Rebane's Ruminations

Knowledge Engines

George Rebane

Part of our rush toward Singularity involves the web becoming ‘smarter’.  In case you haven’t noticed, search engine technologies are rapidly evolving from providing ‘information’ to becoming so-called knowledge engines.  Wolfram Alpha was an early one into this functionality, and it is now being joined by Google’s Knowledge Graph Microsoft will soon upgrade its Bing to provide the same type of functionality.

My friend Dr Larry Press reports on Knowledge Graph here.  And this is a short video that gives you an idea of all this before you dive into the details.

As evident from my past posts on the topic, I’m looking forward to IBM offering its Watson technology on a broad basis to websites.  To do that though will require the installation of what I’d call server cities instead of server farms.  Today web related utilities already consume more than 5% of our electrical capacity.  With all of us starting to use Watson-derived knowledge engines will make the country’s lights dim.

 

Placebos vs Big Pharma

George Rebane

A recent ’60 Minutes’ surprised me with a segment in which it was reported that placebos worked just as well as drugs like Prozac for fighting depression – well, almost as well.  Prozac did have a tiny edge in really severe cases of depression.  The research was done by Dr Irving Kirsch of Harvard, and it has reignited a firestorm of debate as to what real effect do many expensive big pharma concoctions have over sugar pills.

The power of the human brainbone to gin up alternative realities has been known for decades.  In the Greece of pre-Dorian invasions the gods regularly conversed with individuals and even attended public events such as weddings and other celebrations.  Everybody saw them and corroborated each other’s experiences.  In the middle ages and later, people actually saw witches fly on broomsticks, and believed such sightings to be as reliable as seeing clouds in the sky.  In the modern age anthropologists have discovered and studied a tribe in Papua-New Guinea whose known world has a boundary at a narrow river, the other side of which has always been invisible to the aboriginals.

Some psychologists have identified the responsible region of the brain for such hallucinations in the right hemisphere opposite Wernicke’s area (used in language processing).  In any event, most of us have heard some astounding stories and are aware of the power of placebos.  It all seems to revolve around the level of credibility (faith) we attribute to the sugar pills presented as medicine and administered by sincere and serious healthcare professionals.  And this effect seems to work in spades with anti-depressant medications.

But that wasn’t really what caught my attention in the TV segment.  The question that popped up was why did the FDA still allow Prozac et al to tout themselves as the clinically effective standard of care for depression.  The answer was that FDA’s approval procedures rate a drug effective, if it bests the performance of placebos in at least two properly conducted drug trials or studies.  It could fail to be better in, say, ten previous studies, but as soon as it racks up two victories over the placebo, it gets to go to market.

My instant reaction was ‘Wow! I didn’t know that.’  So if in a (double?) blind trial Prozac and a placebo are each given to two samples of 500 subjects suffering from depression, and Prozac is judged to effectively reduce symptoms in, say, 100 subjects, while the placebo equally reduces symptoms in only 98 subjects, then Prozac wins.  There was no requirement of statistical significance or any such technical niceties.  Two such victories, and the billions start rolling in.

The question then becomes, what kind of risk do big pharma companies take when bringing to market already developed, marginally performing medicines?

Discrimination by the numbers

 

George Rebane

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County is being sued by the Dept of Justice for discrimination through the use of profiling.  When ol’ Sheriff Joe stops a car for some traffic, licensing, or other safety violation, it seems that he puts the occupants through an immigration check nine times more frequently when they are Hispanics, than when they are not.  This to the feds and other soft heads is clear discrimination through profiling; is it not?  Let’s return to the sheriff after a couple of preliminaries.

Most people who put their feelings on the back burner for a bit and revert to reason will agree that discrimination occurs when some benefit or sanction is directed toward a segment of population that is out of kilter with the proportion of the population having an attribute that legally deserves the benefit or sanction.

Let’s say that 15% of county residences have a specific building code violation, and county winds up writing citations and fining 25% of residences for that violation.  It is clear that 10% of residences have been discriminated against since they can show that no violation existed on their properties.

Also if a population of equally developmentally handicapped people were supposed to get a certain subsidy, and upon examination it was later found that payments went excessively to a subset of the handicapped that had another attribute (say, they were all tall) not contemplated in the law, then the subset without the secondary attribute (the short ones) suffered discrimination.

It gets a little dicier when we start dealing with realworld uncertainties, and when we have to allocate scarce resources to achieve a certain objective.  And this brings us to some of Sheriff Joe’s problems.  So let’s get a few numbers under our belt (they may be off a bit, depending on your source, but I tried to get them all from the Census Bureau, so they should work for this discussion.)

Fair Division 101

George Rebane

It’s usually tough to divide up a set of assets when a partnership breaks up, spouses get divorced, or any set of in/divisible assets or resources must be allocated between multiple parties.  The study of fair division algorithms has seen a considerable amount of research and it isn’t over yet.  A good fair division algo that is adopted by negotiating parties will go a long way toward achieving a mutually acceptable outcome.  I have found Fair Division: from cake-cutting to dispute resolution (1996) by Brams and Taylor to be an excellent survey of such algos.

We all know how two people should divide a cake into equal pieces so that neither would have a reasonable complaint – the algo prescribes that one cuts the cake, the other chooses his piece.  But what happens when there are three or more people who want to divide the cake equally, or even to divide the cake into agreed upon portions?  You can see how things can get complicated very quickly.

In this edition we will consider a simple yet powerful algo – let’s call it FD01 (developed by Bronislaw Knaster) – that allows two parties to divide up a disparate set of indivisible assets, one of which consists of cash.  The entire schema for FD01 is shown in the spreadsheet figure below.


The left column lists the six assets (the cash asset is not required).  Parties A and B agree that their split is 40-60 respectively as shown.  Each party has the assets appraised.  This step is not required, and may be completed mutually if desired, or the two appraisals may even be shared.

Both parties, using all the information available to each that may include tax considerations, future plans, and knowledge of the other’s propensities, will now place a ‘bid value’ by each asset that represents his own assessment of what he considers to be the dollar value of the asset to be used in the subsequent calculations.  Each party submits a sealed bid list for all assets to be divided.  The bid values for each are listed in their respective columns.

‘Why the technical stuff?’

George Rebane

I was asked that question recently by a regular RR reader.  He went on to opine that not many of my readers would make the effort to understand all that high falootin’ stuff and just skip over it.  In short, I’m wasting time and effort in offering up such posts.  And, of course, he may be right.  When you’re selling, you never want to discount what a customer tells you.  And make no mistake about it, I am selling my little heart out here on RR.

As I later reflected on the reader’s question, it occurred to me that it’s been some years now since I posted anything on the larger purpose and objective(s) for flogging the keyboard and debating various esoteria with RR commenters.  Being a rewarded lifelong teacher has provided some intrinsic impetus to this enterprise – first in the Army, then with my kids and grandkids (no claims of success there), as a professional engineer/scientist/academic, and now again working with high schoolers.

RR is structured to continuously build on what has been written and discussed before in its pages.  I attempt to back-link all of its pieces to their appropriate ancestors, in addition to the usual outside references.  To the extent that this is successful, RR is an accumulating body of thought offered by me, and subsequently expanded and critiqued by the blog’s commenters.  Relatively few pieces here start out of whole cloth.  I make a considerable and not always successful effort to circle the barn as few times as possible; previous orbits on any given topic are always available by searching RR through its built in function or with an engine like Google (just add ‘rebane’ to the keyword list, and voila!).

Ideologically I am a conservetarian, promoting a careful and hopefully coherent amalgam of conservative and libertarian thought as seen through the Austrian lens.  For good or ill, I am an elitist.  I know I cannot reach everyone with all possible ideas/notions through my heartfelt diatribes, so I just try to target and contend with a small number of interested readers, all of whom should evince that they have at least three solid digits in their IQ.  In that and other things, I am terribly incorrect according to the dominant political perspective of the day as spouted by both Republicans and Democrats.

TechTest welcomes TechTestJr

George Rebane

TechTest2012, the sixth edition of SESF’s annual merit scholarship exam, was held on 14 April 2012 in the Nevada Union High School’s science lecture hall.  As has become tradition, the exam’s solution key has been posted on the SESF website (here), and the upcoming annual ‘Survivor’s Breakfast’, with the obligatory ‘Where the Elite Compete’ T-shirts, honoring test takers and winners is scheduled for May.  The test is given to high school seniors who are headed for STEM (q.v.) careers as recommended by their science and math teachers.

But the big news this year is SESF’s launch of TechTestJr (aka ‘son of TechTest’).  TTjr was inaugurated at the request of some Nevada County middle school educators who observed that it was in the 8th grade that students make the decision to pursue a high school curriculum that qualifies them for undertaking STEM college majors.  It is rare for students, who avoid the difficult science and math classes in high school, to then change their minds and enter a make-up program to enable them to pursue STEM majors.  TTjr is designed to be another timely motivator during that critical decision juncture (more here).

TTjr2012 was given last week over a three day period in several Nevada County middle schools and the results are available here.  A press release from the Sierra Economics and Science Foundation on the test reads –

SESF organized and sponsored a successful inaugural TechTestJr2012 exam for Nevada County 8th graders.  Six Nevada County schools participated in the 1st annual TechTestJr fashioned after SESF's very successful Nevada County high school merit based scholarship exam called TechTest.   93 Nevada County students, primarily 8th graders, took the TechTestJr exam. 

The 1 hour exam covered a wide range of math and science related questions.  

The top score was earned by a student of Robert Sharp's at 7 Hills School who scored a whopping 97% on the exam.  4 of the top 5 scores were earned by 7 Hills students.  Magnolia Intermediate School also had a very strong showing with one of the 4 runner-ups coming from Magnolia.  The 4 runner-ups each scored 93% on the exam. 

The top scoring student from each of the 6 school's will be recognized for their achievement.  Grass Valley Charter School's (top score of 90%), Mt. St. Mary's Academy (top score of 87%), Clear Creek (top score of 83%) and Union Hill (top score of 76%) students also participated in the very difficult merit based exam. 

The exam was proctored the week of April 16th in Nevada County.  SESF expects to add additional Nevada County schools to next year's list of participants.  If your school is interested please email mcdanielwealthman@sbcglobal.net. 

The goal of the TechTest series is to encourage continued education (and future vocations) in the technical fields of math and science.

Scattershots – 17apr12

George Rebane

The Financial Times reports (here) that Spain’s central government is looking to federalize financially distressed regions of the country.  (Greece essentially succumbed to such central control early on so as to avoid the rush.)  RR has anticipated a similar fate for California and states like Illinois, New Jersey, … under equally astute financial management by their state governments.  It’s all part of the European model that Team Obama is forging for us.

On another and more earth-shaking note, artificial intelligence may be at the threshold of passing the Turing Test (q.v.).  The new direction taken in AI recently depends on being able to manage ‘big data’.  That is, being able to organize and draw cross connections and correlations similar to what humans are able to do, and to do this much better than IBM’s Watson (q.v.).  the 12apr12 issue of Wired reports (here) that “there is reason to believe that code kernels for the first Turing-intelligent machine have already been written.”

The anticipated breakout is due to “Two revolutionary advances in information technology (which) may bring the Turing test out of retirement,” wrote Robert French, a cognitive scientist at the French National Center for Scientific Research, in a 12apr12 Science essay. “The first is the ready availability of vast amounts of raw data — from video feeds to complete sound environments, and from casual conversations to technical documents on every conceivable subject. The second is the advent of sophisticated techniques for collecting, organizing, and processing this rich collection of data.”  The pre-Singularity threshold for hiring human workers continues to inch upward.

Meanwhile the Senate Democrats failed in their attempt to pass the ‘Buffett Rule’ tax increase.  This much ballyhooed piece of snowball’s-chance-in-hell legislation is the centerpiece of Obama’s campaign initiative sold to the sheeple under the rubric of “fairness” in solving our debt and deficit  problems in coming years.  But without even going into the examination of ‘fairness’, the Buffet Rule tax will accomplish none of this, and serve only as the transom to massive tax increases on the middle class (some history here).  The Heritage Foundation covers more detail on this.

The facts of the Buffett Rule are simple. The President wants millionaires (and small businesses taxed as individuals) to pay a minimum tax of 30 percent. For all of his rhetoric that the measure would "stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade," the Buffett Rule would bring in only $47 billion in revenue in ten years. To put those numbers in context, President Obama's budget calls for adding $6.7 trillion to the national debt. So the Buffett Rule would cover just 0.007% of all of Obama's debt and .001% of Obama's spending.

We shudder to contemplate that there are millions of Democrats with sufficient deficits as to make such election year demogauging a profitable enterprise for their progressive elite.  No one doubts that they know their constiuents.

Super-Turing Computation is Coming

George Rebane

Kurzweil reports that computer scientist Dr Hava Siegelmann (Univ of Mass, Amherst) “is translating her 1993 discovery of what she has dubbed 'super-Turing' computation into an adaptable computational system that learns and evolves, using input from the environment in a way much more like our brains do than classic Turing-type computers."

"This model is inspired by the brain.  It is a mathematical formulation of the brain’s neural networks with their adaptive abilities. The authors show that when the model is installed in an environment offering constant sensory stimuli like the real world, and when all stimulus-response pairs are considered over the machine’s lifetime, the Super Turing model yields an exponentially greater repertoire of behaviors than the classical computer or Turing model. They demonstrate that the Super-Turing model is superior for human-like tasks and learning.”  (my italics)

This presumably is the next iteration to brain-like machines like those based temporal hierarchical memory (THM, pdf) modules that were introduced by Jeff Hawkins (here) and now under development.  The key ingredient to both machines is their ability to learn from data and their environment, and then solve problems and/or act on what they have learned.  Both super-Turing and THM computation promise quantum leaps in performance beyond IBM’s impressive Watson genre of super-computers (here)

The introduction and application of such machines is just the next step toward the Singularity event itself.  It will be of great interest to see toward what applications these new AIs will be directed.  The only sure thing is that more educated humans will feel their pressure and presence in the workplace.

From Human Obsolescence to Technology Ebooks and Climate Models

"... of shoes and ships and sealing wax/ of cabbages and kings.",  Lewis Carroll

George Rebane

(Written 31mar12; no time to write today Sunday, I'm pulling my scheduled club duty as rangemaster at the local rifle/pistol range.)

On this blustery and wet Saturday morning I gathered together a few of the piles of notes I make while reading the stuff that arrives across the (virtual and real) transom here on our Nevada County ridge.  They seemed to have a common thread if you don’t put too fine a point on it.

For openers, I enjoyed the latest contribution from Lucille Lovestedt in today’s Other Voices column of The Union (paywalled online).   That lady is a keen observer of the human condition, and a practiced friend of the written word.  Among other things on her mind these days is her more frequent run-ins in the news with the concept of Singularity (q.v. 'Singularity Signposts' category), which she interprets as the harbinger of human “obsolescence” if not outright “extinction”.  Of course, as readers here know, she has a point on both counts.  One of the Singularity preparations of this soon-to-be great-great-grandmother is to update her will accordingly to at least account for the ‘obsolescence’ scenario, which is already in full swing in the developed nations’ labor markets.  I would dearly like to know some of the particulars of her revised will; that would be a worthy read from this well-read and wise woman who has enjoyed many birthdays.

The Liberal Mind – Yes Virginia, we really are different (updated 10apr12)

George Rebane

The curious and inexplicable course of our polarized public discourse has been examined for some time in these pages, even to the extent that ‘The Liberal Mind’ is an RR category of collected posts on this issue.  To a reasonable person on the so-called Right, the reasoning processes of the so-called Left are an enduring puzzle, even though the outcomes of such processes are relatively easy to predict.  I don’t know whether people of the Left have similar problems understanding our reasoning processes, but I presume that they do.

These questions are neither idle nor unimportant as indicated by the increasing level of academic research devoted to the area.  A landmark study done at University College London, reported here, discovered measurable differences in the active brain areas of conservatives and liberals when they considered socio-political issues informed by their separate ideologies.  This research indicated that with appropriate brain imaging equipment in place, it is possible to tell from the resulting images whether the subject studied is a self-professed liberal or conservative.

Now Dr Jonathan Haidt, professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, has documented his examination of how liberals and conservatives differ in The Righteous Mind (two reports on it here and here).  The results from Haidt and his research team are both revealing and illuminating.  Even the noted progressive NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof reports that these results “help demystify the right”.

Dr Haidt’s research indicates that Americans speak of social values in “six languages” (aka six dimensions).  Kristof states that “Conservatives speak all six, but liberals are fluent in only three. And some (me included) mostly use just one, care for victims.”  The liberals’ three languages of social discourse are in a manifold whose three dimensions are – caring for the weak, fairness, and liberty.  The conservatives share these three, with a somewhat different view of fairness and liberty, and add to their manifold of thinking/expression three more – loyalty, respect for authority, and sanctity.  These three are also tagged as “binding values” that bind people together into larger groups.