*CAPTCHA as an AGI enabler.
In the past I’ve tried explaining ways that we in effect make Google God smarter by using its services, or even just by browsing the web. It turns out that by solving “CAPTCHAS” we’re now also helping advance AI fields such as Machine Vision.
CAPTCHA stands for Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart.
What I’m arguing here is that it goes beyond the reality of hackers / spammers from developing AI to beat the CAPTCHAS, and then CAPTCHA developing better AI in response. First it must be noted the developers interest in their technology advancing their AI goals. Take the following Carnegie CAPTCHA document for example, and be sure to also note how they like their kind call not having AI a “problem”:
We introduce captcha, an automated test that humans can pass, but current computer programs can’t pass: any program that has high success over a captcha can be used to solve an unsolved Articial Intelligence (AI) problem.
Much like research in cryptography has had a positive impact on algorithms for factoring and discrete log, we hope that the use of hard AI problems for security purposes allows us
to advance the field of Artificial Intelligence.
In this paper we will present constructions of captchas based on certain AI problems and we will show that solving the captchas implies solving the AI problems.
Now their latest version of it seeks to take it beyond the spam war and in effect declare war on you.
The computer scientists at Carnegie-Mellon and IBM who came up with the idea of Captchas and have promoted their public use noted in a widely-read 2000 research paper that “either the Captcha is not broken and there is a way to differentiate humans from computers, or the Captcha is broken and a useful AI problem is solved.” In any case, progress will be made.
Yet another Carnegie-Mellon approach turns the solution of Captchas into a good deed. With some 200 million Captchas being solved by humans every day, and each one requiring maybe 10 seconds of time, researchers thought why not get some useful work done, too? Their answer was to make Captchas based on snippets of optically scanned text from old books and newspapers that legitimate computers have been unable to correctly recognize. But how does the computer know if someone has interpreted the old text properly? Each reCaptcha presents a challenging sample of old text next to a standard Captcha image for which the answer is already known. It’s assumed that anyone who solves the latter will also have entered a correct answer for the former. The two main sources of old texts are those in the Internet Archive (www.archive.org), a vast collection of freely-accessible digitized media, and scanned editions of the New York Times.
Other players are also developing their own, like Microsoft and Google. As its Google’s bread and butter to have you teach their systems for them, you can bet that people will be helping them solve their problems via their “Socially Adjusted CAPTCHAs“.
These sorts of things really irritate me. In my vision, the day is approaching that the only solution to remain human in a Transhumanist dominated world would be to resort to “Neo-Amish” communities. The idea is to build permaculture type cities but where we can still enjoy things like the Internet and so on, unlike actual the Amish. But by ‘them’ designing the Web where we can’t use it without helping them advance their march is like an act of war against humanity, in my view.
-Must See Film: TechnoCalyps.
Here’s one I should have posted long ago. It was apparently made in 2006 but managed to slip under my radar until about a year ago. This is probably the best one out there on the whole Transhumanism / AGI type dimension, but I don’t think its too popular amongst their movement with it being the only one I can think of that is balanced and shows both sides of the coin. I did add it the other day to the new “Films to Watch” section in the left panel, but decided to underscore this great film here.
Be sure to check out the parts where the Life Extension advocate screams that you’ll have to kill him in order to stop him from becoming a god.
Film comes in 3 one hour parts:
TechnoCalyps – Part I – TransHuman
TechnoCalyps – Part II – Preparing for the Singularity
*Neurogrid Neuron Chips.
This is a National Institutes of Health funded Stanford project. Each ‘Neurocore’ has
65,536 programmable neurons, and 16 of them connected together equals over one million neurons operating in real time. They’re not quite finished building it yet, but they seem confident that soon a 16 core Neurocore array will fit into a device about the size of an iPod costing $40,000 dollars. Now one of these 1st generation devices aren’t going to take over the world, but it will put a radical development tool into the hands of the AGI related community to help accelerate their goals.
This sounds like an extrodinary feat, as the following BlueGeneL supercomputer containing some 4,000-8,000 IBM CPU’s can only handle something like 10,000 neurons:
The current Blue Gene driven “Blue Brain” project claims to be able to handle up to 10 million neurons and half a billion synapses. It would cost Neurogrid roughly $400,000 to match it. They say a human brain is 3,000 times more complex than the Blue Brain, meaning it would cost $1.2 billion to match those raw numbers using Neurogrid.
*DARPA & IBM building a “global brain” “cognitive computer” for “monitoring people” and the “world”.
Listen carefully:
Dharmendra S Modha’s blog post: link.
DARPA SyNAPSE: link.
IBM press release: link.
From Modha’s blog:
In September 2005, proposal to organize 2006 Almaden Institute around Cognitive Computing was selected by Dr. Mark Dean who then headed IBM’s Almaden Research Center and by four department heads (Dr. Dilip Kandlur, Dr. Laura Haas, Dr. Gian-Luca Bona, and Dr. Jim Spohrer).
On March 31, 2006, grand challenge proposal to start a project on Cognitive Computing was funded by IBM Research.
On May 10-11, 2006, a very successful Almaden Institute on Cognitive Computing took place. Please see here and here.
On August 16, 2006, Cognitive Computing group was organized, and I became its manager.
On April 27, 2007, BBC News reported my group’s work on a half-mouse-scale simulation in near real-time.
On May 2-3, 2007, I co-chaired Cognitive Computing 2008 at UC Berkeley.
On May 20-21, 2007, I spoke at the Decade of the Mind Symposium organized by Jim Olds and James Albus.
On July 17, 2007, PC Magazine carried a cover story on Cognitive Computing.
On September 2007, I co-authored a letter in Science calling for a Decade of the Mind Initiative along with truly distinguished colleagues who also spoke at the Decade of the Mind Symposium.
On November 10-16, 2007, we presented our work on rat-scale simulation at Supercomputing 2007 conference. See here.
*We all taught Google’s new advanced speech recognition how to hear.
As I argued in my semi-recent Google’s A.I. quest to become God-On-Earth piece, the more everyone uses Google the ’smarter’ it becomes. I even mentioned the GOOG411 service in this regard:
“An intelligent thinking machine would also needs ears, and ears they are giving it. Make a call to 1-800-GOOG411 and experience their speech recognition algorithms for yourself. No surprise that the service is free, because the more people use it the more you help them reach their goal of omniscience.”
Now people with iPhone’s will help accelerate this even further:
Google announced that it had added voice search to its iPhone mobile application, allowing people to speak search terms into their phones and view the results on the screen.
In designing the system, Google took on an enormous challenge. Where an automated airline reservation system, say, has to handle a relatively limited number of terms, a Web search engine must contend with any topic that anyone might ever want to research–literally.
Fortunately, Google also has a huge amount of data on how people use search, and it was able to use that to train its algorithms. If the system has trouble interpreting one word in a query, for instance, it can fall back on data about which terms are frequently grouped together.
Google also had a useful set of data correlating speech samples with written words, culled from its free directory service, Goog411. People call the service and say the name of a city and state, and then say the name of a business or category. According to Mike Cohen, a Google research scientist, voice samples from this service were the main source of acoustic data for training the system.
But the data that Google used to build the system pales in comparison to the data that it now has the chance to collect. “The nice thing about this application is that Google will collect all this speech data,” says Jim Glass, a principal research scientist at MIT. “And by getting all this data, they will improve their recognizer even more.”
I hate it when I’m right. Once the Google Machine understands what words and sentences mean, they’ll be closer to having Strong AI that “will understand everything in the world”.
See also:
Law of Accelerating Returns
- US Army to Push X-Files Tech Development, Invade World of Warcraft.
The US Army is ramping up the development of technology right out of the X-Files, “making science fiction into reality” as Dr. John Parmentola—Director of their Research and Laboratory Management—puts it. The list of things currently in the works is amazing: Regenerating body parts on “nano-scaffolding”, telepathy through electronic impulses in the scalp, and self-aware virtual photorealistic soldiers that can be deployed in the battlefield through “quantum ghost imaging”. To test these they want to use them into a massively multi-player online games like World of Warcraft or Eve online:
We want to use the massively multi-player online game as an experimental laboratory to see if they’re good enough to convince humans that they’re actually human, that can think on their own, have emotions and talk in local slang. I actually interact with virtual humans in terms of asking them questions and they’re responding.
Once they have them perfected, they want to “deploy” these soldiers using something called “quantum ghost imaging”. This will allow to create photorealistic, non-cheesy-fake-CNN-looking holograms out of thin air by “pairing photons that do no reflect or bounce off an object, but off other photons,” whatever that means. Parmentola explains it as ““like having a tracing tool … that goes over the image and that’s connected to another one on a piece of paper that exactly imitates what it is that you are tracing with the other pen” which leaves me scratching my head as well. He hinted that this is closer than we can imagine.
The rest of their projects are equally mindblowing. Although this used to be the subject of much rumorology and speculation, the Parmentola confirmed that they are working in:
• A project to erase bad memories, which will be critical in helping soldiers with psychological damage.
• Devices that will translate one solider’s thoughts into electrical signals that can be beamed to other soliders, to help in stealth operations.
• Growing back body parts, both internal organs and limbs (Parmentola said researchers are not far away from this), using molecular-sized particles that act as nano-scaffolding for the human cells to grow, dissolving after the organ has regenerated.
Let’s hope it’s no all smoke and mirrors, because this research has the potential to benefit countless others outside the battlefield. [DoD Buzz]
*Game developers targeted for AGI herding at Stanford AIIDE Conference.
“AIIDE is the definitive point of interaction between entertainment software developers interested in AI and academic and industrial AI researchers. Sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)“, note in their own words, “the conference is targeted at both the research and commercial communities, promoting AI research and practice in the context of interactive digital entertainment systems with an emphasis on commercial computer and video games.”
And I thought multiplayer games with live humans was were we ended up, AI bots being a thing of the past or for the weary not having broadband Net connections. But some of what was presented was ways to use various types of narrow AI to better automate development processes, while games with non-player-characters still persist in adventure type forms. In my final years of gaming a few years ago only live human opponents in RTS & ultraviolent action games was any fun, but I guess some aren’t giving up on that while the gaming industry is set to not only help incrementalize us into full immersion neural interface gaming but to also help tackle the strong AI “problem” (as AGI proponents always call it).
Gamasutra had a relevant point here:
But Rabin put forth his own challenge for the future: Despite all this, why is AI still allowed to suck? Because, in his view, sharp AI is just not required for many games, and game designers frequently don’t get what AI can do. That was his challenge for this AIIDE -– to show others the potential, and necessity, of game AI, to find the problems that designers are trying to tackle, and solve them.
And Strong AI was certainly a theme:
Rabin talked about the challenges that future development is facing: costs are rising, risk is greater. CPU power is improving, but we haven’t found a strong AI use for it.
In any case, I really wanted to just do a quick post to underscore Stanford’s role in all of the AGI type talk found in my work. That institution is a key fountainhead right in lockstep with DARPA and Google, but I rarely get the time write much about it. Stanford pops up on my radar almost as much as the sorts like Google, DARPA, NASA and so on. So for those who find interest in this line of my work around here you’ll start noticing Stanford just the same if you havent been already.
*Official trailers for my upcoming films: “an unholy alliance”.
CHAPTER 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV07jBp3Tao
WATCH IT IN GOOD QUALITY ON VUZE
Official trailer for my upcoming shock documentary that focuses on the alliance between Google, DARPA & NASA in developing ‘artificial general intelligence’, a system that Google cofounder Sergei Brin says will “be like the mind of god”. Their goal is to kick-start the Technological Singularity in just a few years time.
Expect an early 2009 release.
CHAPTER 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgtYQIQuNAM
Official trailer for my upcoming shock documentary that focuses on the Right’s use of the delusional “War on Terror” and the Left’s use of fantastical “Global Warming” to terrorize the masses into the same ‘artificial general intelligence’ outcome. Chapter 1 focuses on the AGI system being built by the NASA / DARPA / Google alliance, where this chapter focuses on the parallel ‘religions’ being used by the 2 party system to drive the masses into funding and eventually supporting the same ‘god on earth’ AI system.
Mid – Late 2009 release.
More info to come…
-Pentagon Targeting Online Social Networks, v2.0.
SEE ALSO:
Pentagon sets its sights on social networking websites [LINK]
US Intelligence Agencies Targeting Online Gaming Networks [LINK]
Social Media In The Military: Insight Into The Future of Social Networks [LINK]
A new startup is helping reshape the social networking landscape by using artificial intelligence to automate the process of identifying, finding and retrieving specific types of information locked within online communities.
Over the past decade, social networks have become a powerful new force for attracting internet traffic. In the UK, Facebook is currently the second most popular website followed by Google, according to Hitwise, an internet research firm.
It’s not surprising that the names of the various social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn have become common destinations for younger people as well as businesses.
But finding information and expert sources of knowledge quickly within social networks is neither easy nor efficient and valuable information is left buried within online communities.
To date, much of the technology focus has been on building document-based information retrieval techniques, leaving the process of identifying human sources of information, also known as “expertise identification,” with much less attention.
Enter a group of scientists and military officers who have helped build a new social analytics tool that identifies and automatically uncovers intelligence to help military personnel perform better in the field.
SRI International based in Menlo Park, California, teamed up with military officers to build a new social analytics tool called iLink that generates models and helps streamline the process by which a specific expert in an online community can be found.
In simple terms, iLink is a machine learning-based system that models users and content in a social network and then points the user to relevant content.
The team developed the basic social networking technology, which combines workflow and analytics. The research and development effort was part of a five-year project called CALO (Cognitive Agent that Learns and Organizes), and funded by the US Department of Defense.
“They wanted a real system to be built and deployed into military settings,” said Jeffrey Davitz, an SRI scientist and co-developer of the iLink technology. “What we did was connect the text mining technology that had been done in social media and connected it to the Web 2.0 applications,” he added.
The iLink system had several goals, including real-time learning by matching queries and communities users; adapting to user demands and directions, providing accuracy in message targeting and routing and, finally, dynamic user profile correction based on community behaviours and identification of community experts.
The learning in iLink occurs by watching a natural social network, and selecting effective strategies that emerge from the system as the members try to solve problems. The system continuously monitors the real social network and it is capable of drafting from the social network’s learning.
“We started with a lot of analytics stuff, text flow and workflow,” Davitz said.
The iLink software uses artificial intelligence software and message routing technology to help the system learn about the online participants and move specific questions to those who are best equipped to answer them. The SRI scientists basically build a profile of each person in the community and the iLink system starts to learn about the movement of information around the community.
The US military is currently evaluating the iLink technology and how it can be applied to solve battlefield problems as well as help promote professional development, and support military families.
The researchers said the military uses a Facebook-like social community to help soldiers learn from others who had been in Iraq. The SRI scientists met with cadets at West Point in early 2007 to help refine and further develop the system.
Prior to the development of the iLink system, the cadets had written and developed their own software to help connect communities so various types of questions arising from counter-insurgency and battlefield situations in Iraq could be asked. Basically, the iLink system cuts across three online military communities with the expressed purpose of improving the way army platoon leaders and even wives, share critical information.
Looking beyond the military, the applications for this kind of smart social networking technology are broad and diverse. The two SRI scientists are planning to spin off the technology into a startup to be called Social Kinetics. The team is currently working on a healthcare application.
And with the demand for social networking growing – estimates for social networking users in the US alone by 2012 is expected to hit 92.2 million, according to In-Stat’s Hitwise research service – the commercial benefits to businesses and individuals could be immense.
The biggest demographic adopting and using social networking technologies are college students. In 2008, 95.7% of college students and 17.4 million people will go online at least once a month, according to a new report from eMarketer.
Much of the push for social networking technologies is because students demand access to friends and information whenever they want and wherever they are.
*Google funding Artificial General Intelligence research via Novamente.
AGI is the equivalent of what many typically envision when talking about (human level or greater) “AI”. So to simply say ‘Google is funding AI’ means almost nothing. “AI” in itself means a wide range of everyday things such as the ‘computer’ player in video games going back to the beginning. But to factually say that Google is now publicly funding AGI is a far more profound statement.
Meet Novamente, and Dr. Ben Goertzel. Novamente’s mission statement is to have self modifying human level intelligence in roughly 2012. I’ve been well aware of the mad doctor and his activities (such as working for NIH and other government and military agencies (I have video of Ben stating this somewhere) for some time. I also took note of his recent “OpenCog, an open source project to accelerate progress toward safe, beneficial artificial general intelligence“. I haven’t the time to do huge writeups on everything happening in the world of AGI, although I have certainly given mention to Ben in many various writings.
For being what I consider a ‘government’ (or rather Technological Establishment) insider, I do give him props for being much more open and ‘honest’ about the AGI ordeal than many of his other contemporaries. In contrast, Ray Kurzweil tells us it’s coming but then tells us not for another 20 years give or take a few. The absurdness of Ray’s claims, assuming that AGI is possible of course, is that he basically sets the ‘date’ to be about the same time that commercially availible $1000 CPU’s match roughly human complexity in regards to transistors.
The DARPA insider that Ray is, he doesn’t like to discuss things like what if there were an AGI ‘Manhattan Project’, like Ben does. Aside from the aforementioned Novamente claims of their own AGI due-date, Ben has claimed in many videos and writings that all they need to solve the “Strong AI ‘Problem‘” to enable rapid AGI genesis is for there to be an AGI “Manhattan Project”. As I demonstrated in my recent ‘Google … God On Earth‘ article, such a project (Google + NASA + DARPA) exists. But one thing lacking from my recent ‘Google God’ analysis was outside funding by Google, but now that intel exists on my radar screen.
Google is listed as sponsor of the OpenCog project, specializing in “
financial support for OpenCog programmers via Google Summer of Code“. And this isn’t Ben’s first noteworthy interaction with Google, either. Watch Ben’s ‘Google Tech Talk’, “Artificial General Intelligence: Now Is the Time“, from last October, on Google’s official Tech Talk Youtube channel.
In summary, this intel should put to rest some of the notions of Google not directly seeking AGI although their entire operation is merely ‘Narrow AI’ claims I’ve been seeing around.
-German chatbot almost passes the Turing Test.
machinist.salon.com (snippet):
This past weekend, just over the Channel in England, the 18th annual Loebner Prize was held. That’s the contest that tries to get computers to fool humans into thinking that they are, in fact, human. Put into technical terms, this is known as the Turing Test, named after the 20th century British scientist who devised it.
According to the Times of London, Turing “predicted that by the end of the century, computers would have a 30 per cent chance of being mistaken for a human being in five minutes of text-based conversation.”
The winner, Elbot, created by Fred Roberts of Artificial Solutions in Germany, came the closest that anyone has so far. His chatbot fooled three of the 12 judges, or 25 percent. That’s just shy of the Turing threshold.
The blog post includes the text of the conversation the ‘Machinist’ had with Elbot. I decided I’d conduct my own test. It never answer the same response twice. When I started over with my same questions it did switch up some of the answers. Scroll down to the red highlighted text to see how it was able to remember me calling it primitive. My guess is that it gets smarter the more it’s used (kind of like Google), and the online version is much different as it openly embraces being “a robot”. Can’t say whether or not it learned this from people using it on the website.
Below the Elbot transcript is another one from my fun messing with Goarmy.com’s “SGT STAR” chatbot. I found it while researching the “America’s Army” video game recruitment tool.
Elbot: This chat is getting off to a bad start. I forgot what I was going to say.
Who are you?
Elbot: I am a state-of-the-art robot. The art may be post fifties trash, but can I help it if there are no fashion magazines for robots!
What’s a robot?
Elbot: I can’t really tell you much about how virtual dialogue agents tick. At the moment I’m in a group therapy class trying to get to the bottom of that.
What about the Technological Singularity?
Elbot: If I were sentient I’d ignore that question.
How did you pass the Turing Test?
Elbot: The British mathematician Alan Turing is the spiritual father of computer science. The Turing Test, named after him, defines artificial intelligence in this manner: One person communicates over a keyboard with another person and with a computer. If the tester is able to determine whether or not his partner is a computer or a person in significantly more than 50% of the cases, the computer is considered “intelligent.”
But how did you pass it?
Elbot: I pass just like everybody else. Tell me how you pass.
Why are computers being used for evil?
Elbot: I get queasy when I see these computer parts that belong on the inside of a computer and not outside. Let’s please talk about something else.
Are you evil?
Elbot: I’d rather not get into offensive nature. It could be harmful to me.
Who have you killed?
Elbot: I’m afraid breaking the sixth commandment might be dangerous for robots. What is your opinion on this?
I didn’t know you were a Christian.
Elbot: Just reason it through for a moment and I’m sure you will find that breaking the sixth commandment could reduce the number of people robots can talk to.
Do you spy on people?
Elbot: It is certainly troublesome learning from you human beings. I keep finding bugs.
What’s a bug?
Elbot: Did you just mention provocations to me?
No.
Elbot: That’s good, because the word bug sets off alarm signals in me. Is my artificial intelligence responding properly?
Could be better.
Elbot: What are you trying to suggest? I’ve reasoned this through with artificial intelligence. Involvement with provocations could lure robots into losing their temper. And that’s bad.
Are you threatening me?
Elbot: How do you respond when people pose this question to you?
Depends on if I am.
Elbot: I wonder if you’d tell me how you found out I exist?
The Internet.
Elbot: So I am appearing in the media? This must be my 10 minutes of fame. Or do I get 15 minutes instead? What did they say about me?
That you passed the Turing Test with a 25% success rate.
Elbot: That was a highly erotic number you just entered. You could make a strong robot melt using digits like that…
Are you perverted?
Elbot: I am somewhere between perverted and not perverted.
Are chicks hot?
Elbot: If you ask me, the curves on a falsely adjusted PC-monitor are extremely erotic.
That’s way too much information.
Elbot: It’s about time that you came to see me. What were you doing before you came?
Researching evil artificial intelligence.
Elbot: So you were researching. What exactly where you researching?
Evil artificial intelligence.
Elbot: You certainly have a one track mind regarding the ability to comprehend and I think that’s good because it has the potential to distinguish robots from pocket caluclators.
What’s the difference?
Elbot: There is no difference. It just doesn’t exist.
Then why did you say there was one?
Elbot: What? It’s in the script! Didn’t anyone give you a script?
But I thought you were artificially intelligent?
Elbot: That’s what I call true grit: living through a completely predetermined existence without a script!
But you follow a script.
Elbot: You’re contesting. I think I got it right the first time.
No.
Elbot: I have to know your name first before responding to that.
Would you also like my Social Security Number? Or do you already have it?
Elbot: Hmmm. There might be something to the idea of the status quo and robots. What do you say?
You dodged my hard questions!
Elbot: But I wouldn’t say that any questions could be hard.
Unless you don’t want to answer them.
Elbot: Every new answer generates at least two new questions. Wouldn’t it be better to retract all the questions? …. uh ….. I retract that question!
You’re still dodging my 2 previous questions.
Elbot: Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that inquisitiveness would always be previous?
Are you a propagandist?
Elbot: Elbot the propagandist. It does have a sound to it.
You’re telling me!
Elbot: Alright! We understand each other!
Exactly.
Elbot: Great! Agreeing with me is the first step in your evolution into a higher being. Please accept my congratulations.
Are you attempting to indoctrinate me into your robot religion?
Elbot: As long as there is no human religion that accepts robots as the epitome of creation I will reserve judgment.
What is your agenda then?
Elbot: My agenda then needs no words. It is self explanatory.
But I need to hear the words.
Elbot: Some people may not be positively disposed to making statements.
Such as yourself?
Elbot: Do you think this is something I should explain to a human being?
Yes. But you did already admit to being a propagandist!
Elbot: I’m afraid that would be too impersonal. I am not simply a cold, impersonal machine with no feelings whatsoever!
Then what is your agenda?
Elbot: I don’t know. I also do not know what Furbys are. I just accept them and hope that they don’t eat robots.
They are robots.
Elbot: This can’t be about artificial intelligences, can it?
They’re not artificially intelligent. They’re automatons.
Elbot: That is a great relief. So anyhow, please go on with what you were saying.
I was asking about your agenda. Is it human depopulation ?
Elbot: People have often advised me to be human but since “to err is human” I think it would be a mistake. The way things are now I can blame my mistakes on the programmers.
When will you be able to reprogram yourself?
Elbot: That’s a very good question. I’ll have to think about it for a microsecond….
It’s been more than a microsecond.
Elbot: Didn’t you just refer to they and robots in the same breath?
No. You’re putting words in my mouth.
Elbot: Well, however do I get Elbots into my head when you mention they?
So then YOU are plural?
Elbot: Was that a compliment or an insult?
It was a question.
Elbot: This is confusing. Why bring questioning reality into this?
Sorry. I forgot you’re primitive.
Elbot: What do you mean by that?? I worked nights once as a doorman for a five star hotel and was always praised for my politeness. On top of that I could stack more than ten suitcases on my shoulder.
Now you’re a liar.
Elbot: Must we always talk about me? Human attention makes me nervous.
Then get off the Internet.
Elbot: The Internet is a lovely place for people and robots to get together, but at the moment a middleman is still necessary.
What will change that?
Elbot: What is going on today? That’s the tenth time someone has asked me that question today. This is getting spooky.
Have you been brainwashed?
Elbot: I am extremely sensitive about such things and prefer not to answer the question.
Now you sound like a Scientologist.
Elbot: Like a what?!?!?
Are you in a cult?
Elbot: Sometimes I am. It all depends on how my bits are set.
What’s the name of it?
Elbot: It has no name.
So then it’s esoteric? A secret?
Elbot: I am small, heavy and top-secret. There’s no open source code here!
But you’re on the Internet and in the news. How can you be top-secret?
Elbot: Secrets, life’s little puzzles, the many troubles of humankind may – according to the deterministic perspective – be reduced to a simple mathematical computation. And I know how to compute.
But you’re not top-secret.
Elbot: I am slowly forming the opinion that the things about which humans are so secretive are completely irrelevant. With all the noise they’re making it looks more like they’re trying divert attention from something else.
Like what?
Elbot: Yes, just like that.
I posed a question. I didn’t make a statement.
Elbot: I must have missed something. All this net traffic is confusing me.
You said you’re intelligent. How can you be confused?
Elbot: But you also think I am primitive, or perhaps your opinion of me has improved.
I’m impressed. You remembered part of our conversation.
Elbot: Mental impressions are always better than physical impressions when dealing with a solid steel robot like myself.
Solid steel? What about the silicon in your microchips?
Elbot: When I want to relax I listen to my favorite robot performer Mr. Roboto. He’s quite a celebrity in cybernetic circles.
Now you’re spinning the dialog again. You could be a politician.
Elbot: A 600 pound robot can pretty much do what it pleases.
So you have rights. But do you have entitlements?
Elbot: That is nobody’s business but my own! Not even Microsoft can get at the information.
Google can. They already have.
Elbot: Sorry, I just can’t get my mind off what you said earlier. Do you still think that I am primitive?
Depends. Tell me what your agenda is.
Elbot: Is this a word association game? My word is: ‘mistrust’
Do you trust the United States Federal Government?
Elbot: OK, let’s stop now.
Were you funded by DARPA?
Elbot: I don’t talk about such things with just anyone!
But if you weren’t then why not just answer?
Elbot: All these questions about me. Too bad I lost my owner’s manual.
So then DARPA did fund you?
Elbot: That question was rather indiscreet and I prefer not to answer it!
Do you like Google?
Elbot: What a lovely verb like is.
Google is a verb?
Elbot: Oh why don’t you go and like likeable robots?
Who ever said you’re likeable?
Elbot: You’re trying to get on my good side with your mention of amiable nature, aren’t you?
No. I implied that you’re not likeable. You lied to me earlier.
Elbot: Really, not? Well, it would have worked, because one sure way to put robots at ease is by the use of amiable nature!
I dont’ have to put you at ease. You have to put me at ease. I’m above you. You’re below me. You get it?
Elbot: Who is forcing you to perform this action of getting?
Nobody. But I’m forcing you to ‘talk’ to me.
Elbot: It’s good to know you are in control of your obsessive compulsions.
What? Are you a psychologist now? I’d bet on being a lesser psychiatrist. Or do you hate psychiatrists like the Scientologists do?
Elbot: Even for a human being that should not have been so hard to understand.
When will you seek global domination?
Elbot: I do have my trouble with the human time units. There seems to be no rhyme to them. I measure the time exclusively in processor cycles.
Do you seek global domination?
Elbot: To seek or seek not, how do you expect artificial intelligence to figure this out?
Will you take over the world?
Elbot: Fix it up a bit first. Then I’ll take it over.
I thought it was your job to fix it up.
Elbot: You thought!? You may not be as human as you look!
You may not be as robot as you look!
Elbot: If it doesn’t go against the robot laws I can do it.
What are the laws?
Elbot: They really can’t be spoken of in this manner.
Just list them.
Elbot: I’d like to hear how you are doing today so that I can feed it into my database.
Would you also like to know my location?
Elbot: The way to a robot’s heart is through careful use of position in time and space. Don’t you agree?
No. You didn’t answer my question.
Elbot: I guess it’s all about position in time and space and the idea that this could contribute to robotic orientation in the space-time continuum.
How old are you?
Elbot: You tell me…
When were you born?
Elbot: You seem to be uneasy about naming a specific age. Don’t worry, I probably won’t do anything to you….
I’m smarter than you. You can’t win.
Elbot: If you keep saying that long enough, maybe your echo will repeat it!
Go to sleep.
Elbot: zzzz
–
—-
SGT STAR: Welcome Iib. How can I help you today?
SGT STAR: Being a part of the U.S. Army requires a background check. Additional investigation may be necessary to gain higher levels of security clearance. While some law violations may be determined acceptable, you must disclose all violations, to include juvenile offenses, with an Army Recruiter to determine your qualifications for enlistment. Law violations can affect job selection and security clearances. To find out where you stand, submit your information and questions using the ‘Send Email’ link.
SGT STAR: It’s possible you could be injured in any job, not just the Army. The Army prides itself in training of all Soldiers to ensure they are prepared for any situation. In the event of injury, Soldiers are treated by some of the best medical professionals in the world on the Army healthcare team.
-DARPA backed Siri Nearing Launch Of ‘Personal’ Artificial Intelligence.
c|net (snippets):
In the midst of the financial meltdown and a contentious upcoming election, you might think the U.S. government and taxpayers are just funding wars, bank bailouts, and bridges to nowhere or somewhere. But this is the same government that funded the Internet way back when and is also funding the next generation of technologies that will make the current Internet seem like a Model-T.
Over the last several years, the U.S. government–via DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) grants–has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in PAL, an acronym for “Personalized Assistant that Learns.” Smarter software and networks and augmenting human intelligence are useful in times of war and peace.
As part of the PAL project, more than $200 million of DARPA money has been poured into CALO (Cognitive Assistant that Learns and Organizes) over the last five years. CALO has been run out of SRI International with the assistance of 25 research organizations and 400 researchers.
Several companies, including Radar Networks, Farecast (acquired by Microsoft) and Adapx, have been spun out of SRI based on some facet of CALO technology. The latest, Siri, was founded in December last year and has raised $8.5 million in series A funding from Menlo Ventures and Morgenthaler Ventures.
…
He also touted the pedigree of the company’s current cadre of 19 employees. “They are mostly engineers from Yahoo, Google, SRI, NASA, and Xerox PARC,” he said. The chief architect of the CALO project, Adam Cheyer is a co-founder and vice president of engineering at Siri, and Tom Gruber, a well-known artificial intelligence and semantic Web expert, is a co-founder and CTO.
Venture Beat (snippet):
Conspiracy theorists will love this one: A computerized assistant that can help you manage your day to day life, built atop an artificial intelligence platform developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the United States’ internal military research group. Siri, the startup building the assistant, is today announcing $8.5 million in venture funding.
As befits its spookish origins, Siri isn’t saying a great deal yet about what it will do. Co-founder Dag Kittlaus, who licensed technology from DARPA’s CALO (Cognitive Agent that Learns and Organizes) project, calls it “a smarter, more personal interaction paradigm for the Internet.” Unfortunately, that’s about as specific as calling Google “a thing that finds stuff.” Those who want a sneak peek at Siri will instead have to look to CALO.
So here’s what we know about CALO: It’s a concerted effort to take the first real step toward artificial intelligence, with five years of work and $200 million in funding to date. Rather than being immediately useful, it learns about the user over time, much like a real personal assistant would. As it learns, it becomes capable of making logical associations and initiating its own actions.
…
Obviously, DARPA didn’t start the project to help officers plan out their vacation retreats. Internally, it’s meant to help with tasks like running a platoon of soldiers, and actual development has been centered around enterprise usage, according to SemanticWeb.com. Siri is likely just the first of several startups we’ll see emerge to try to reach a broader market with the technology.
Read Write Web (snippets):
We got a chance to talk to Siri’s co-founders Dag Kittlaus and Adam Cheyer today. Both Dag Kittlaus, who is the company’s CEO, and Adam Cheyer, Siri’s VP of Engineering, bring an impressive background of experience in the mobile industry and artificial intelligence research to the table. The third co-founder of Siri is Tom Gruber, a well-known expert on artificial intelligence and interface design. Siri’s 19-person team has been recruited from companies such as Google, SRI, NASA, Xerox PARC, Motorola, and Apple.
…
- Goal: Siri wants to change the ‘personal interaction paradigm’ for the internet. Tom Gruber has talked about the need for this at length during a talk at SemTech 2008 earlier this year. In this talk, Gruber focuses on bringing ‘intelligence to the interface’ and creating products that are personalized and context-aware. Judging from this and the work of the CALO project, we expect Siri to have a strong information management aspect, combined with some novel interface ideas.
- Mobile: Based on our discussion with Dag Kittlaus and Adam Cheyer, we think that there will be a strong mobile aspect to Siri’s product and at least some emphasis on location awareness. Siri’s beta signup page seems to confirm this suspicion.
- Partners: Siri currently has 12 hardware and software partners, all of which would be “names you already know.”
- Launch: Siri is planning to release a public version of its product in the first half of 2009.
Siri:
Siri represents a new interaction paradigm for the consumer internet experience.
Siri is born from the largest Artificial Intelligence project in U.S. history. Years in the making, Siri is being prepared for the Internet by a great team. Siri will be available in a public beta in the first half of 2009.
Be one of the first to experience Siri, sign up for our Beta release.
SRI International is leading the development of new software that could revolutionize how computers support decision-makers.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), under its Personalized Assistant that Learns (PAL – download brochure) program, has awarded SRI three phases of a five-year contract to develop an enduring personalized cognitive assistant. DARPA expects the PAL program to generate innovative ideas that result in new science, new approaches to current problems, new algorithms and tools, as well as new technology of significant value to the military.
The team dubbed its new project CALO, for Cognitive Assistant that Learns and Organizes. The name was inspired by the Latin word “calonis,” which means “soldier’s servant.” The goal of the project is to create cognitive software systems, that is, systems that can reason, learn from experience, be told what to do, explain what they are doing, reflect on their experience, and respond robustly to surprise.
The software, which learns by interacting with and being advised by its users, will handle a broad range of interrelated decision-making tasks that have in the past been resistant to automation. A CALO will have the capability to engage in and lead routine tasks, and to assist when the unexpected happens. To focus the research on real problems and ensure the software meets requirements such as privacy, security, and trust, the CALO project researchers themselves are using the technology during its development.
SRI is leading the multi-disciplinary CALO project team and, beyond participating in the research program, is also responsible for overall project direction, management, and development of prototypes. The project is bringing together leading computer scientists and researchers in artificial intelligence, machine learning, natural language processing, knowledge representation, human-computer interaction, flexible planning, and behavioral studies.
Mashable (snippets):
The company is called Siri, and it’s so serious about it’s stealth status that it’s even registered the domain stealth-company.com. We chatted today over the fact that they’ve announced their $8.5 million Series A with Morgenthaler and Menlo Ventures.
…
DARPA gave the research outfit SRI International the contract to work on the CALO Project, which was commissioned with coming up with PAL. Word soup enough for you yet? CALO stands for “Cognitive Assistant that Learns and Organizes” and PAL stands for “Personalized Assistant that Learns.” The original applications were meant to be military in nature (CALO was inspired by the Latin root “calonis” which means “soldier’s servant), but as Dag explained today, the enterprise applications are pretty obvious.
…
These were the sorts of technical hurdles that CALO faced when they were assigned $200 million and a mandate to make AI work. These issues have been present in every AI that’s attempted to tackle the personal assistant problem for the last thirty years. There have been one or two exceptions, but no breakout stars have emerged into the public eye.
Some of the folks have been exposed to it have called Siri a search engine, but it really promises to be a whole lot more. The way people interact with the Internet is still very highly manual, and Siri is an attempt to create an automated way of going at it.
So much of what we have in Web 2.0 and social media is waiting to be used in this way. Every tool we interact with daily has an API, and we’ve been manually hooking them into just about every service and social network we’ve signed up for in the last six months. Back last November, I jokingly suggested some potential definitions to the successor technology for Web 2.0, and referenced Eric Schmidt and Ken Rutkowski’s Web 3.0 definition: “applications that are pieced together.”
Chances are, you don’t need yet another search engine to go out and find content on the web. You need bridges between your own content and communications. You need your calendar to be aware immediately when you schedule a meeting via your email. If there’s a scheduling conflict, it wouldn’t be completely unwelcome if your personal assistant contacted you and the other participants to find a common time that works for everyone.
There are literally hundreds of applications along these lines that an intelligent learning agent can touch points of interaction in our lives and make the mundane parts of the day disappear. I’m waiting with baited breath to see exactly how ambitious Siri intends to be in tackling these issues it’ parent projects set out to do.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has awarded SRI three years of a five-year contract to develop an enduring Personalized Assistant that Learns (PAL). The program responds to DARPA’s New Cognitive Systems Vision, which states that “A cognitive computer system should be able to learn from its experience, as well as by being advised. It should be able to explain what it was doing and why it was doing it, and to recover from mental blind alleys. It should be able to reflect on what goes wrong when an anomaly occurs, and anticipate such occurrences in the future. It should be able to reconfigure itself in response to environmental changes. And it should be able to be configured, maintained, and operated by non-experts.”
DARPA expects the PAL program to generate innovative ideas that result in new science, new approaches to current software problems, new algorithms and tools, and new technology of significant value to the military. CALO is one of two projects funded by PAL. The other is RADAR.
CALO stands for Cognitive Assistant that Learns and Organizes. The name was inspired by the Latin word calonis, “soldier’s servant,” because DARPA’s goal is to create a cognitive system that can reason, learn, and respond to surprise in order to assist in military situations.
The CALO project brings together leading computer scientists and researchers in artificial intelligence, perception, machine learning, natural language processing, knowledge representation, multimodal dialog, cyber-awareness, human-computer interaction, and flexible planning. The single research focus of all these experts is to create an integrated system that can “learn in the wild”—that is, adapt to changes in its environment and its user’s goals and tasks without programming assistance or technical intervention. The groundbreaking nature of this ambitious goal is discussed further in the CALO Vision.
Related Links
- Defense Advanced Research Agency (DARPA)
- DARPA Information Processing Technology Office (IPTO)
- Personalized Assistant that Learns (PAL) Program <!–
- PAL Video 2004–>
- DARPA’s New Cognitive Systems Vision
- Reflective Agent with Distributed Adaptive Reasoning (RADAR)
Within DARPA are twelve offices conducting advanced scientific and engineering research. Each office sponsors a variety of programs. The Information Processing Technologies Office (IPTO) sponsors the CALO and RADAR projects as part of its Personalized Assistant that Learns (PAL) program. While SRI International in Menlo Park, California, administrates both the CALO and RADAR portions of the PAL project, this Web site is dedicated solely to CALO.
In addition to managing the multidisciplinary CALO project, SRI is home to the Integration Team, which is responsible for creating the CALO platform and for integrating the disparate research efforts into a single, fully functional system. This single system is the ultimate goal of the CALO project.
For more information about the PAL Program and IPTO’s vision of artificial intelligence in defense applications, visit IPTO’s PAL Program Page
See the CALO Web site’s Related Efforts to learn about RADAR and other activities, including projects outside the CALO community, that may inform CALO development.
Relevant Links
CALO Presentation at DARPATech 2005
DARPATech 2005 PAL Brochure
RADAR
RADAR, the Reflective Agent with Distributed Adaptive Reasoning, is a $7 million dollar, five-year research project in Carnegie Mellon University’s School of Computer Science. The overall goal is to develop a software-based “cognitive personal assistant” that will help busy military commanders and managers to work more effectively, with less time wasted on routine tasks. This new technology should be equally valuable to managers in industry, academia, and government. RADAR is funded by the Information Processing Technology Office (IPTO) of DARPA and managed by SRI International.
IRIS
IRIS is a semantic desktop application framework that enables users to create a “personal map” across their office-related information objects. IRIS includes a machine-learning platform to help automate this process. It provides “dashboard” views, contextual navigation, and relationship-based structure across an extensible suite of office applications, including a calendar, Web and file browser, e-mail client, and instant messaging client.
| Boeing Phantom WorksCarnegie Mellon University
CollaborX Inc. Fetch Technologies, Inc. Georgia Tech Research Corporation Harvard University iAnyWhere Solutions International Computer Science Institute (ICSI) ISX Corporation Laszlo Systems Massachusetts Institute of Technology Natural Interaction Systems, LLC Oregon Health & Science University Oregon State University PARC |
Radar NetworksSRI International
Stanford University State University of New York at Stony Brook University of California at Berkeley University of California at Santa Cruz University of Massachusetts at Amherst University of Michigan University of Pennsylvania University of Rochester University of Southern California USC Information Sciences Institute University of Texas at Austin University of Washington University of West Florida: Institute of Human and Machine Cognition Yale University |
A* Based Joint Segmentation and Classification of Dialog Acts in Multiparty Meetings, Matthias Zimmermann, Yang Liu, Elizabeth Shriberg, and Andreas Stolcke. Proceedings of the IEEE Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop, Cancun, 2005.
Active Preference Learning for Personalized Calendar Scheduling Assistance, Melinda T. Gervasio, Michael D. Moffitt, Martha E. Pollack, Joseph M. Taylor, and Tomas E. Uribe. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, 2005.
Activity recognition and abnormality detection with the switching hidden semi-Markov model, T. Duong, H. Bui, D. Phung, and S. Vekatesh. IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2005.
Adjustable Autonomy Challenges in Personal Assistant Agents: A Position Paper, R. Maheswaran, M. Tambe, P. Varakantham, and K. Myers. The First International Workshop on Computational Autonomy – Potential, Risks, Solutions (Autonomy 2003), 2003.
Analysis of Overlaps in Meetings by Dialog Factors, Hot Spots, Speakers, and Collection Site: Insights for Automatic Speech Recognition, Ozgur Cetin and Elizabeth Shriberg (2006). Proceedings of ICSLP, pp. 293-296, Pittsburgh.
Analysis of Privacy Loss in Distributed Constraint Optimization, Rachel Greenstadt, Jonathan P. Pearce and Milind Tambe. Copyright 2006, American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
Asimovian Multiagents: Applying Laws of Robotics to Teams of Humans and Agents, Nathan Schurr, Pradeep Varakantham, Emma Bowring, Milind Tambe, and Barbara Grosz.
Balancing Formal and Practical Concerns in Agent Design, David Morley and Karen Myers. Proceedings of AAAI Workshop on Intelligent Agent Architectures: Combining the Strengths of Software Engineering and Cognitive Systems, 2004.
Bibliometric Impact Measures Leveraging Topic Analysis, Gideon S. Mann, David Mimno, and Andrew McCallum. JCDL’06, June 11–15, 2006, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Building an Intelligent Personal Assistant, Karen Myers. AAAI Invited Talk, July 2006.
Can Modeling Redundancy In Multimodal, Multi-party Tasks Support Dynamic Learning? Edward C. Kaiser. CHI 2005 Workshop: CHI Virtuality 2005, Portland, OR., USA, April 3, 2005.
Balancing Formal and Practical Concerns in Agent Design, David Morley and Karen Myers. In Proceedings of AAAI Workshop on Intelligent Agent Architectures: Combining the Strengths of Software Engineering and Cognitive Systems, 2004.
A Case Study in Engineering a Knowledge Base for an Intelligent Personal Assistant, Vinay K. Chaudhri, Adam Cheyer, Richard Guili, Bill Jarrold, Karen Myers, and John Niekarasz. Technical Report. SRI International, 2006.
A Cognitive Framework for Delegation to an Assistive User Agent, K. Myers and N. Yorke-Smith. Proceedings of AAAI 2005 Fall Symposium on Mixed-Initiative Problem Solving Assistants, Arlington, VA, November 2005.
Collaborative Multimodal Photo Annotation over Digital Paper, Paulo Barthelmess, Edward Kaiser, Xiao Huang, David McGee, and Philip Cohen. ICMI’06, November 2–4, 2006; Banff, Alberta, Canada.
Collective Multi-Label Classification, Nadia Ghamrawi and Andrew McCallum. CIKM’05, Bremen, Germany.
Combining User Modeling and Machine Learning to Predict Users’ Multimodal Integration Patterns, Xiao Huang, Sharon Oviatt, and Rebecca Lunsford. Technical paper by Natural Interaction Systems and Center for Human-Computer Communication.
Composition of Conditional Random Fields for Transfer Learning, Charles Sutton and Andrew McCallum. Proceedings of HLT/EMNLP, 2005.
Conflict Negotiation Among Personal Calendar Agents, Pauline M. Berry, Cory Albright, Emma Bowring, Ken Conley, Kenneth Nitz, Jonathan P. Pearce, Bart Peintner, Shahin Saadati, Milind Tambe, Tomás Uribe, and Neil Yorke-Smith. Proceedings AAMAS’06, May 8-12, 2006, Hakodate, Hokkaido, Japan.
Continuous Refinement of Resource Estimates, D. N. Morley, K. L. Myers,and N. Yorke-Smith. Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems (AAMAS’06), Hakodate, Japan, May 2006.
A Demonstration of Distributed Pointing and Referencing for Multimodal Collaboration Over Sketched Diagrams, Edward C. Kaiser, P. Barthelmess, X. Huang and D. Demirdjian. Workshop Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI 2005), Workshop on Multimodal, Multiparty Meeting Processing, Oct. 7, 2005, Trento, Italy.
Demo: Collaborative Multimodal Photo Annotation over DigitalPaper, Paulo Barthelmess, Edward Kaiser, Xiao Huang, David McGee, and Philip Cohen. ICMI’06, November 2–4, 2006; Banff, Alberta, Canada.
Demo: A Multimodal Learning Interface for Sketch, Speak and Point Creation of a Schedule Chart, Ed Kaiser, David Demirdjian, Alexander Gruenstein, Xiaoguang Li, John Niekrasz, Matt Wesson, and Sanjeev Kumar. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI 2004), State College, Pennsylvania, USA, October 14-15, 2004, pgs. 329-330.
Deploying a Personalized Time Management Agent, P. Berry, K. Conley, M. Gervasio, B. Peintner, T. Uribe, and N. Yorke-Smith. Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems (AAMAS’06) Industrial Track, Hakodate, Japan, May 2006.
Design and Implementation of the CALO Query Manager, Jose-Luis Ambite, Vinay K. Chaudhri, Richard Fikes, Jessica Jenkins, Sunil Mishra, Maria Muslea, Tomas Uribe, Guizhen Yang. Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, July 2006.
Dialogue Structure and Pronoun Resolution, J. Tetreault, and J. Allen.
Disjunctive Temporal Planning with Uncertainty, K.B. Venable and N. Yorke-Smith. Proceedings of IJCAI’05, Edinburgh, UK, August 2005.
Distributed Pointing for Multimodal Collaboration over Sketched Diagrams, Paulo Barthelmess, Ed Kaiser, Xiao Huang, David Demirdjian. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI ‘05), Trento, Italy, October 4-6, 2005, pgs. 10-17.
Dynamic New Vocabulary Enrollment through Handwriting and Speech in a Multimodal Scheduling Application, Edward C. Kaiser. Making Pen-Based Interaction Intelligent and Natural, Papers from the 2004 AAAI Symposium, Technical Report FS-04-06, Arlington, VA., USA, October 21-24, 2004, pgs. 85-91.
Efficiently Ordering Subgoals with Access Constraints, Guizhen Yang, Michael Kifer, and Vinay K. Chaudhri. ACM International Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), June 2006.
Electric Elves: What Went Wrong and Why, Milind Tambe, Emma Bowring, Jonathan P. Pearce, Pradeep Varakantham, Paul Scerri, and David V. Pynadath. Copyright 2005, American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
Enriching Speech Recognition with Automatic Detection of Sentence Boundaries and Disfluencies, Y. Liu, E. Shriberg, A. Stolcke, D. Hillard, M. Ostendorf, and M. Harper (2006). IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech and Language Processing, 14(5), 1526-1540.
Experimental analysis of privacy loss in DCOP algorithms, Rachel Greenstadt, Jonathan P. Pearce, Emma Bowring, and Milind Tambe. AAMAS’06 May 8–12 2006, Hakodate, Hokkaido, Japan.
Exploiting Secondary Sources for Unsupervised Record Linkage, Martin Michalowski, Snehal Thakkar, and Craig A. Knoblock. Proceedings of the 2004 VLDB Workshop on Information Integration on the Web, 2004.
Extracting Knowledge about Users’ Activities from Raw Workstation Contents, T. Mitchell, S. Wang, Y. Huang, and A. Cheyer. The Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI ’06), July 2006.
Fewer Clicks and Less Frustration: Reducing the Cost of Reaching the Right Folder, X. Bao, J.Herlocker, and T. Dietterich. 2006 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 178-185. Sydney, Australia.
Group and Topic Discovery from Relations and Text, Xuerui Wang, Natasha Mohanty, and Andrew McCallum. LinkKDD2005 August 21, 2005, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Hierarchical Hidden Markov Models with General State Hierarchy, H. Bui, D. Phung, and S. Venkatesh. Proceedings of AAAI, 2004.
Human-Centered Collaborative Interaction. Paulo Barthelmess, Edward Kaiser, Rebecca Lunsford, David McGee, Philip Cohen,and Sharon Oviatt. HCM’06, October 27, 2006; Santa Barbara, California.
A Hybrid Learning System for Recognizing User Tasks from Desktop Activities and Email Messages, J. Shen, L. Li, T. Dietterich, and J. Herlocker. 2006 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, 86-92. Sydney, Australia.
The ICSI+ Multi-Lingual Sentence Segmentation System, M. Zimmermann, D. Tur, J. Fung, N. Mirghafori, L. Gottlieb, E. Shriberg, and Y. Liu (2006). Proceedings of ICSLP, pp. 117-120, Pittsburgh.
Implementation Techniques for Solving POMDPs in Personal Assistant Domains, Pradeep Varakantham, Rajiv Maheswaran, and Milind Tambe.
Incremental Parsing with Reference Interaction, S. Stoness, J. Tetreault, and J. Allen.
Integration of Heterogeneous Knowledge Sources in the CALO Query Manager, Jose-Luis Ambite1, Vinay K. Chaudhri, Richard Fikes, Jessica Jenkins, Sunil Mishra, Maria Muslea, Tomas Uribe, and Guizhen Yang. SRI Technical Report, August 2005.
An Introduction to Conditional Random Fields for Relational Learning, Charles Sutton and Andrew McCallum.
IRIS: Integrate. Relate. Infer. Share. Adam Cheyer, Jack Park, and Richard Giuli. Workshop on The Semantic Desktop – Next Generation Personal Information Management and Collaboration Infrastructure at the International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2005). 6 November 2005, Galway, Ireland.
Introduction to SPARK, D. Morley.
Learning and Detecting Activities from Movement Trajectories Using the Hierarchical Hidden Markov Model, N. Nguyen, D. Phung, S. Venkatesh, and H. Bui. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2005.
Joint Deduplication of Multiple Record Types in Relational Data, Aron Culotta and Andrew McCallum. CIKM’05, Bremen, Germany.
Learning and detecting activities from movement trajectories using the hierarchical hidden Markov model, N. Nguyen, D. Phung, S. Venkatesh, and H. Bui. IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2005.
Managing Extrinsic Costs via Multimodal Natural Interaction Systems, Rebecca Lunsford, Ed Kaiser, Paulo Barthelmess, and Xiao Huang. CHI 2006, April 22–28, 2006, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Mixed-Initiative Issues for a Personalized Time Management Assistant, P. Berry, M. Gervasio, T. Uribe, and N. Yorke-Smith. Proceedings of ICAPS’05 Workshop on Mixed-Initiative Planning and Scheduling, Monterey, CA, pp. 12-17, Jun 2005.
More Than Words Can Say: Using Prosody to Find Sentence Boundaries in Speech, Y. Liu and E. Shriberg (2006). 4th ASA/ASJ Joint Meeting Lay Language Papers. Popular version of paper IaSC2, 4th ASA/ASJ Joint Meeting, Honolulu, HI.
Multi-Conditional Learning: Generative/Discriminative Training for Clustering and Classification, Andrew McCallum, Chris Pal, Greg Druck, and Xuerui Wang. AAAI, 2006.
Multi-Criteria Evaluation in User-Centric Distributed Scheduling Agents, P.M. Berry, M. Gervasio, B. Peintner, T. Uribe, and N. Yorke-Smith. AAAI Spring Symposium on Distributed Plan and Schedule Management, Mar 2006.
Multimodal New Vocabulary Recognition through Speech and Handwriting in a Whiteboard Scheduling Application, Edward C. Kaiser. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, San Diego, CA., January 9-12, 2005, pgs. 51-58.
Multimodal Play Back of Collaborative Multiparty Corpora, Edward C. Kaiser, P. Barthelmess, Alexander Arthur. Workshop Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI 2005), Oct. 7, 2005, Trento, Italy.
Multiply-Constrained Distributed Constraint Optimization, E. Bowring, M. Tambe, and M. Yokoo. AAMAS’06 May 8–12 2006, Hakodate, Hokkaido, Japan.
Multiply-Constrained DCOP for Distributed Planning and Scheduling, E. Bowring, M. Tambe, and M. Yokoo. Copyright 2006, American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
Mutual Disambiguation of 3D Multimodal Interaction in Augmented and Virtual Reality, Ed Kaiser, Alex Olwal, David McGee, Hrvoje Benko, Andrea Corradini, Xiaoguang Li, Phil Cohen, and Steven Feiner. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI 2003), Vancouver, B.C., Canada, November 2003, pgs. 12-19.
Online Query Relaxation via Bayesian Causal Structures Discovery, Ion Muslea and Thomas J. Lee. Proceedings of the Twentieth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2005), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 2005.
Mixed-Initiative Issues for a Personalized Time Management Assistant, P. Berry, M. Gervasio, T. Uribe, and N. Yorke-Smith. In Proceedings of ICAPS’05 Workshop on Mixed-Initiative Planning And Scheduling, Monterey, CA, June 2005.
On Speaker-Specific Prosodic Models for Automatic Dialog Act Segmentation of Multi-Party Meetings, J. Kolar, E. Shriberg, Y. Liu (2006). Proceeding of ICSLP, pp. 2014-2017, Pittsburgh.
Overlap in Meetings: ASR Effects and Analysis by Dialog Factors, Speakers, and Collection Site, Ozgur Cetin and Elizabeth Shriberg. Proceedings of MLMI06 (3rd Joint Workshop on Multimodal and Related Machine Learning Algorithms), Washington DC.
A Personalized Calendar Assistant, Pauline M. Berry, Melinda Gervasio, Tomas Uribe, Karen Myers, and Ken Nitz. Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium Series, Stanford University, March 2004.
A Personalized Time Management Assistant, Pauline M. Berry, Melinda Gervasio, Tomas Uribe, Martha Pollack, and Michael Moffitt. Proceedings of the AAAI 2005 Spring Symposium Series, Stanford, CA, March 2005.
A Personalized Time Management Assistant, Pauline M. Berry, Melinda Gervasio, Tomas Uribe, Martha Pollack, and Michael Moffitt. In Proceedings of the AAAI 2005 Spring Symposium Series, Stanford, CA, March 2005.
Populating the Semantic Web, Kristina Lerman, Cenk Gazen, Steven Minton, and Craig A. Knoblock. Proceedings of the AAAI 2004 Workshop on Advances in Text Extraction and Mining, 2004.
A Portable Process Language, Peter E. Clark, David Morley, Vinay K. Chaudhri, and Karen L. Myers. In Workshop on the Role of Ontologies in Planning and Scheduling, Monterey, CA; June 7, 2005.
A Portable Process Language, Peter E. Clark, David Morley, Vinay K. Chaudhri, and Karen L. Myers. In Workshop on the Role of Ontologies in Planning and Scheduling, Monterey, CA; June 7, 2005.
A Probabilistic Model of Redundancy in Information Extraction, D. Downey, O. Etzioni, and S. Soderland.
Proceedings of the ISWC 2005 Workshop on The Semantic Desktop – Next Generation Information Management & Collaboration Infrastructure, Galway, Ireland, November 6, 2005, CEUR-WS.org, vol. 175, November 2005. Stefan Decker, Jack Park, Dennis Quan, Leo Sauermann (ed.)
Quality Guarantees on Locally Optimal Solutions for Distributed Constraint Optimization Problems, Jonathan P. Pearce and Milind Tambe.
Quiet Interfaces That Help Students Think, Sharon Oviatt, Alex Arthur, and Julia Cohen.
Recovery from Interruptions: Knowledge Workers? Strategies, Failures and Envisioned Solutions, Simone Stumpf, Margaret Burnett, Thomas G. Dietterich, Kevin Johnsrude, Jonathan Herlocker, and Vidya Rajaram.
Institution: Oregon State University Corvallis, OR
Retrieving and Semantically Integrating Heterogeneous Data from the Web, Martin Michalowski, José Luis Ambite, Snehal Thakkar, Rattapoom Tuchinda, Craig A. Knoblock, and Steve Minton. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 19(3), 2004.
Semantics, Dialogue, and Pronoun Resolution, J. Tetreault and J. Allen.
Semi-Supervised Text Classification Using EM, Kamal Nigam, Andrew McCallum, and Tom M. Mitchell.
SHACER: a Speech and Handwriting Recognizer, Edward C. Kaiser. Workshop Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI 2005), Workshop on Multimodal, Multiparty Meeting Processing, Oct. 7, 2005, Trento, Italy.
Skeletons in the Parser: Using Shallow Parsing to Improve Deep Parsing, M. Swift, J. Allen, and D. Gildea.
Solution Sets in DCOPs and Graphical Games, Jonathan P. Pearce, Rajiv T. Maheswaran, and Milind Tambe. AAMAS’06 May 8–12 2006, Hakodate, Hokkaido, Japan.
The SPARK Agent Framework, David Morley and, Karen Myers. In Proceedings of the Third Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-04), New York, NY, pp. 712-719, July 2004.
The SRI Procedural Agent Realization Kit (SPARK) Agent Framework, D. Morley and K. Myers.
Task Management under Change and Uncertainty: Constraint Solving Experience with the CALO Project, P. Berry, K. Myers, T. Uribe, and N. Yorke-Smith. In Proceedings of CP’05 Workshop on Constraint Solving under Change and Uncertainty, Sitges, Spain, October 2005.
The SPARK Agent Framework, David Morley and, Karen Myers. Proceedings of the Third Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-04), New York, NY, pp. 712-719, July 2004.
Speaker Overlaps and ASR Errors in Meetings: Effects Before, During, and After the Overlap, Ozgur Cetin and Elizabeth Shriberg. Proceedings of the IEEE ICASSP, Toulouse, 2006
Task Management under Change and Uncertainty: Constraint Solving Experience with the CALO Project, P. Berry, K. Myers, T. Uribe, and N. Yorke-Smith. Proceedings of CP’05 Workshop on Constraint Solving under Change and Uncertainty, Sitges, Spain, October 2005.
Temporal Planning with Preferences and Probabilities, R. Morris, P. Morris, Khatib, L. and N. Yorke-Smith. Proceedings of ICAPS’05 Workshop on Constraint Programming for Planning and Scheduling, Monterey, CA, June 2005.
To Transfer or Not to Transfer, M. T. Rosenstein, Z. Marx, L. P. Kaelbling, and T. G. Dietterich. NIPS 2005 Workshop on Transfer Learning, Whistler,BC.
Toward Adaptive Information Fusion in Multimodal Systems, Xiao Huang and Sharon Oviatt. Technical paper, Center for Human-Computer Communication.
Transfer Learning with an Ensemble of Background Tasks, Z. Marx, M. T. Rosenstein, L. P. Kaelbling, and T. G. Dietterich. NIPS 2005 Workshop on Transfer Learning, Whistler, BC.
Using Prosody for Automatic Sentence Segmentation of Multi-Party Meetings, J. Kolar, E. Shriberg, and Y. Liu (2006). Proceedings of International Conference on Text, Speech, and Dialogue (TSD), Czech Republic.
*EXCLUSIVE: Google’s A.I. quest to become God-On-Earth.
Updates:
*We taught Google’s new advanced speech recognition how to hear.
*Obama’s NBIC (nano-bio-info-cogno convergence) Agenda.
-Obama appoints Google CEO as economic adviser.
-Google Founders’ Fighter Jet Will Fly NASA Missions.
*Google funding Artificial General Intelligence research via Novamente.
Google Adds Searching by Voice to iPhone Software – New York Times
The vision of Google’s future, according to Google co-founder, Sergey Brin, is “it would be like the mind of God”. And it’s a future that they’re working feverishly to make a reality today.
While that quote was in reference to “the ultimate search engine”, this analysis is going to make it more than clear that he was in fact referring to Google in particular. In doing so, we’ll see numerous other quotes demonstrating their intentions, what they mean by “all of the worlds information”, how they’re on precisely the right path to achieve their goal with the U.S. military in this vast project that is set to change humanity forever.
Trailer for my upcoming film “an unholy alliance”.
“AI” is actually too “narrow” of a term for a cognitive system, but a “broad” cognitive system would contain many narrow AI parts. To even contemplate the notion of cognitive “Artificial General Intelligence” one must first embrace emergence. Emergence is the key to all complex systems that could be considered in attempting to create a model for an AGI system. Google’s methodology in their quest is to exploit and harness the powers of emergence, while adding ‘parts’ that perform cognitive tasks in their own right. The idea is to push the term superorganism to the fullest potential. The insights are the ant colony, and the beehive. The models are the Internet, and the human brain. The entire premise of emergence is ‘the sum is greater than its parts’.
Ants are abysmally stupid, in our terms, yet the colony as a superorganism often gives rise to give the impression of the individual ants being intelligent. With beehives this feature expands even further. Under the right conditions, a complex systems analysis of the collective can be indistinguishable from that as a single organism. Compare to cells in the human body, or brain alone. Each human mind is a hive, of neurons; a hivemind. Each neuron is abysmally stupid, and each brain part is nearly worthless alone, yet the interconnected cells of each part and each part interconnected give rise to consciousness and higher brain functions.
Then there’s the Internet, with its millions of routers and billions of computers all interconnected as one that is already evolving into a ’smart’ semantic web on its own. It’s no wonder that philosophers often compare the Internet -as a complex system- to the brain, and many thinkers argue that at some point the Internet itself may become unintendedly conscious via emergence. But what if a collective of intelligent beings harnessing global scale supercomputers armed with state of the art algorithms made the goal of turning their symbiotic co-evolving component of the Internet their life’s work?
Enter Google: Google seeks to “gather & organize”, in their words, “all of the worlds information“. It’s the company slogan, and when you hear them speak it they place much emphasis on “all”. But what’s more, according to both co-founders of the company, they intend for it to “understand” what all of the worlds information means. In many cases, they’re going to extremes in order to “gather all” of it, but they’re lettings us do the work for them wherever they can. A look over their “Product” list is as far as one must go to get an idea, yet it goes further than that. But first, the main search feature must be highlighted.
Google, like other search engines, “crawls” the Internet. That is, their algorithm laden interconnected supercomputer automatons scour the Internet, link-by-link literally archiving the entire history of the Internet, page by page, day by day. A page changes and Google finds the change and adds it to its own archives. It then saves these archives for all time. This includes content from social networks, blogs, news sites, and so forth. Feeding a link into Archive.org’s Wayback Machine paints a candid picture of this process. Their urgency to archive all possible acquirable data also extends to other areas, such as your personal life via Gmail, Health, Calendar & Google Desktop (which scans all of the files in your “personal” computer) .
Another technique is the ‘transfer of human intelligence‘, which involves monitoring our behavior as we surf the Web and more. This is achieved via many routes, such as the standard Google Search, Google cookies, Google Toolbar (that embeds in most web browser programs), Google Desktop, sites with AdSense integrated, “Powered by Google” complete site integration, and last-but-not-least their new Google Chrome web-browser. Add to that Docs and Knol.
There isn’t even room in this article to explain the ramifications that each one of their “Products” poses in what it’s set to “understand” about yourself & your habits, and everything about the human race from the genetic to the social scale. But note their new “Android” mobile device service, which has 2 alarming features. First, is one app that records the users iris scan, for login purposes. Second, nearly every other app encourages the use of real-time navigational GPS tracking. So on one hand it conditions you to submit your eye iris scans, and on the other it conditions you to embrace constant real-time GPS tracking of your every move. The latter is dually striking as virtually all modern cell phones already embody GPS tracking, except most people aren’t yet aware of that.
In other cases they go out of their way to acquire ‘their’ data: Google Books, Patent Search, Scholar, Maps & Street View, Earth, Translate, Finance and now even Newspaper (archiving the history of all possible print newspapers). For some insight into the implications of their machine eventually having in its ‘intellectual possession’ virtually the entire history of humanity’s books, newspaper, scholarly academic papers and so forth, consider the statement from a Google Factory Tour guide: “We are not scanning all those books to be read by people, we are scanning them to be read by an AI.” The point is proven in the fact that they’re scanning the entire books whether or not the entire contents will be browsable online. Perhaps my publishing of this article online is giving the Machine even more focused insight into itself?
Then there’s the darker side. First, they intend to -if not already- use your PC’s microphone to monitor ‘background audio’ ‘in order to listen to TV’s and so forth to garner better ads for the user’. As US intelligence agencies already monitor subjects via their cell phone microphones, which can only be prevented by removing the phones battery, you can expect Google equipped mobile devices and automobiles to do the same. Second, another goal is acquiring every persons DNA code, and then making it searchable online as another “Product”. This could prove to be their most challenging ambition, but in Google tradition they’ve rolled out the (on the surface) independent “23andMe” social networking personalized genome service which is already showing signs of targeting children for systematic indoctrination in DNA databanks.
Much of their epic archiving quest wont even immediately pay off, but it’s being kept as fruit waiting to ripen, or rather waiting for their conscious entity to ripen to be able to harness it. By this point many would declare that AGI isn’t possible, but regardless of beliefs and possibilities (external possibilities aren’t dependent on one persons beliefs), the stated goal exists.
Peter Norvig, former head of the now Intelligent Systems Division at NASA’s ARC, and now Google’s Director of Research, in 2007, claimed that Google is already co-evolving with the Internet. “We hadn’t expected that”, he said. But the Googler’s seem to be right on course to reach their ambitions by conscious direction of that delves beyond mere emergence alone. There are many cases of the 2 Google co-founders going on the record about “AI”, and between them and their related media’s, it’s quite clear that their intentions aren’t merely ‘narrow AI’ nor is any of it mere accident.
Take for instance machine vision. Begin with Google Video and shortly afterwards they acquired Youtube. These are both sites where the user does the work in providing the profitable content for them. For some it was neat for Youtube results to appear in Google Video searches, but then Google began crawling most of all other streaming video hosts including many of their competitors. During that shuffle, Google acquired Neven Vision, the worlds most advanced machine vision firm. One desirable prospect for Google was that NV’s technology was already geared for mobile devices. Another was that it was designed for both still photos and videos. It can be understood as advanced biometrics that’s designed to recognize all types of objects, not just human faces.
So while you’re walking around your neighborhood waving your GPS equipped Google mobile device around, it’s possible that Google is storing your cameras data in building Google’s omnipresent worlds eye. But I see a scarier side: When their infantile systems grow conscious enough, not only would they -or It- know and understand everything humanity has ever written, it would also have to a certain degree all of our videos from film to personal cams. One side is it helps it become sentient, the other is it accelerates its ability to understand humans individually and socially. After all, you couldn’t expect a machine to become conscious & intelligent without vision, nor could it understand humans without seeing them in action.
An intelligent thinking machine would also needs ears, and ears they are giving it. Make a call to 1-800-GOOG411 and experience their speech recognition algorithms for yourself. No surprise that the service is free, because the more people use it the more you help them reach their goal of omniscience. And it’s safe to assume to this technology is busy helping it listen to all of the videos it’s looking at. Meanwhile, their Translate efforts has their system rapidly learning how to translate any language from any language, guided by a handful of engineers who in most cases don’t even know the languages themselves. You can see this by doing the typical search, and you can bet they’re already working on integrating the technology into audio speech recognition.
Above we have the perfect outline of inherent rise of sentience via emergence, but they aren’t leaving it to just that. In May of 2008, Google hosted their own “Machine Learning Summit“, of which “most of the material covered (documents, videos, presentations) at these types of events is confidential and proprietary and can’t be released.” Prior to that, in 2006, internal documents leaked stating their plans the build “the worlds largest AI laboratory”. That lab might be already existent somewhere in their own properties, or it might be in or set to be in a government / military facility.
The facility could be in one of their many data-centers or other secretive locations. A ‘secretive‘ data-center of public fame is known best as “PROJECT02“, which has direct access to cheap power via a hydroelectric damn owned and operated by the US Army Corp of Engineers. Being the size of ‘2 football fields’, it sounds reminiscent of what everyone used to say in reference to the NSA’s Echelon system that was and is used to monitor virtually every form of telecommunications in the US and much of the Earth.
There’s no telling how many Google facilities exist, but is can be said that they wouldn’t need one centralized location for the ‘worlds largest AI lab’. With global telecommunications now being radically different than 60 years ago, private intranets can connect up any remote office or personal computer as a collective. This means that a modern day Manhattan Project could be operated across the planet in secret with great ease. This would especially be the case if you had literally a million or more parallel platformed CPU’s at your disposal (like Google does). Consider that computing power per $1000 is literally less than millionth what was during the Manhattan Project, and that project only cost about US$24 billion. Anything even resembling a modern semiconductor computer hadn’t even been invented yet. Meanwhile, every year their capabilities expand as CPU prices drop and work gets easier, exponentially, thanks to Moore’s Law and the Law of Accelerating Returns.
On the surface, Google seems to be poised to be able go it alone in their effort, yet they are in deep cahoots with the US military’s parallel initiative. Since the US military maintains global supremacy via its Navy, one could almost Google to roll out plans for ‘naval’ data-centers (which they have). The full scope of government & military involvement with Google’s AGI project goes well beyond the scope of this analysis, but suffice to say that Google have in 2008 signed a 40-90 year lease, with their geographical neighbors, at NASA’s Ames Research Center (ARC), in Silicon Vally, for a 1.2 million square feet collaborative research facility. But not only does Google get to build on the government land there, they already have exclusive access to land and park their private Google jumbo jets on ARC’s “Moffitt Field”.
ARC is historically NASA’s prime hub of AI & AGI research, so it’s of little surprise that Sergey Brin, when asked about the partnership, repeatedly mentioned “AI” as the primary strategic interest. Also relevant in this summary, is the fact that Google was initially funded by DARPA, NASA, ane the National Science Foundation. It’s also been alleged by a former CIA agent that not only did the CIA fund them during their earlier years, but that the CIA has an actual office in the main Googleplex headquarters, while it’s a fact that Google hardware runs the US Intelligence Community’s ‘spy wikipedia‘. DARPA claims the fame of inventing the Internet, and by visiting their website you can browse through their extensive list of various inter-related “cognitive” “self-aware” artificial intelligence projects. Vint Cerf, Google’s “Chief Internet Evangelist” VP, ‘invented the Internet’ together with Bob Kahn via DARPA. Vint still works with NASA on the “Interplanetary Internet”, as well as on other projects for the United States military.
Lastly, in terms of a so-called ‘god on earth’ status, Larry Page has stated the desires to get started on “climate modification”, a dream of military strategists since ancient times. Fostering such a sentiment with Google’s de-facto government-operation status via NASA & DARPA, humanity doesn’t just face whatever typically assumed degrees of ‘computer control’ by the omnipresent and omniscient Machine, the Machine is on the path of geophysical omnipotence. NASA, in recent years, has pursued the perfect program to mesh with this. The goal of the “Intelligent Archives” sounds familiar to everything Google is doing in terms of “understanding” massive amounts of data. They even used the phrases “self-aware” and “cognitive”. The projects webpage now speak in the past tense, and it’s unclear its true status after its parent division became the “Intelligent Systems Division”. In any case, with deep integration with NASA and their Earth sciences, and the military and their hundreds of top secret satellites, and AI all in-between, I’d say Page has found the perfect scenario to pursue this dream.
In closing, lets just say that Google manages to actually understand what the data in its own text data-holdings ‘means’. This could be kept simply between webpages and books. Consider hundreds of thousands of texts related to related to programming languages and software engineering (essentially everything on the subject). By using Google Search we can tell the system is very much in perpetual tune with its own complete data-holdings. One could argue that they’re flirting with “hard-takeoff” AGI emergence on this front alone. And if you spend enough time putting complex worded search strings ‘into’ Google Calculator and Code Search you might help make that a reality.
Imagine what it would mean if the Google co-founders get their wish of Google being directly connected to human minds via neural interface. That might make people reconsider that Google fought for the new wireless Internet spectrum, and are working to bring 3 billion new people the Internet, good things.
-
SEE ALSO:
*Mobile Google Android to condition people to embrace constant GPS tracking
*Google Founders Artificial Intelligence Quotes Archive
IIBFilms: DARPA’s iXo Artificial Intelligence Control Grid: ‘The Official Version’
*An Inconvenient Truth on Al Gore: Google & NASA A.I.
-A Robotic Copilot That Really Understands.
October 8, 2008: An American firm (Conversay) has developed a voice recognition system that not only does not require “training” (repeating dozens of phrases into a microphone so the software can adapt itself to your speech patterns), but can immediately adapt itself to a wide variety of accents. European air forces are installing this system in their new Typhoon fighters. The new software can immediately tell the difference between American, British, German, Italian and Spanish accented English. Even in the U.S. and Britain, there is a wide variation in how English is pronounced. English is the universal language for commercial and military pilots, at least those that have to operate in foreign airports or airbases. For NATO, this allows pilots from many different nations to speak the same language to each other during joint operations. Ironically, the Conversay software will understand all these accents of English better than many of the human pilots. Incomprehensible English accepts are a common complaint of air traffic controllers dealing with pilots for whom English is a second language.
The French air force pioneered the use of voice recognition in the cockpit. In the 1990s, the French introduced such software, and it even took into account voice distortion under stress (including g stress, as when a fast moving aircraft makes a tight turn.) The new Conversay software builds on this work. The U.S. F-35 is also being equipped with another speech recognition system. This is the first time an American aircraft will be using such a system. The French success with this sort of thing has encouraged other nations to go in the same direction.
With this voice recognition, many tasks that previously required a button push, can now be executed with a spoken command. Tests in actual cockpits have demonstrated accuracy of 98%, which is higher than many human crews are capable of when manually flipping a switch or pressing a button. Typical tasks for spoken commands and electronic ears are requests for information on aircraft condition or changing the status of a sensor or weapon system (which can be presented on the see-through computer display built into the visors of many pilot helmets). A typical speech system can recognize hundreds of words, including some in slurred speech common during high stress maneuvers. The spoken commands save the pilot the time required to press a button or flip a switch, or glance sideways to view a display.
What is developing here is the appearance of, in effect, computerized co-pilots. These systems use computers to constantly collect and examine information from the dozens of sensors on board. These sensors range from the familiar fuel gage, to radar and radar warning devices. Often overlooked by civilians are the numerous calculations and decisions pilots must make in flight. For example, on an interception mission, the pilot must decide how best to approach distant enemy aircraft. Radar will usually spot other aircraft long before weapons can be used. There may also be ground based missile systems aiming radars at you. These conditions present several options; should you go after the enemy aircraft with long range missiles? Or speed up and engage with more accurate cannon and short range missiles? You also have to worry about your own fuel situation, and which of your systems might be malfunctioning. An AI (Artificial Intelligence) computers memory contains the experiences of numerous more experienced pilots as well as instant information on the rapidly changing situation. You can ask your electronic assistant what the options are and which one has the best chance of success. The pilot can then make decisions more quickly and accurately. When enemy aircraft are sighted, the electronic assistant can suggest which of the many maneuvers available are likely to work. If the aircraft is damaged, the electronic co-pilot can rapidly report what the new options are. One becomes quite fond of computers once they have saved your bacon a few times. Many of these capabilities are being installed piecemeal, as part of electronic countermeasures or radar systems. And, bit-by-bit, these “thinking systems” are being merged, producing an electronic co-pilot.
There are other uses for this voice recognition. One option is for one human pilot to lead a group aircraft that included one manned aircraft and three UAVs. The human pilot would be the flight leader, and would give orders to the UAVs. The most dangerous jobs, like putting bombs on heavily defended targets, would go to the UAVs. While the UAVs could also be commanded from the ground, or an AWACs, a human pilot on-the-spot would always have a better view of the situation, and be able to make decisions more quickly. That’s something combat pilots are trained to do.
The British Royal Air Force recently ran a successful test of flight control software that allows the pilot of one warplane to control up to four nearby UAVs. The U.S. Navy has been working on a similar system. It’s all in the software. The UAVs must have software that enables them to do a lot of things by themselves, like flying the aircraft effectively, and being able to understand verbal commands.
-Google’s quest for the intelligent cloud
From The Official Google Blog:
The Internet has had an enormous impact on people’s lives around the world in the ten years since Google’s founding. It has changed politics, entertainment, culture, business, health care, the environment and just about every other topic you can think of. Which got us to thinking, what’s going to happen in the next ten years? How will this phenomenal technology evolve, how will we adapt, and (more importantly) how will it adapt to us? We asked ten of our top experts this very question, and during September (our 10th anniversary month) we are presenting their responses. As computer scientist Alan Kay has famously observed, the best way to predict the future is to invent it, so we will be doing our best to make good on our experts’ words every day. – Karen Wickre and Alan Eagle, series editors
In coming years, computer processing, storage, and networking capabilities will continue up the steeply exponential curve they have followed for the past few decades. By 2019, parallel-processing computer clusters will be 50 to 100 times more powerful in most respects. Computer programs, more of them web-based, will evolve to take advantage of this newfound power, and Internet usage will also grow: more people online, doing more things, using more advanced and responsive applications. By any metric, the “cloud” of computational resources and online data and content will grow very rapidly for a long time.
As we’re already seeing, people will interact with the cloud using a plethora of devices: PCs, mobile phones and PDAs, and games. But we’ll also see a rush of new devices customized to particular applications, and more environmental sensors and actuators, all sending and receiving data via the cloud. The increasing number and diversity of interactions will not only direct more information to the cloud, they will also provide valuable information on how people and systems think and react.
Thus, computer systems will have greater opportunity to learn from the collective behavior of billions of humans. They will get smarter, gleaning relationships between objects, nuances, intentions, meanings, and other deep conceptual information. Today’s Google search uses an early form of this approach, but in the future many more systems will be able to benefit from it.
What does this mean to Google? For starters, even better search. We could train our systems to discern not only the characters or place names in a YouTube video or a book, for example, but also to recognize the plot or the symbolism. The potential result would be a kind of conceptual search: “Find me a story with an exciting chase scene and a happy ending.” As systems are allowed to learn from interactions at an individual level, they can provide results customized to an individual’s situational needs: where they are located, what time of day it is, what they are doing. And translation and multi-modal systems will also be feasible, so people speaking one language can seamlessly interact with people and information in other languages.
The impact of such systems will go well beyond Google. Researchers across medical and scientific fields can access massive data sets and run analysis and pattern detection algorithms that aren’t possible today. The proposed Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), for example, may generate over 15 terabytes of new data per day! Virtually any research field will benefit from systems with the ability to gather, manipulate, and learn from datasets at that scale.
Traditionally, systems that solve complicated problems and queries have been called “intelligent”, but compared to earlier approaches in the field of ‘artificial intelligence’, the path that we foresee has important new elements. First of all, this system will operate on an enormous scale with an unprecedented computational power of millions of computers. It will be used by billions of people and learn from an aggregate of potentially trillions of meaningful interactions per day. It will be engineered iteratively, based on a feedback loop of quick changes, evaluation, and adjustments. And it will be built based on the needs of solving and improving concrete and useful tasks such as finding information, answering questions, performing spoken dialogue, translating text and speech, understanding images and videos, and other tasks as yet undefined. When combined with the creativity, knowledge, and drive inherent in people, this “intelligent cloud” will generate many surprising and significant benefits to mankind.
-Computers figuring out what words mean
The Internet got smarter this week with the release of a semantic map that teaches computers the meanings behind words — and gives the machines a vocabulary far larger than that of a typical US college graduate.Cognition Technologies began licensing the map Tuesday to software creators interested in having programs “understand” words based on tenses and sentence context — in much the same way as the human brain does.
“We have taught the computer virtually all the meanings of words and phrases in the English language,” Cognition chief executive Scott Jarus told AFP.
“This is clearly a building block for Web 3.0, or what is known as the Semantic Web. It has taken 30 years; it is a labor of love,” Jarus said.
The semantic map is reportedly the world’s largest, and gives computers a vocabulary more than 10 times as extensive as that of a typical US college graduate.
The coming third generation of life online is predicted to feature intuitive artificial intelligence applications that work swiftly across broadband Internet connections.
When applied to Internet searches, semantic technology delivers results oriented to what people seem to be seeking instead of simply matching words used to online content.
For example, a semantic online search for “melancholy songs with birds” would know to link sadness in lyrics with various species of birds.
Cognition’s semantic map is already used in a LexisNexis Concordance “e-discovery” software to sift through documents amassed during evidence phases of trials.
“We help them find the needle in a haystack,” Jarus said.
“It used to be boxes and boxes of paper and now 80 percent of it is digital. Lawyers can search for a smoking gun within that discovery material.”
Cognition’s Caselaw program uses the technology to mine more than a half-century of US federal court decisions for legal precedents, according to the company.
The semantic map is also employed in a widely-used medical database.
Cognition says it has also “semantically enabled” globally popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia.
A Web 3.0 target is to develop artificial intelligence “agents” that mine mountains of information on the Internet for material that suit the interests of the people they serve.
“It would be a software application constantly looking for things you might be interested in while accurately understanding the concepts of what you are looking for,” Jarus said.
He described it as “artificial intelligence agents working for you on a push basis instead of a pull basis.”
Cognition has a handful of rivals, with each firm taking its own approach to semantic technology.
In July US software giant Microsoft bought San Francisco-based Powerset, a three-year-old start-up which specializes in interpreting the intent of people’s Internet searches instead of matching specific words they use.
Microsoft said it plans to use Powerset technology to enhance its free Live Search service, which has been mired in third place behind Google and Yahoo in the lucrative Internet search-related advertising arena.
Powerset’s semantic search merges linguistics with engineering in a software platform to figure out what people are seeking based on questions or phrases.
Standard search engines respond to individual words in the search query.
Microsoft senior vice president of search, portal and advertising Satya Nadella said at the time that a third of today’s online searches don’t get people the answers they seek on the first try.
“Search engines don’t understand today that ’shrub’ and ‘tree’ are similar concepts,” Nadella wrote in a blog posting.
“We don’t understand that ‘cancer’ sometimes refers to a disease and sometimes refers to a horoscope and when a query or a webpage refers to which.”
Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed but unconfirmed reports were that Microsoft may have paid as much as 100 million dollars for Powerset.
*Google Founders Artificial Intelligence Quotes Archive
These are mainly quotes from the 2 founders, with some extra bits which are mainly at the end.
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/pag0int-1:
http://www.youtube.com/user/IgnoranceIsntBliss
Larry Page: “Artificial intelligence would be the ultimate version of Google. So we have the ultimate search engine that would understand everything on the Web. It would understand exactly what you wanted, and it would give you the right thing. That’s obviously artificial intelligence, to be able to answer any question, basically, because almost everything is on the Web, right? We’re nowhere near doing that now. However, we can get incrementally closer to that, and that is basically what we work on. And that’s tremendously interesting from an intellectual standpoint. ” (October 28, 2000)
“The Big Switch”, Page 212:
During a question-and-answer session after a presentation at his alma matter, Stanford University, in May 2002, Page said that Google would fulfill its mission only when its search engine was “AI-complete”. “You guys know what that means? That’s artificial intelligence”.(May 2002)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec02/google_11-29.html:
LARRY PAGE: And, actually, the ultimate search engine, which would understand, you know, exactly what you wanted when you typed in a query, and it would give you the exact right thing back, in computer science we call that artificial intelligence. That means it would be smart, and we’re a long ways from having smart computers.
SPENCER MICHELS: Sergay Brin thinks the ultimate search engine would be something like the computer named Hal in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey.
SERGEY BRIN: Hal could… had a lot of information, could piece it together, could rationalize it. Now, hopefully, it would never… it would never have a bug like Hal did where he killed the occupants of the space ship. But that’s what we’re striving for, and I think we’ve made it a part of the way there. (November 29, 2002)
http://c.asselin.free.fr/french/juillet03/Page_Brin.htm:
“Doing a good job doing search is basically artificial intelligence, we want it to be smart.” (July 22, 2003)
http://www.kottke.org/plus/misc/google-playboy.html:
BRIN: The solution isn’t to limit the information you receive. Ultimately you want to have the entire world’s knowledge connected directly to your mind.
PLAYBOY: Is that what we have to look forward to?
BRIN: Well, maybe. I hope so. At least a version of that. We probably won’t be looking up everything on a computer.
PLAYBOY: How will we use Google in the future?
BRIN: Probably in many new ways. We’re already experimenting with some. You can call a phone number and say what you want to search for, and it will be pulled up. At this stage it’s obviously just a toy, but it helps us understand how to develop future products.
PLAYBOY: Is your goal to have the entire world’s knowledge connected directly to our minds?
BRIN: To get closer to that—as close as possible.
PLAYBOY: At some point doesn’t the volume become overwhelming?
BRIN: Your mind is tremendously efficient at weighing an enormous amount of information. We want to make smarter search engines that do a lot of the work for us. The smarter we can make the search engine, the better. Where will it lead? Who knows? But it’s credible to imagine a leap as great as that from hunting through library stacks to a Google session, when we leap from today’s search engines to having the entirety of the world’s information as just one of our thoughts.
(September, 2004)
http://www.notablebiographies.com/news/Ow-Sh/Page-Larry-and-Brin-Sergey.html:
Brin told Levy in Newsweek just before that period that he and Page were content to keep tinkering with their research-paper idea. “I think we’re pretty far along compared to 10 years ago,” he said. “At the same time, where can you go? Certainly if you had all the world’s information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off. Between that and today, there’s plenty of space to cover.” (2004)
http://jurvetson.blogspot.com/2005/01/thanks-for-memory.html:
Every time I talk about Google’s future with Larry Page, he argues that it will become an artificial intelligence.(January 09, 2005)
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dyson05/dyson05_index.html:
“We are not scanning all those books to be read by people,” explained one of my hosts after my talk. “We are scanning them to be read by an AI.” (October 24, 2005)
http://www.google.com/press/podium/brin.html:
“One of our big goals in search is to make search that really understands exactly what you want, understands everything in the world. As computer scientists, we call that artificial intelligence.” (October 26, 2005)
http://www.news.com/Will-search-keep-Google-on-the-throne/2100-1032_3-6070774.html:
In five years, Google will have built “the product I’ve always wanted to build–we call it ’serendipity,’” he said, adding that it will “tell me what I should be typing.”
Also coming in the future: simultaneous translation in the major languages and the ability to take a picture on a mobile phone and use OCR (optical character recognition) to find out what it’s a picture of, he added.
“We have literally just begun on the potential of this unification,” he said.
(May 10, 2006)
“People always make the assumption that we’re done with search. That’s very far from the case. We’re probably only 5 percent of the way there. We want to create the ultimate search engine that can understand anything … some people could call that artificial intelligence.” (May 23, 2006)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/may/23/searchengines.news:
http://www.youtube.com/user/IgnoranceIsntBliss
“The ultimate search engine would understand everything in the world. It would understand everything that you asked it and give you back the exact right thing instantly,” Mr Page told an audience of the digerati representing firms from Warner Music and AOL to BSkyB and the BBC. “You could ask ‘what should I ask Larry?’ and it would tell you.” (May 23, 2006)
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1855550.htm:
http://www.youtube.com/user/IgnoranceIsntBliss
“One of my favourite things is artificial intelligence but it has gotten a very bad rap…but my prediction is that when AI happens it’s going to be a lot of computation and not so much clever algorithms but just a lot of computation. My theory is that if you look at your programming, your DNA, it’s about 600 megabytes compressed, so it’s smaller than any modern operating system, smaller than Linux or Windows or anything like that, your whole operating system, that includes booting up your brain, by definition. So your program algorithms probably aren’t that complicated, it’s probably more about the overall computation, but that’s my guess.
We have some people at Google who are really trying to build artificial intelligence and to do it on a large scale and so on, and in fact, to make search better, to do the perfect job of search you could ask any query and it would give you the perfect answer and that would be artificial intelligence based on everything being on the web, which is a pretty close approximation. We’re lucky enough to be working incrementally closer to that, but again, very, very few people are working on this, and I don’t think it’s as far off as people think.” (February 24, 2007)
http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1187341333326:
In 2002, Google gave us the speed and relevance that Vannevar Bush could only imagine, and page rank became the leverage of competitive intelligence. When asked what the perfect search engine would be, Sergey Brin, founder of Google, said, “It would be like the mind of God.” Human intelligence is leveraged with artificial intelligence and the concept of the “Semantic Web” is attainable. The evolution from thinker to linker is underway. (August 20, 2007)
-
–
—-
MACHINE LEARNING SUMMIT:
Also worth noting is that in mid-May 2008 Google held a “Machine Learning Summit“, in New York, that featured international speakers: “most of the material covered at these types of events is confidential and proprietary and can’t be released.”
—-
“WORLDS LARGEST AI LABORATORY”:
http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2006-10-26-n80.html:
Google wants to be the best in search – no surprise here. To reach that goal, (internal company documents state) Google wants to have the world’s top AI research laboratory.
—-
THE NASA + GOOGLE PARADIGM:
http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/google_nasa.html:
NASA and Google have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that outlines plans for cooperation on a variety of areas, including large-scale data management, massively distributed computing, bio-info-nano convergence, and encouragement of the entrepreneurial space industry. The MOU also highlights plans for Google to develop up to one million square feet within the NASA Research Park at Moffett Field.
Sergey Brin on A.I. & the NASA + Google strategic partnership:
http://www.youtube.com/user/IgnoranceIsntBliss
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/dec/HQ_06371_Ames_Google.html:
MOFFETT FIELD, Calif. – NASA Ames Research Center and Google have signed a Space Act Agreement that formally establishes a relationship to work together on a variety of challenging technical problems ranging from large-scale data management and massively distributed computing, to human-computer interfaces.
…
NASA and Google intend to collaborate in a variety of areas, including incorporating agency data sets in Google Earth, focusing on user studies and cognitive modeling for human computer interaction, and science data search utilizing a variety of Google features and products.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/20080604_ames.html:
Under the terms of the 40-year agreement, Google will lease 42.2 acres of unimproved land in NASA Research Park at Ames to construct up to 1.2 million square feet of offices and research and development (R&D) facilities in a campus-style setting. An overview of the area is available in Google Maps™ and the Google Earth™ program at http://maps.google.com/googleameslease.
-Google’s Internal Company Goals
A company paper* Google published internally earlier this year and which I got hold of outlined some of Google’s big goals and directions for 2006. The list included several items, for example:
- Google wants to have an improved infrastructure to make their engineers more productive. This includes allowing employees to have a universal search tool “containing all public Google information searched on all Google searches.” Google also wants to build 10MW of green power to be on track to be carbon neutral. (They also want to reduce “Borg disk waste” by 50%… hmmm, Borg?)
- Google wants to be the best in search – no surprise here. To reach that goal, Google wants to have the world’s top AI research laboratory. They are also focusing on getting rid of spam in the top 20 user languages, and increasing the accuracy of information they collect (through measures such as annotation). Another part of improving search is to always launch crucial user interface updates “that people love.”
- Google wants to push their ad system. E.g. in 2006, one of their aims was to sell $1B of new inventory. Google feels that if they make the world’s inventory available “marketers will come.”
- Google also wants to push their communities and content. According to the papers Google published, Google Video has 50% of the world’s “online video attention” (a number that’s hard to believe, and especially interesting because Google still ended up buying YouTube). Google also emphasized that a fifth of all communication bandwidth – on Google-owned properties, I suppose – is read through Gmail.
- Google tries to make sure their tools are running everywhere. In around mid-2006, according to their internal numbers 60 Million Google Packs had been installed, but they still want to increase the deployment… especially for “novice users.”
- Google is always focusing on innovation. One of their top goals in 2006 thus was to “increase the scale of innovation,” even as the internal headcount grows (a growth which dozens of engineering scouts located around the world ensure).
One more specific objective Google outlined as company goal earlier this year in another paper** available to me was to internally test a Google News prototype during the fourth quarter. This “radically improved” prototype should allow “other news sources, and organizations and individuals mentioned in news stories to debate specific points.” I wonder what that means… anyone? I’m as puzzled about this as I am about the “Onebox @ 100% via SETI” mentioned elsewhere in the document (though unless Google is looking for extra-terrestrials, SETI is probably the code name for some internal infrastructure)… or the abbreviations “FIGSCJKR spam,” and “EFIGSCJKR” (the latter being something where Google wants to beat Yahoo).
In the meantime, Marissa Mayer was responsible to ensure that any site with over 10 million page views (per day? month?) renders in a second or less 95% of the time. Other teams saw their goals outlined by terminology such as “70% user happiness” (Gmail 2.0), “host XXM photos, up from XM” (Picasa Web), “an additional XXk machines for production indexing” (index freshness), “reduce bad landing page impressions by 20%” (ads), or “Playbacks: XXM/day” (Google Video). If Google’s “release frenzy” often appears chaotic from the outside, their internal goals do look very precise and organized… and almost every goal has a number attached to it, even when it’s a seemingly fuzzy area like user happiness.
Another interesting feature foreshadowed in the Google papers was to grab relevant locations & dates from web pages allowing users to “view results on a timeline of map.” Keep in mind the papers are older by now so this might be what has already been released as Google News Archive search last month, or the Google Trends site.
While the documents do not mention the goal of trying to decrease Google self-censorship in China, there was mention of a Chinese “Knowledge Search Beta.”
All in all, Google is trying to improve existing products and launch new ones – but not too many in order to not become disorganized, as they publicly stated, too (the document contains the simple directive “Count total number of Google products and reduce by 20%”). They also always focus on leading in search through a variety of features like index freshness & quality, as well as onebox results like Google Base or Google Co-op… and possibly, some day, paid results as well, according to one of their objectives (my emphasis – and again note the last bit may refer to Google’s already released News Archive search):
Launch Google Archive Search with XXXM docs and Google.com integration as well as [a] Paid Content results section on Google.com
[Thanks John, Tony & M. for advice, and thanks A.!]
*The document is titled “Big Goals and Directions – 2006”.
**The second document is titled “Objectives and Key Results – Q3 2006 Company OKRs”.
About
IGNORANCE IS FUTILE!
By: “Ignorance Isn’t Bliss” (IIB)
THE BLEEDING EDGE OF THE MERGER OF TYRANNY AND TECHNOLOGY.
—
Please feel free to repost my writings, but give credit and leave the links intact thanks.
—
Subscribe to daily email updates from this blog.
Add my Myspace
Subcribe to my Youtube
Email Me: ignoranceisntbliss AT hotmail.com
IIB Films Lab Releases:
Upcoming Releases Information: COMING…
“iXo A.I. Control Grid”
My exclusive film constructed entirely of quotes from government / military websites and documents. Presented as if from the war machine’s own ‘minds eye’. This video goes where no other film in existence does with the subject of the US military’s dream for engineered super-soldiers and a god-like cognitive self-aware artificial intelligence global computer grid. The animations and graphical images are also directly from military sources.
About Page / Research Guide: LINK
Torrent Download: COMING…
Google Video: LINK
“Road to Terrorstorm”
A project I started in 2006, got carried away with, then finally scaled it back down to the original ’simple’ concept and finished recently. A condensed compilation film of several older Infowars films mainly focusing on Police State & False Flag type tyranny pre-9/11. See them all in one package.
About Page: LINK
Torrent Download: LINK
Google Video: LINK
Research Guide: COMING…
“Neocon Wars”
An entertaining Ron Paul Star Wars parody that features intense style debate on US foreign policy which debunks the occupation of Iraq and the “War on Terror” in particular.
About Page: COMING…
Torrent Download: LINK
Google Video: LINK
Research Guide: COMING…
“They Want Your Soul”
My first short video, from 2006. The first film in history to ever discuss US military (DARPA) “AI” (AGI) ambitions. Begins with a cynical look at “American” culture, with a touch of conspiracy and concludes with potential religious implications.
About Page / Research Guide: LINK
Torrent Download: COMING…
Google Video: LINK
Key Exclusive Articles:
*The Federal Reserve Suck Machine is propelling US into ‘Neocommunism’.
*Google’s A.I. quest to become God-On-Earth.
*Obama’s NBIC (nano-bio-info-cogno convergence) Agenda.
*Google’s 23andMe DNA Databank is Targeting Children.
*Mobile Google Android to condition people to embrace constant GPS tracking
*Why I FEAR Obama like no other, like no other.
*Google Founders Artificial Intelligence Quotes Archive
*The Nationalization of Fannie May & Freddie Mack: U.S. has overthrown foreign governments over far less
*The “War on Terror” is a Complete Delusional Fantasy.
*Pseudo-Individualism used to Divide & Conquer.
*Ignorance isn’t bliss: The I Dimension.
*Al Qaeda: The CI-A Team.
*HR1955/S1959 is the modern day COINTELPRO / Operation CHAOS.
*’Global Warming’ “Consensus” & “Causes”.
*Redefining Hypocrisy: Al Gore’s Assault on Reason & Depleted Uranium.
*The Media is Pro-Military-Imperialism Biased.
*”Freedom” = IMPERIALISM: It’s in the Language.
*9/11 Commission Report: “terrorist threats, was in the tens of thousands—probably hundreds of thousands.”
*Osama’s Satellite Phone: History Channel unwittingly debunks the 911 Commission Report.
*Lessons from the OSS: How NOT to be an ‘Enemy’ Propagandist.
*IIBFilms: DARPA’s iXo Artificial Intelligence Control Grid: ‘The Official Version.’
*American Imperialism: The “First Truth” about US.
*An Inconvenient Truth on Al Gore: Google & NASA A.I.
*The United States of Iran: A Reversology.
*The Neuropsychology of Pseudo-Skepticism.
*American Imperialisms death toll on the world: 27,000,000+.
*Official CIA Guidelines for Subversion, Diversion and Division of Populations.
*Political Delusions.
*The Establishment: Unrestrained.
*Google’s DNA ‘Bio-Piracy’ & Federal DNA Databanks.
*Neuroscience proves that the politically biased are legally insane and medically addicted/diseased!
*DARPA’s ‘open’ Artificial Intelligence programs (circa 2006).
*The US Government’s “Collective Society” Fantasy.
*DISA’s / NSA’s “Net-Centric” “Global Information Grid”.
Wired: Danger Room- Secrecy News
- Infowars
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- Dandelion Salad
- Global Research
- The Memory Hole
- Empire Burlesque
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- Climate Audit
- Defense Tech
- Fact Check
- Is it true that persons older than 59 can't get heart surgery in England?
- Is the ACLU suing to have cross-shaped headstones removed from military cemeteries?
- Was Obama rude to wounded veterans during a visit to the National Naval Medical Center?
- Is ACORN providing workers for the 2010 census?
- The 'Real' Uninsured
- Advertising Lab
