprio
• George Clooney

I love Tesla. If I had the money, I'd own one--I think they're cool, progressive, and definitely make a statement that you are one who loves the speed of the open road, you love technology, and you love the earth--but, we all know that's a load of marketing propaganda, and thus why those whose livelihood rest on appearances (namely celebrities) own them. 

The fact remains that these are not vehicles the average person can afford, and again, as I have said in previous posts about Tesla, they set up an us vs. them schism: that just because I drive a Tesla means I am more economical and less destructive of the planet than those who drive the beater cars or the 1990s mini van. That just because I drive a Tesla, I am more progressive, more liberal, more intellectual than you. Again, not true. 

We've all got to be who we are. Maybe Clooney still hates Tesla, but drives it because it makes him look more 'Eco'. 

Now it seems plausible that as the technology improves over the next couple of years, and more car manufacturers enter the marketplace, the prices for e-cars will fall markedly and thus become more affordable and ubiquitous--we actually know that's where the technology is going. However, then we are dealing with a transition to machine-driven rather than person-driven vehicles which will have its own problems and perils. 

You Know Taylor Swift Ain't Drinking That: Diet Sodas Lead To Weight Gain And What You Can Do About It

Have you ever noticed that people who drink diet soda are typically overweight? (With the exception, of course, of the celebs who endorse them) Have you ever wondered why? Is it something in the soft drink itself that's causing the caloric reaction, or something else? 

According to a study called The effect of non-caloric sweeteners on cognition, choice, and post-consumption satisfaction, the impact of diet soda's on weight gain may be more psychological than physiological. The study, over three experiments, concluded that people who drink diet soda experience a kind of sugar-disatisfaction that leads to cravings for the real thing, which makes them extra-vulnerable to the next high-calorie sugary temptation that comes along. 

In one experiment, 115 undergraduate students were given one of three unmarked beverages: Sprite (sugar-sweetened), Sprite Zero (artificially sweetened), and a lemon sparkling mineral water (unsweetened). After drinking the beverage, they were asked to choose one of three treats to take away with them: A pack of Trident Sugar-free gum, a bottle of spring water, and a pack of M&Ms. Those who drank the artificially sweetened beverage were 2.93 times more likely to take the pack of M&Ms than the others.

While the results of the study require some level of inference, and thus is not by any means conclusive, it does provide some insight into the possible psychological effects of diet soda. 

Here are a few things you can do if you find yourself reaching for that Coke Zero, presuming there is something to the study above and your diet soda is making you crave more sugar:

1. Ask yourself if you really need it.

2. Choose the real (sugar ) thing--it'll actually satisfy the craving you have.

3. Reach for water, or, if you need the caffeine a cup of coffee instead, for the latter doesn't contain all those crazy chemicals.

4. Realize what the aspartame is doing to you, and make a deliberate choice for something else. There's nothing diet about diet soda--it's just a marketing ploy to get people to buy it.

5. Wean yourself off soft drinks in general. If you love fizzy drinks, cut up some lemons and squeeze them into some soda water (but beware, some soda water brands are high in sodium). 

6. There are all kinds of things soft drinks like Coke and Pepsi do to your insides that are really bad for you. Don't be deceived by the fancy packaging and attractive colours--drinking too much of that stuff is making you feel sick. Break the bond and choose a healthier alternative.

7. Obviously, if you're drinking it once in a while, it's not a bad thing; but if you're addicted to it, if you're drinking it everyday, it's important to your health that you wean off. 

10 Things That Sound True About Car Insurance But Aren't

1. No fault’ insurance means it’s not my fault: It actually means that your insurance company covers your insurance regardless of who’s fault it is. It does not mean that no one is at fault at the accident. However, someone may still be found at fault at the accident, and he/she may be hit with a higher insurance rate as a result.

2. I can’t buy a red car because they cost more to insure: The colour doesn’t matter. What matters, however, is make, model, body type, engine size, age of the car, and the records of the drivers on your policy.

 3. I’m covered under my employer’s insurance when I use my vehicle for work: Your auto insurance only covers your personal use of a car, not commercial use. So if you’re using your vehicle, say, to deliver things for your job, your workplace will not cover that.

4. If my friend drives my car and gets in an accident, it won’t show up on my insurance: In actuality, if you lend your car you also lend your insurance. So even if you were not involved in the accident, if you are the policy holder and registered owner of the vehicle, your insurance is tagged for the accident.

5. My parking tickets are going to drive up my insurance rates: Parking tickets have no correspondence to insurance rates. However, unpaid parking tickets can lead to your license being suspended, which will drive up your rates.

6. There’s no point in shopping around for insurance—they’re all the same: Car insurance companies all have their own system of rating a policy, and each weighs in different factors differently. As well, at bottom insurance companies compete for your business. Shopping around can indeed lead to a lower rate.

7. I am covered under any car I drive: See number 4—and this also includes car rentals. You can purchase insurance from the rental company, but if you do not, you may not be covered for any damage to the rental vehicle.

8.  I am covered anywhere I go: Canadian insurance companies will cover you everywhere in Canada and the United States, but not if you cross into places like Mexico, in such cases you will need to purchase separate car insurance.

9. My rate will go up if I get into an accident: Indeed, if you are at fault in an accident, and don’t have no-fault insurance, your rate will go up. However, rates go up for other reasons as well, which may not correspond at all to a given accident. Rates are adjusted periodically to keep up with statistics that apply to your situation (age, driver history, vehicle type, etc).

10. Comprehensive coverage protects me in all situations: Comprehensive insurance is one among a number of different types of protection. It covers only for damage caused by an event other than a collision.

When Hanging Out With Bono No Longer Cuts It, You're Phone Will Fill In That Boredom Gap

What's wrong with boredom? For some, or many, everything!

How many innumerable adventures, business ventures, and side-ventures, not to mention restless hunts in antique stores or dollar stores or garage sales, or meetings at a cafe, or boat rides and fishing trips (or hunting trips for that matter) or movies no one really wants to see or books the meaning of which no one can find, or the umpteenth video game on your phone or iPad, or dropping and re-taking that university course on the Psychopathology of Bob Dylan, or Beatles records you tell yourself you like, or seeing U2 in its geriatric glory fumbling on stage,  or selling your house, or renting out your apartment, or cutting your hair and trimming your beard and shaving for the second time that day...or or or... (fill in here) all for the sake of removing boredom?

Well, according to MIT Tech Review there's an app for that--or soon to be... It uses your mobile phone to detect, based on a series of algorithms, your level of boredom, and will send you push notifications of things to do to remove it. It will determine your boredom level by how much time you've spent on your phone, what kinds of things you've done, the time of day, the number of calls or texts you've received, etc; and it will send you push notifications of apps you've pre-set in your phone.

This is put together by a set of researchers at Telefonica, a technology think tank that provides various technological solutions for, as it were, the improvement of human life. But does a boredom buzzer ensure the improvement of life? Does removing boredom in your life by that fact make it better?

That said, boredom is as vital to solving problems, coming up with new innovations and ideas, and learning as water is for quenching thirst. When we're bored, our brains are working at a different level, we're seeing the world differently, and we're doing everything we can to creatively break out of the state we're in. There's actually nothing wrong with being bored, and more people should try it rather than control it or fight it or distract from it.

Such a 'solution' for boredom using the smarts of a phone is just another uncritical way you're giving your phone the power to solve your problems for you--to what end? Sure you could get push notifications from the app that teaches you Spanish, but what if it's to something more damaging, such as an activity more addictive or compromising of healthy relationships, marriages, families, etc? When we're bored, we have choices based on what's around us; but when something else is directing us to other areas, and those that have greater third-party interests to boot, we have the makings of a, at the very least, conflict of interest on our hands (pun not intended).

Better to stay bored...

Google and Tesla Are Shaking The World Up: Should You Wait 2 Years Before Buying Your Next Car?

If you're looking to buy a new car, perhaps you should wait about 4 years--until self-driving, or autonomous vehicles are, here. Google plans to have one in consumer's hands by 2017, and Elon Musk claims to have drivers go to sleep, and wake up at destination by 2019. There will be a host of other car manufacturers releasing autonomous cars by 2020: Mercedes, BMW, and Volkswagen, and Nissan. Indeed, by the time 2030 rolls around, the landscape of vehicles and driving itself will be radically different. 

This video by The Daily Conversation lays out the promises and questions surrounding autonomous cars

TDC The Future of Driverless Cars

There are, however, two fundamental critiques to these models of the future of driving:

1. More computer control means less human control: Indeed, a computer will not have to sleep, and, with high-powered censors, will be able to provide greater safety. However, we are looking at giving up complete control of our destination to a machine. And if I can wear a tin-foil hat for a moment, this makes me and many others nervous. What if the computer malfunctions? What if there is a lock-down state of emergency, and your vehicle suddenly locks you in 2001 Space Odyssey style and drives you to the nearest government holding place? What if there is a kill switch embedded in the vehicle that is not controlled by you? And, what of all the data of where you're driving, when you're driving, how you're driving is recorded and sent off to third parties? Many will, as many do with phones and computers, trade off transparency for convenience, but what about those who don't want to? This leads to my next critique:

2. Shake up of major industries, means dissolution of jobs: Do we realize the radical shake-up of industries and jobs this will create? Do we realize that driving as we know it will be given over to machines thus squeezing out one of the greatest sources of employment out there, namely courier and transportation services? Do we realize how this will shake up the insurance industry, for as was stated in the video above, there should be no reason to require a license to drive these vehicles given that they'll be computers. 

We can watch with admiration and bubble-gum glee all these "amazing technological developments," but the reality remains: this is a future being designed for us that does not serve the interests of the average North America. We're far down the road, the map has been entered into the computer, and the vehicle's on auto-pilot. But is the destination one that we actually want?