Reading 11: Artificial Intelligence (and you)

According to this article, artificial intelligence (AI) can be defined as, “a sub-field of computer science” with the goal of developing computers that can learn and behave intelligently.  That description leaves a very wide range of what constitutes an artificial intelligence, and as the article states, many people in the artificial intelligence community fall into one of three camps.

From the same article: “For some, the goal is to build systems that think exactly the same way that people do. Others just want to get the job done and don’t care if the computation has anything to do with human thought. And some are in-between, using human reasoning as a model that can inform and inspire but not as the final target for imitation.”

The first camp is referred to as the “strong AI” camp, the second being “weak AI”, and the third is somewhere in between the two.  One important thing about the third, in between camp is that they seek to use the best parts of human intelligence and learning as a starting point for developing their systems.  Arguably, these systems are the most powerful and advanced of the three camps, since theoretically they have the potential to surpass human intelligence.

Each of the three disciplines of artificial intelligence is remarkably similar to human intelligence since we use our own learning schemes and logic as a baseline and starting point for developing them.  However, computers have the capacity to be much better at learning than humans.  As pointed out by this article, human brains are incredibly complex and are designed to do much more than just learn.  In addition, humans are inherently imperfect, whereas computers can repeat the same action or process thousands of times perfectly each time.  Thus, artificial intelligence is similar to human intelligence in that we can apply the definition of intelligence to it, but it is not limited by that definition and can surpass us.

I would say that existing artificial intelligences such as AlphaGo, Deep Blue, and Watson are proof that artificial intelligence is viable and can be achieved.  Watson, for example, uses the vast amounts of information available to it on the internet to analyze patterns and find evidence in order to support a claim or idea.  It uses this evidence to establish a certain level of confidence in its answer.  This is a basic example of Watson can do, but it is a proof of concept that we can develop systems that can, at the very least, imitate intelligent reasoning.  We are knocking at the door of creating a system capable of real intelligence.

So is the Turing Test a valid measure of intelligence for AI?  Well according to the article here, passing the Turing Test does not always indicate that the AI is truly intelligent.  As the article goes on to state, some systems can just imitate intelligence.  The  Chinese Room provides a good example of this.  If we use the total internet as the books in the room, it isn’t unreasonable to think that a system like Watson could search for the correct response in that context and output it based on what it found.  I believe that in order to determine if an AI is actually intelligent, we will need to watch its inner workings and not just the outputs that the Turing Test observes.

Can a computing system be considered a mind? Maybe.  We just don’t know. In reality, the study and development of artificial intelligence is still in its infancy.  We don’t know where it will lead and what can come of it.  Humans by our understanding are more than just biological computers in some senses, but if you believe in evolution then we are really little more than just a system designed to survive long enough to reproduce.  We have developed abstract ideas as a result of emotion and thought such as ethics, morality, and intuition that guide us to make sometimes irrational decisions.  We are in a sense, just biological computers with a specific task, but to ourselves and each other humans are much more than that.  However, the implication that a computing system could be considered a mind means the ethics we apply to each other are the same we need to apply to apply to those systems.  We have laws about the way we treat animals, even the ones that exist almost exclusively as a source of food.  There would need to be some serious debate on the ethics behind creating these minds, what they were created for, and what the circumstances would justify “killing” or destroying that system.

Reading 10: Network Neutrality

According to this article, Net Neutrality is the idea that everyone has a right to an “open internet”, where everyone may communicate freely online.  This may seem intuitive, but there are special interests that stand in the way of that.  From the article, Net Neutrality, “means an Internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that Internet service providers should provide us with open networks — and should not block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn’t decide who you can call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn’t be concerned with the content you view or post online.”  Thus, your internet service provider cannot limit what you access or do online based on a pre-purchased set of websites or categories that you agreed to.  Also from the article, without net neutrality, “cable and phone companies could carve the Internet into fast and slow lanes,” meaning they could slow down or restrict competitors’ content or block it altogether.  This would mean the ISP ultimately has complete control over what an individual can and cannot see or do on the internet.

After reading more about this issue, I support net neutrality and the right for people to communicate and act online how they choose without limitations.  By allowing anyone to control the flow of information through this channel, we give them incredible amounts of power.  For instance, a large company could shut out competition from smaller business by starving their websites or services on the internet.  By not allowing people to see their service, they could shut down that company.  Implementing or enforcing Net Neutrality is simple: don’t allow any restriction the internet at all.  By not playing with what can be seen and what can’t we eliminate the chance for any possible censoring of material or information.  I don’t believe that Net Neutrality burdens companies as much as they would have it believe, and at any rate the infrastructure and technology used by those companies has not improved to follow the current rate of technological advancement. It’s about time they caught up.  Those companies saved money by not improving their infrastructure or technology, and now they want to make sure they don’t have to ever improve at their own expense.  In markets where Google Fiber has invaded, customers are leaving ISPs in droves for the improved service that Google Fiber can provide.  The archaic ways and dealings of ISPs and the companies that want to do away with net neutrality need to change with the times and catch up to today’s competition and technology.  Consumers want the latest and best from those companies, and they have not gotten it in a long while.

The internet today has become a massive wealth of information and provides unrivaled capabilities for communication to any and all who have access to it.  Fair access to that resource should be allowed to everyone, untainted and uncensored.  I do not approve of reclassification or any form of altering the current status of net neutrality for any reason.

Project 3: Security and Encryption

For our project, we wrote a Letter to the governor of Indiana, Mike Pence, asking him to please support strong encryption.

I believe that encryption is a fundamental right.  The men and women in this country have a right to own their property and information and protect it with whatever means they see fit.    I don’t believe such a technology is achievable as of yet, but I believe that citizens should be allowed to have technology that can completely lock out the government.  The government, in the name of the rights of the people, should support this is well.  Even with this technology, the government could still compel you to reveal it with a warrant in some cases, and you could invoke your 5th amendment rights to avoid self incrimination if the technology truly prevented anyone from reading it.

Personally, I think encryption should be important to everyone.  It has the potential to make everyone vulnerable to attack and exploitation if the US Government gets the backdoor it so desperately wants.  I support strong, unaltered and uncompromising encryption, and it certainly affects who I support politically and financially when I can choose to do so.  I think everyone should be mindful of what their choices with their money and their vote truly support, especially on issues such as this.

Unfortunately, I am afraid that in the struggle between national security and personal privacy, national security will win out.  Personal privacy, when it does succumb, will likely do so in the wake of some great conflict or tragedy, sacrificed so that something like that catalytic event could never again happen.  It is another method for control, and maintaining the status quo, and will be undoubtably supported by most of the current political powers and parties.   The patriot act after 9/11 granted a ridiculous amount of power to our government in terms of surveillance, and that was just the first domino in the line of “national security” legislative acts to come.  I am not resigned to this fate, and will do whatever I can to support personal privacy and the rights of the people.  I fear that the interests of the few will win out, and eventually silence the voice of the many, but I don’t see any advantage to accepting any fate as of yet.  If this election is proving anything, it is that future of our nation’s political climate is unsure and ever changing.  Hopefully, the people can influence this ever changing political landscape for their own benefit.

Reading 09: Reverse Engineering and DRM

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, “criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works.”  It has also been applied to reverse engineering when it infringes upon copyrighted work in most cases, making the practice illegal except for a few specific exemptions.  Basically, any method or technology designed to bypass DRM and infringe upon copyrighted work or works cannot be used, sold, distributed, or otherwise utilized for those purposes unless it falls under the limited range of exemptions.

Ethically, companies are within their right to use DRM to protect their intellectual property.  If the information is copyrighted, they may not be inclined to allow users to see the inner workings of the product if they so choose.  In the case of CDs or DVDs, companies are also within their rights to restrict how the information or media on those products is to be used.  By purchasing and using those products, you agree to the terms set out by the company and enforced by their DRM.  That being said, I think there are scenarios in which bypassing DRM is acceptable.

When I purchase music on iTunes or pay for CDs, I do it to support the artist.  I feel no obligation to support the company.  I will do my best to avoid violating the DRM and the terms and conditions, but if I want to burn a CD for myself or use the media that I have payed for in some way that the DRM is preventing but is within a reason as far as usage, I will do it.  I will try to find work arounds that do not conflict with the DRM in some way, but if push comes to shove I don’t feel too bad about it.

In regards to reverse engineering or building tools for the circumventive purposes that allow end users to fix, modify, or extend copyrighted work, I do not think there are many instances where those practices are acceptable.  I think that when you purchase something and agree to the terms and conditions of the company that sold it to you, you need to abide by that agreement. If you don’t like the terms, then you don’t need to buy that specific product. I don’t agree with the practice of locked phones or proprietary software on vehicles that the owner cannot alter or use, but that is the nature of the market right now.  Voice your opinion through your purchases, whether you support that practice or do not.  I think that legal protection from copyrights in many scenarios should suffice and that researchers and developers should be allowed to probe and reverse engineer software for bugs and security flaws, but right now that is not the reality we live in.  Companies are within their rights to limit the usage of their products, but you are also within your rights to decide to use other products and spend your money to support better practices.

Reading 08: Patent Trolls

 

First off, what are patents? Patents are a form of intellectual property pertaining to invention, and are designed to protect that invention from being copied such that individuals can benefit or profit off of creating that specific technology.  According to the document here, “A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention – a product or process that provides a new way of doing something, or that offers a new technical solution to a problem.”  Patents provide protection to the patent owner for typically about 20 years.  Patents provide protection by guaranteeing that “an invention cannot be commercially made, used, distributed or sold without the patent owner’s consent.”  These rights can be upheld or challenged and revoked in court. Effectively, patent owners can decide who can or cannot use their patented invention during the period in which the patent is in effect.  Patents effectively incentivize the individual to invent and create new technologies knowing that they can patent and protect their work from being stolen and used without their permission, enabling them to profit off of the invention if they so choose.  This also applies to inventions and technology developed by larger companies as well.

Morally and ethically, it makes sense that we would promote this sort of protection of personal invention and ideas, but the main reason that patents exist is to promote economic growth and development as a result of these ideas.  If no one could protect their invention or process from being stolen and used by a competitor, then it would be extremely difficult to do so by anyone but large companies, and invention would grind to a halt.  Many people in the world wouldn’t invent if they couldn’t support themselves with the income from those inventions.  So why would they aspire to invent and improve if they couldn’t sustain the process? Odds are, they wouldn’t.

For that reason, I believe patents should be granted.  They promote innovation and invention at the individual level, and allow for that to lead to personal gain.  If there were no such things as patents, individuals could create their invention and then try to keep it secret and sell it to a larger company that could employ it effectively without giving away it’s secret.  With patents in place, the individual does not have to carefully guard their invention as much, they are free to market and utilize it without much fear of it being stolen.  However, there are certain scenarios where the use of patents becomes more of a gray area.

First off, should patents on software be granted at all? Patents can be granted for specific processes used, which means that if someone patented the algorithms for the different sorting methods taught in books to computer scientists, we would either have to invent our own personal sorting methods or pay the inventors whenever we used their sorting method in a piece of software to be sold.  Sure this is kind of an absurd idea, since a sort can be about 10 lines of code and doesn’t specify much aside from that, but what if I patented every software that could write to file and save in memory?  What ideas can we patent, and what can we not?  Historically, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been “reluctant to grant patents on inventions relating to computer software.”  This makes sense, as they would prefer to err on the side of safety and keep the pandora’s box of patented software closed, at least for the time being.  Typically, software by itself cannot be patented, such as in the case of Diamond V. Diehr, where the invention was not only the software used, but also a method for curing rubber and the machine with which the software was used.  I agree with this prudent action, and the actions that followed.  Software is so close to being an abstract idea that patenting it could greatly hinder development and invention in the industry as other developers try not to tread on the toes of already patented software.  Sadly, the floodgates have since been opened, and now we have our second issue.

Second, we have patent trolls, which have managed to stay in business and exist purely off the money generated by creating borderline frivolous patents and then suing anyone careless enough to use some of their “patented” software.  Nowadays, companies have so many patents that it makes it “almost impossible to write useful software without accidentally infringing” on some software company’s patent.

I believe the symptoms of patent trolls and this newfound phenomenon of excessive patenting is indicative that the patent system was not designed for software, or excessive patenting at all.  I wouldn’t go so far as to say it is broken, rather it has its specific applications that it excels at, and that a solution needs to be developed for the unique problem that software patenting poses.  Sadly, there isn’t really an end in sight just yet, and the cost of patent litigation is still on the rise.

Reading 07: Advertising

The troubling thing about advertising is that for the companies that pay to advertise their products to the consumer (you), it is in their interest to know as much as they can about you and your buying habits.  This allows them to carefully pick and choose which products they show to you in order to increase the likelihood of you purchasing one of their products.  As far as business strategy goes, this one makes a lot of sense.  You wouldn’t advertise literature on classical music to a teenager who has a propensity to buy comic books, cause odds are that teenager would just ignore it and the money paid to advertise to that individual would have been ineffective.  Logically, companies would want to store a certain amount of information on their customers in order to better market their products and improve sales.  The problem is what is too much information.

In the article here, we see an example of how the retail chain Target was able to,”figure out if a customer is pregnant, even if she didn’t want us to know.”  In this article, we see an example of how Facebook was able to piece together an individual was gay before they had even come to that conclusion, let alone come out to anyone.  Here is another example of Facebook users that were outed as gay to advertisers, whether they were publicly out about their sexuality or not.

The troubling part is that these examples show how there is information that can be gathered and extrapolated about us without our knowledge or consent, and used to market to us.  This monitoring and aggregation of data is done for the sake of our convenience in some scenarios, but if it didn’t help to improve the sales and profitability of a company, would they still do it? Odds are no, they wouldn’t.  Recall the meme that states “If you are not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold.”  This is especially true these days with all the free services like Amazon, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, and more that we use on a daily basis.  These companies all collect our information and are able to sell it for profit, and so that the buyer can use that information as they wish.  This seems like a very indiscriminate system that cuts the user (who is effectively the commodity being sold) out of the process completely.  They have no representation or protection in this system, nor can they effectively limit what information can be used or gathered without completely abstaining from the use of most many products and websites.  It has become harder to use the internet without giving away most of your information than ever before, so much so that the only way to win in this scenario is to not play the game and just remain offline.  Unfortunately, that is almost out of the question in this day and age where technology rule our daily lives.

Personally, I have an incredibly low tolerance for advertising on the internet, and I am a prolific user of Adblock and other tools.  I do it for my own convenience (fuck Youtube and their impossible to skip ads) as well as because I do not wish to reward the use of my own information to manipulate me into purchasing things I don’t need.  For this reason, I also do my best to block or limit the usage of cookies or storage of information by websites and third parties on my computer as much as possible.  I believe that the use of these tools is ethical, as I should be able to choose what I see on a given website.  I don’t go on reddit or Facebook or Youtube to see ads, and I don’t approve of the method in which they are marketed to me with my own information.  Hopefully, this practice sends a message that will one day reach the ears of someone with enough influence over the process to promote some sort of meaningful change.

Reading 06: Government Backdoors and You

Technology companies are neither legally nor ethically obliged to implement backdoors in their products for the government or government agencies for the sake of government surveillance or other motives.  Regardless of the reason behind why the government desires these backdoors, citizens of this country have a right to privacy of communication and personal conduct as long as it is within the bounds of the law. As this article here states, “We must ensure both the fundamental right of people to engage in private communications as well as the protection of the public. One of the bedrock principles upon which we rely to guide us is the principle of judicial authorization: that if an independent judge finds reason to believe that certain private communications contain evidence of a crime, then the government can conduct a limited search for that evidence.” This is just one example of the ways in which our government is designed to protect its people from unfair abuse of political power.  Without some form of due process, nothing stands in the way of preventing excessive abuse of government tools to spy on the general public in the name of national security.

Companies (such as Apple) are ethically responsible for protecting the privacy of their users.  Apple, in their recent letter to their customers, expanded on their beliefs that backdoors to encryption and security and privacy are not in the best interest of the consumer, and that they would not assist in developing such tools.  Furthermore, if Apple created such a backdoor, there is next to nothing that would be able to prevent its abuse by third parties such as competition in the marketplace or by hackers seeking to exploit these security flaws.  In protecting privacy, Apple is not inherently enabling violent or harmful activities.  In fact, they are totally compliant with the FBI’s lawful requests and court orders.  In today’s world, companies such as Apple service the masses in their endeavors to shelter the people’s right to privacy rather than the ability of a few to perpetrate acts of terror or harm on the rest of the population.  Furthermore, without lawful order, Apple or any other software company cannot be compelled to create backdoors or hand over user information anyways, and to do so could severely damage their user base and hold serious repercussions for the company.

It is hard to justify allowing room for people who mean harm to others, but the protection of the rights of many are too important to sacrifice.  The “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear” is a weak argument for the removal of personal liberties.  Just because you are not partaking in anything that is explicitly illegal, it does not mean you are totally willing to let the government or anyone else search through your private life and information to confirm it.  It is the burden of the government or the accuser to provide some evidence of illegal activity or otherwise before any form of search or violation of privacy can be used to confirm or dispel whether the individual has committed any crime.  Forgoing these rights in the name of safety is a slippery slope, and sacrifices too much of the individual’s personal liberty.  Additionally, only law abiding citizens would be the ones affected by this surveillance.  Should they choose to do so, the miscreants and evildoers will always find a way to work around the system, and possibly even exploit the surveillance and back doors to their own ends.

Project 2: Individual Response

From my experience, the most important parts of our guide would be the parts detailing when to start searching. My largest mistake was waiting too long to start looking for an internship.  Fortunately it worked out for me, I got a good internship doing undergraduate research and I learned my lesson, but I felt very limited and stressed out by the situation I had put myself in.  It’s pretty hard to balance school while also searching for employment or internship opportunities, and wasting half of my time didn’t do me any favors.

I wished I had been given some more instruction and help with learning how to interview well, and how to best structure my resume, appearance, and demeanor to appeal to employers.  I was aware of, but did not utilize some of the resources at the career center that I believe could have helped me immensely.  The one thing I had on my side was I knew to research the company beforehand to at least get an idea of how their interview process would work.  I wish I had also been able to go through some mock interviews to get an idea of how to better prepare myself.  It’s hard to overcome someone’s first impression from that interview, so I felt especially pressured to try and be perfect every time I sat down for an interview.

The best advice I received was to have a plan beyond just the job for which you are interviewing.  When someone asks you, “where do you want to be in 5-10 years?”, you should always have a sufficient answer up your sleeve, but you should also keep in mind how the current job you are interviewing for will help you get there. If your answer makes the interviewer scratch their head and wonder, “why is he/she trying to work here? And why should I hire them?”, then it is not a good answer.  Having a plan is the best advice I received.

My opinion is that college should be a place of learning and that it should remain so.  Notre Dame offers resources to help students prepare for interviews at the career center and elsewhere.  I feel that our current curriculum does prepare us for interviews in the technical sense and that the other resources available to Notre Dame students in regards to interview preparation and resume building.  As it stands, we receive a complete education at Notre Dame, but I fear that if the focus shifts to just getting students hired we will not receive the same quality of education.  Rather than rounding students out to develop a breadth of knowledge in students, the concentration would shift to just checking a few specific boxes that employers want to have in their employees.  I believe that proper resources aimed at helping students prepare for interviews and working in the real world should exist for everyone, but the focus of school should not shift from developing knowledge and well rounded individuals.  I see no significant cause for shifting the focus of a college education from educating students.  I think there is more that can be done for students in the way of getting them solid experience and concrete resume building opportunities, but the focus should not shift.

 

 

Project 2: How to get a job out of Notre Dame

 

For our project, we decided to address how to get a job out of Notre Dame. Here is our pdf containing our guide on how to best get a job or internship for Notre Dame Student!

Project2

Reading 05: Engineering Disasters

The Therac-25 incident, as described here, was an incident that resulted in six patients being exposed to huge amounts of radiation that killed four of them and left the remaining two with “lifelong injuries.”  The machine was designed to administer radiation therapy to cancer patients in the hope of killing off the cancerous cells and curing the patient.  According to the same article, the investigation determined that the cause of the malfunction was due to two key factors.  First that the machine’s software, ” contained bugs which proved to be fatal.” Second, that the machine, “relied on the controlling computer alone for safety.”  Further reading indicated that the reason these design flaws existed was that the manufacturer wanted to reduce the amount of manual preparation required in order to make the use of the machine simpler and faster for the hospital technicians operating it.

Due to the way the computer would set up the machine to function, it was possible to administer radiation without intending to if setup was performed too fast by the operator. Because testing had been done slowly and methodically, this bug was not encountered during pre-production testing.  Additionally, previous models of the machine had hardware implementations in the form of safety fuses that would prevent this error from occurring.  According to the article and the results of the investigation, “safety-critical loads were placed upon a computer system that was not designed to control them. Timing analysis wasn’t performed. Unit testing never happened. Fault trees for both hardware and software were not created.” It was the responsibility of the software engineers as well as the system engineers to catch these bugs.

It would appear that the root causes of these accidents were poor design implementation on top of inadequate testing and analysis of the system.

Software developers working on safety-critical systems face challenges in that they need to conform their designs to handle situations or time constraints that cannot necessarily be serviced by typical computer functionality with ease.  When additional cost or design constraints are placed on the system, the task can become even more difficult for the software engineers responsible.

Software engineers should always approach these types of systems with the care and knowledge of what they are doing.  The actions and work of these software engineers actions always carry consequences, but even more so when working on safety-critical systems.  Failure to perform one’s job to their highest ability could result in the loss of life or at the very least some serious harm to others.  The stakes have been raised in these scenarios, and the people responsible should be fully aware of what is at stake.

I also believe that software engineers should be held liable for their actions.  That being said, serious and thorough investigations should be performed to determine the extent of their responsibility in the incident.  For example, an incident caused by pure negligence or insufficient testing would be completely the fault of the engineer responsible for those duties.  However, there may be scenarios where the engineer is not completely at fault, for which we would need extensive and thorough investigation to determine who is liable.