Burge’s paper focuses on the four color theorem as the standard case of so-called ‘computer proof‘. There is a more recent case, with an even cooler name: the Sphere Packing Conjecture: Following the approach suggested by Fejes Tóth, Thomas Hales, then at the University of Michigan, determined that the maximum density of all arrangements could be found by minimising a function with 150 variables. In 1992, assisted by his graduate student Samuel Ferguson, he embarked on a research programme to systematically apply linear programming methods to find a lower bound on the value of this function for each one of a set of over 5,000 different configurations of spheres. If a lower bound could be found for every one of these configurations that was greater than the value for the cubic close packing arrangement, then the Kepler conjecture would be proved. To find lower bounds for all cases involved solving around 100,000 linear programming problems. When presenting the progress of his project in 1996, Hales said that the end was in sight, but it might take “a year or two” to complete. In August 1998 Hales announced that the proof was complete. At that stage it consisted of 250 pages of notes and 3 gigabytes of computer programs, data and results. Despite the unusual nature of the proof, the editors of the Annals of Mathematics agreed to publish it, provided it was accepted by a panel of twelve referees. In 2003, after four years of work, the head of the referee’s panel Gábor Fejes Tóth (son of László Fejes Tóth) reported that the panel were “99% certain” of the correctness of the proof, but they could not certify the correctness of all of the computer calculations. In February 2003 Hales published a 100-page paper (PDF) describing the non-computer part of […]

The number of teenagers using the internet grew 24% in the past four years and 87% of those between the ages of 12 and 17 are online. … Email is losing its privileged place among many teens as they say they prefer instant messaging (IM) and text messaging on cell phones as ways to connect with their friends. Email is increasingly seen as a tool for communicating with adults such as teachers, institutions like schools, and as a way to convey lengthy and detailed information to large groups. Meanwhile, IM is used for everyday conversations with multiple friends that range from casual to more serious and private exchanges. At the same time, the landline phone still continues to be the most dominant communications medium in teens’ everyday lives, even as 45% of all American teens own a cell phone. Young people also approach online content from a unique perspective; this is a generation for which the ability to customize and participate in the content they find online has become a normalized practice. In all, 57% of online teens are “Media Makers” and engage in at least one content creating activity: 19% keep a blog, 22% create or work on a personal webpage, 32% create or work on webpages for others, 33% share personal artwork, media or content online, and 19% remix content they find online.|link|

Speech to text converters are coming into their own. But speech isn’t just words and sentences. The use of emotion recognition might prove challenging as well, he added. Despite the claims that it improves love connections and speeds job interviews, consumers might bristle at the thought of being handled gingerly by a machine because they happen to have a note of frustration in their voices. “The emotion-recognition aspect is being discussed widely,” Hegebarth said. “But there doesn’t seem to be a really reliable way of detecting emotional states fully, and some callers might not like it. They could find it intrusive.” |link| So what do they find intrusive? From an informal survey I conducted a while ago, it seems at least a slim majority of people don’t mind the idea of giving up information to an artificial system per se, provided certain assurances that the information won’t cross human hands (cf Gmail, for instance). In any case, I dont think there is the same reaction of intrustion is, for instance, a human speaker registers the emotion in your voice and reacts accordingly. In fact, I imagine that we expect the human to be able to handle my specific case when they are talking to me, emotions and all. It seems to me that what is intrusive about a automated and mechanical response to human emotions is that it makes our emotional response itself seem mechanical and predictable. That my tone of anger doesn’t provoke a sympathetic response, but that it merely places me in the ‘anger’ category, to be dealt with in such and such a way. In other words, if the machines become responsive to our emotions, then even our most emotional response can still be understood as the behavior of machines.

my bioass. From the Heidegger-would-not-approve department: The moral imperative to extend human life for as long as conceivably possible, and to improve its quality by artificial means, is no different from the responsibility to save lives in danger of ending prematurely, Professor Harris will say. Any technology that can achieve this should be actively pursued. |link| A long life doesn’t mean a quality life. One might think that we have the imperative to genetically engineer kids to learn at even more advanced rates early on, while their brains are still plastic, for a fuller and more productive early life, even at the risk of shortening its length. I’m no ethicist, but I dont see either consequentialist or deontological reasons for rejecting that possibility from the start. In any case, it seems like this same argument could be phrased as: we have an obligation to make humans as cybernetic and artificial as possible. Well, thats just silly. I speak up for machines a lot here, but central to my view is that we need to draw a distinction between humans and machines. Our machines are not just extensions of persons, they are participants in their own right. Ignoring this fact inclines us to think that the sole purpose of technology is to envelope the individual in a technological womb, to protect us from the world. But technology is no protector. Technology doesnt give us a free win, it changes the game.

I am writing this response to a conference paper that argues that the internet can alieviate alienation. I couldn’t be more sympathetic, but her paper doesn’t really address the concerns of the opposing camp, which says that the internet could never substitute for real relationships. Dreyfus has his catchphrase: “Whatever hugs do for people, telehugs wont do it”. The opposing view is something like “You’re never alone when you have the internet”. But the more I think about it, the more obvious it is that this is a false dichotomy. There was a post on Boing Boing a while ago about Lover’s Cups. The Lover’s Cups can enhance the traditional communications. Julie and her best friend Ann live in different states. When Julie got tired or stressed, she had a conversation with Ann through the internet messenger program. However, the text-only communication limited their sympathy and emotional interactions. Today, Julie and Ann use their Lover’s Cups. Julie suggests to Ann to have a coffee break by shaking her cup. While talking through the messenger, they have a feeling of that they are drinking coffee together, and it makes them feel more relaxed and connected. It strikes me that this feeling of ‘connection’ through the cups will only cause the appropriate affective state in a person in very special circumstances, and only with a very willing participant- putting the status of successful affective interaction on par with, say, hypnotism or tarot card reading. Someone who doesn’t buy into the conceit of these cups just won’t get anything out of it. But this analysis goes a long way to explaining the hard-nosed stance of the two opposing camps. Dreyfus and the skeptics see this as at most a degenerate form of interaction, at worst that the players are just fooling themselves and […]

From the Dumb Research department: “Of course, nothing proves anything,” Huang, a UI electrical and computer engineering professor, said recently.|link|

The machine makes it possible to type messages onto a computer screen by mentally controlling the movement of a cursor. A user must wear a cap containing electrodes that measure electrical activity inside the brain, known as an electroencephalogram (EEG) signal, and imagine moving their left or right arm in order to manoeuvre the cursor around.|link| So we can’t read your intentions directly off your brain, but we can indirectly figure out where you imagine moving your arms. So the subjects must actually think about moving their arms, and not the cursor, in order to get the cursor to move. I wonder if this process can become transparent, the way we use our mouse and keyboard now; or if making the motor commands explicit in consciousness will wind up limiting the use of these sorts of tools beyond anything practical.

(click the picture for the whole sad robot story)

Remember Robocup? Meet the newest contender. The Eco-Be, which measures less than one square inch, features a motor unit adapted from tiny watch motors. With a lithium battery, small LED and microprocessor on board, the robot can move forward and backward, as well as turn around. It can be remotely controlled via a built-in infrared module. Each robot unit has a unique address, allowing multiple robots to be controlled independently and play simultaneously.|link|

What it is: White Box’s 914 PC-Bot; $1,500 and up. How it works: Looking and acting like a steel PC roaming about on rubber wheels, the 914 runs off Windows but was built to be hacked and programmed to its master’s specs. Does it do windows? This is a combo surveillance ‘bot and entertainment center (it surfs the Web, word processes, and plays games). A model “MP3” version plays music, burns CDs, and includes a 5.5-inch screen for playing games or watching movies.|link|