pred_label
stringclasses 2
values | pred_label_prob
float64 0.5
1
| wiki_prob
float64 0.25
1
| text
stringlengths 128
996k
| source
stringlengths 39
45
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
__label__cc
| 0.659116
| 0.340884
|
Harry Potter - A History of Magic: The eBook of the Exhibition (English Edition) por British Library
Titulo del libro : Harry Potter - A History of Magic: The eBook of the Exhibition (English Edition)
Autor : British Library
Editor : Pottermore Publishing
Obtenga el libro de Harry Potter - A History of Magic: The eBook of the Exhibition (English Edition) de British Library en formato PDF o EPUB. Puedes leer cualquier libro en línea o guardarlo en tus dispositivos. Cualquier libro está disponible para descargar sin necesidad de gastar dinero.
British Library con Harry Potter - A History of Magic: The eBook of the Exhibition (English Edition)
Harry Potter: A History of Magic is the official eBook of the once-in-a-lifetime exhibition from the brilliant curators of the British Library. It promises to take readers on a fascinating journey through the subjects studied at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry – from Alchemy and Potions classes, right through to Herbology and Care of Magical Creatures.
Each chapter showcases a treasure trove of artefacts from the British Library and other collections around the world, beside exclusive manuscripts, sketches and illustrations from the Harry Potter archive. There's also a specially commissioned essay for each subject area by an expert, writer or cultural commentator, inspired by the contents of the exhibition – absorbing, insightful and unexpected contributions from Steve Backshall, the Reverend Richard Coles, Owen Davies, Julia Eccleshare, Roger Highfield, Steve Kloves, Lucy Mangan, Anna Pavord and Tim Peake, who offer a personal perspective on their magical theme.
Readers will be able to pore over ancient spell books, explore amazing illuminated scrolls that reveal the secret of the Elixir of Life, and through its unique design and functionality examine vials of dragon’s blood, mandrake roots, painted centaurs and a genuine witch’s broomstick, in an interactive digital book that shows J.K. Rowling’s magical inventions alongside their cultural and historical forebears.
This is the ultimate gift for Harry Potter fans, curious minds, big imaginations, bibliophiles and readers around the world who missed out on the chance to see the exhibition in person.
Due to the number of high quality images within this ebook, this file may take longer than usual to download and it is therefore best viewed on a tablet or smartphone.
Harry Potter - A Journey Through A History of Magic (English Edition)
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone: Illustrated [Kindle in Motion] (Illustrated Harry Potter Book 1) (English Edition)
Historias breves de Hogwarts: Agallas, Adversidad y Aficiones Arriesgadas (Pottermore Presents (Español) nº 1)
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: Illustrated edition (English Edition)
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald: Het complete filmscenario (Dutch Edition)
The Hogwarts Library Collection (Hogwarts Library book) (English Edition)
La Segunda Revolución. Ellos y nosotros. (La Segunda Revolución 2)
La Segunda Revolución. Heredero (La Segunda Revolución 1)
Animales fantásticos y dónde encontrarlos: guión original de la película
Inside the Magic: The Making of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (English Edition)
Copyright © Descargar Libro 2020
|
cc/2020-05/en_middle_0050.json.gz/line2
|
__label__cc
| 0.519389
| 0.480611
|
About Men Radio
Mele's Musings
Son of Sam Began His Murderous Spree 40 Years Ago Today
dating someone with major depressive disorder headline quotes for dating sites
It was 40 years ago today that serial killer David Berkowitz murdered his first victim in the Bronx, the start of a yearlong reign of terror that left New Yorkers both on edge and fixated with what became known as the Son of Sam murders.
At the time I was 12 years old. A few months later I started to deliver The Daily News to apartment buildings in the Bronx.
The killings, which also came to be known as the work of the .44-Caliber Killer, because of the weapon he used, were ready-made fodder for the city tabloids and TV stations.
The serial murders came at a time that I was coming of age. I was asserting my independence – I was working and starting to ride the subways by myself.
So for me, the city was both exciting and dangerous. (Remember, New York was just coming out of its dismal fiscal crisis and crime, poverty and drugs were tearing at the fabric of its communities.)
It was against this backdrop that the Son of Sam killings gripped the city’s attention. Over the course of more than a year, he shot 13 people in cold blood, killing six.
Berkowitz, who later claimed he was acting on instructions given to him by a neighbor’s dog, played cat and mouse with the cops, taunting them with handwritten letters to Daily News columnist Jimmy Breslin.
The murders were intermittent. This was not a one-time spree killer like the mass shootings now all too familiar to us today.
Instead, Berkowitz targeted young couples, often in parked cars, and frequently young attractive women with long brown hair. (This reportedly prompted many young women in the city to run to salons to get their hair dyed a different color.)
As a newspaper delivery boy, I would get stacks of The Daily News delivered outside our apartment door for me to then distribute to my customers.
That, in turn, meant I got a jump on all the latest developments in the case.
I would voraciously read the stories before I headed out on my route.
Among the headlines: “Breslin to .44 Killer: Give Up! It’s the Only Way Out!’ “Cops: .44-Caliber Killer ‘Is Taunting Us.’” “New Note: Can’t Stop Killing.” “Killer to Cops: I’ll Do It Again.”
The day after cops arrested Berkowitz – Aug. 11, 1977 – The Daily News featured this headline: “Nab Mailman as .44 Killer.”
I rushed into my parents’ bedroom and breathlessly woke my mother.
“They got him! They got the .44-Caliber Killer!” I told her.
Indeed they had.
And a 13-month reign of terror had finally come to an end.
https://www.ultimatelifestylist.com/the allegory of the cave essaysniffing ativanorder essay uk
Daily NewsDavid BerkowitzSon of Sam
Previous PostWhen I Drive, the Dead Are Always With MeNext PostNo More Excuses, It’s Time to Get Healthy
Adirondack Daily Enterprise
Poconos
Celebrating local journalism with two anniversaries
WOODSTOCK 50 YEARS LATER
Father’s Day: The Afterthought Hallmark Holiday
Finding Connections Through Language
Finding Healing by Editing a Book
About Men
AMR Fitness Challenge
Dispatches From Australia
Guest Blogger: John Roche
Guest blogger: Linda Fite
Guest Blogger: Meg McGuire
Guest blogger: Michelle Davies
Kaiser's Korner
Padre John's Sermons
Postcards From Australia
Super Dad
TBone's Pickins
Not All Men. Just Us Men.
About Men Radio is a show about men. Not all men, mind you, but specifically about a group of lifelong friends coping with rapidly changing gender roles and how they interact with their partners, their kids, their co-workers and each other. It's funny, feisty, smart-assed and very, very real.
|
cc/2020-05/en_middle_0050.json.gz/line3
|
__label__cc
| 0.748742
| 0.251258
|
Approximately Correct
Technical and Social Perspectives on Machine Learning
The AI Misinformation Epidemic
Interest in machine learning may be at an all-time high. Per Google Trends, people are searching for machine learning nearly five times as often as five years ago. And at the University of California San Diego (UCSD), where I’m presently a PhD candidate, we had over 300 students enrolled in both our graduate-level recommender systems and neural networks courses.
Much of this attention is warranted. Breakthroughs in computer vision, speech recognition, and, more generally, pattern recognition in large data sets, have given machine learning substantial power to impact industry, society, and other academic disciplines.
Like the internet before it, machine learning now stands poised to impact diverse areas of the economy. Whether you work in government, medical imaging, car services, the law, or recycling, there’s good reason to believe that machine learning will impact your life and finances.
For a researcher, there are many upsides to the current wave of enthusiasm. At this moment, machine learning presents fertile ground for scholarship. Across both the theory ⇔ hardware and methodology ⇔ application axes, there’s ample impactful work to be done. Even technically incremental work can have immediate effects in the real world. Accordingly, funding agencies, universities and industry have an enormous appetite for both empirically and theoretically motivated inquiry into machine learning.
[Of course, the rapid advance of machine learning presents many new challenges. One purpose for founding this blog is to address the social impacts of machine learning on the world, e.g. via technical unemployment or algorithmic decision-making. However, in this post we address specifically the spread of information/misinformation about AI and not the effects of the AI itself]
Complicating matters, the wave of enthusiasm for / interest in machine learning has spread far beyond the small group of people possessing a concrete sense of the state of machine learning. Both in industry and the broader public, many people know that important things are happening in machine learning but lack any concrete sense of what precisely is happening.
A Perfect Storm
This pairing of interest with ignorance has created a perfect storm for a misinformation epidemic. The outsize demand for stories about AI has created a tremendous opportunity for impostors to capture some piece of this market.
When founding Approximately Correct, I lamented that too few academics possessed either the interest or the talent for both expository writing and for addressing social issues. And on the other hand, too few journalists possess the technical strength to relate developments in machine learning to the public faithfully. As a result, there are not enough voices engaging the public in the non-sensational way that seems necessary now.
Unfortunately, the paucity of clear and informed voices has not resulted in a silent media. Instead, the void has been filled by charlatans, bombarding the public with incessant misinformation, much of it spread by opportunists, eager to seize upon the public’s interest.
As I quickly learned as a young PhD student blogging for KDnuggets, articles about deep learning get lots of clicks. Everything else being equal, in my experience, articles about deep learning attracted on the order of ten times as many eyeballs as other data science stories. This has made deep learning especially ripe for exploitation by click-baiters, including journalists in the traditional media who might possess the writing chops but are out of their depth – see the recent Maureen Dowd piece on Elon Musk, Demis Hassabis, and AI Armaggedon in Vanity Fair for a masterclass in low-quality, opportunistic journalism.
As public interest and media mania have grown in tandem, so has my anxiety that the spread of misinformation poses a danger. Here are some of the clues that tip me off that something is seriously wrong:
Widely circulated lists of the AI Influencers, even as published by companies like IBM that should know better, are populated mostly by people with no discernible contribution (or even expertise) in AI.
With startling regularity, if I tell an educated person what I do, a question quickly follows in reference to the Singularity, a quasi-religious event with no reliable definition or connection to science that has been prophesied for the coming century and popularized by Ray Kurzweil.
Despite the increasing familiarity of machine learning in the media, the quality of journalism hasn’t improved appreciably. With notable exceptions, newspapers and magazines of record haven’t risen to the challenge of providing terrestrial coverage on the topic despite the serious potential consequences for readers.
If machine learning had no societal impact, the present situation might not be so alarming. After all, the cartoonish descriptions of string theory and particle physics seem relatively harmless, since developments in particle physics show no sign of impacting free speech or the employment markets in the near future.
For several weeks, I’ve wanted to write a post dissecting the misinformation epidemic but I’ve been stifled by the sheer scale of the problem. To make the topic digestible, I’ve decided to write a multi-part series of posts, addressing the following narrower topics:
THE INFLUENCER INDUSTRY
This post will address the world of AI influencers, some legitimate researchers with outsize influence, others self-designated experts whose influence owes to the Paris Hilton effect, deriving greater celebrity from existing celebrity through a social media feedback loops and TED-style puff talks.
THE PROPHETS (Profits?) OF FUTURISM
Here, I’ll address the outsize coverage garnered by futurists. The most widely covered ideas, many inconcrete and unfalsifiable, have the flavor of mysticism. And yet, wrongly, they are frequently given a seat at the table alongside more sober reason, absent qualification. I plan to take a critical look at these ideas, e.g., the Singuarity, Ancestor Simulations, and their coverage in social and mainstream media.
THE FAILURE OF THE PRESS
In this piece, I’ll analyze the mainstream press’s attempts to write about machine learning. I will try to distill the common failure modes (e.g. failing to distinguish between real technology and fictional technology, overstating the brain-like nature of neural networks, and injecting expert opinions despite lacking expertise).
THE PERILS OF MISINFORMATION
Finally, I plan to analyze the various dangers presented by this misinformation. Namely, if people are unable to understand the complex phenomena impacting their lives, then we cannot reasonably expect politicians to argue about the topic clearly, or for voters to make informed decisions. Absent broad (and clear) understanding of the state of machine learning research, we cannot expect a democratic society to regulate the use of machine learning or to manage the economic consequences reasonably and appropriately.
03/31/2017 – Notes, Clarifications, and Analysis on the Response to the AI Misinformation Epidemic
04/17/2017 – Critique of the Guardian’s robotics puff piece “Meet Erica”
06/04/2018 – From AI to ML to AI: On Swirling Nomenclature & Slurried Thought
Author: Zachary C. Lipton
Zachary Chase Lipton is an assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon University. He is interested in both core machine learning methodology and applications to healthcare and dialogue systems. He is also a visiting scientist at Amazon AI, and has worked with Amazon Core Machine Learning, Microsoft Research Redmond, & Microsoft Research Bangalore. View all posts by Zachary C. Lipton
Author Zachary C. LiptonPosted on March 28, 2017 June 5, 2018 Categories JournalismTags Politics, Social Media
84 thoughts on “The AI Misinformation Epidemic”
Razvan Ciuca says:
When talking about the “singularity”, please distinguish between the three things people mean when they say that word (see here: http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/schools/). All three deserve to be criticized as strongly as possible, but some are much harder to criticize than others
T. M. McGuire says:
Nice of him to present the motte and bailey forms on the arguments.
Second. I’m not exactly allergic to the Yudkowsky flavor of “””singularity””” like I am the Kurzweil one (which is what the author seems to be addressing? can’t tell); I *love* reading thoughtful and informed criticisms of the Yudkowsky flavor, but *nobody seems to be even capable of doing this*, they just smear them all together into the same sludge from a position of confident ignorance and point and laugh at the dumbest nearby stereotype.
I don’t have much hope that our author will manage to produce well-informed criticism of Friendly AI/etc. thinking, but I do have a little.
> I find it very annoying, therefore, when these three schools of thought are mashed up into Singularity paste. Clear thinking requires making distinctions.
> But what is still more annoying is when someone reads a blog post about a newspaper article about the Singularity, comes away with none of the three interesting theses, and spontaneously reinvents the dreaded fourth meaning of the Singularity:
> “Apocalyptism: Hey, man, have you heard? There’s this bunch of, like, crazy nerds out there, who think that some kind of unspecified huge nerd thing is going to happen. What a bunch of wackos! It’s geek religion, man.”
Networkdata says:
These extrapolations of past trends to predict future events don’t make any sense in the context of complex (and presently unknowable) questions like what consciousness is and whether machines will become conscious. Its like people in London claiming the city would be 10m deep in horse shit if the rate of expansion of number of horse drawn carriages kept up its then growth rate. It annoys me because of the implicit intellectual arrogance based on incredibly weak assumptions. I get the sense that at the heart of it all does lie a kind of god complex on the part of people like Kurzweil.
Javier Mares says:
Thanks for this post, and hurrah for any efforts exposing bullshit.
I disagree with your stance on the Singularity here:
“the Singularity, a quasi-religious event with no reliable definition or connection to science that has been prophesied for the coming century”
Technological capability is accelerating at an accelerating pace. It’s a double exponential, readily observable in the price performance of many scientific fields based in information technologies. http://www.singularity.com/charts/page17.html Newer, more comprehensive data can be found in Kurzweil’s recent presentations.
Try to describe, in the least esoteric terms possible, what this means for humanity in the short to medium term. It will still be a meaningful and important idea.
Zachary C. Lipton says:
Statements like this are part of the problem: “Technological capability is accelerating at an accelerating pace. It’s a double exponential, readily observable in the price performance of many scientific fields based in information technologies”.
This does not mean anything. What precisely is doubly exponential? *Technology* is not a quantity. Not surprisingly, you support this nebulous claim with a reference to the singularity.com homepage. I hope the religious flavor of this argumentation is not lost on you.
It’s exactly what I said. The acceleration is accelerating, eg. W = W_0 * exp(C_1 * exp (C_2 * t)
where W is directly proportional to a technological capability such as computation, (calculations per second per fixed dollar).
The raw data and primary sources are in my cult’s, I mean my religion’s holy books, I mean, well they’re here: http://www.singularity.com/charts/page67.html
Simon Hibbs says:
How come that data stops in 1998? Are there no statistics on computer performance in the last 18 years? Well single threaded performance, which the table you post shows, has already hit a brick wall. It’s going nowhere. Moore’ Law is still serving us well, but every other technology we have ever had has eventually reached a plateau. Jet engines, internal combustion, rockets, nuclear power. We exploit the physics up close to its physical limits then there’s nowhere left to go. In fact most of the technologies in use today are only gradually improving. Has technology in the last 10 years really improved more than in the previous 20? 10 years ago I was using a dual core 24″ intel Mac that wouldn’t look out of place today. 30 years ago I was using a machine running CP/M and I’d never even seen a GUI.
https://www.karlrupp.net/2015/06/40-years-of-microprocessor-trend-data/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/31409423572/
It seems sensible to think about what opportunities and risks might come if these trends continue as far as the laws of physics will allow.
Now that you mention it, I’d be interested in learning about the current state of the art in turbomachinery. There’s a lot that must be possible today that wasn’t possible 20 years ago.
Chase Ries says:
Technology will dramatically reshape the future in ways that cannot be anticipated. That’s true. But arguments that refer exponential “technology capability” (especially those that invoke Moore’s law) always elide the fact that, by and large, we still have no idea what we’re doing in AI. An infinitely fast CPU would scarcely help, and our current heuristics for the kind of computation we would like to achieve—our own brains—are barely intelligible to those at the forefront of research.
I don’t want hand-waved promises. I want facts. I want a roadmap of advances. I want to know what problems are on the cusp of being solved, and how they affect the ultimate of GAI. And if you believe the Singularity is surely impending but can’t offer me anything beyond graphs carefully plotted along entirely arbitrary axes, then yes, it is a quasi-religious faith.
Kiuhnm says:
An infinitely fast CPU would be incredibly helpful! We could use a simple Bayesian/probabilistic approach to brute force our way through many obstacles.
I think you got carried away 🙂
I share your distaste for hand waving. I can’t speak for Singularitarianism but this is the extent of my beliefs:
It seems more likely than not that these trends will continue as far as the laws of physics will allow, and that a growing percentage of human endeavor is becoming based on information technologies. I see these capabilities (calculations per second per constant dollar, base pairs sequenced per dollar, etc.) as enabling, ie. they help us create and understand things that were previously impossible. Therefore, I’d be embarrassed if we don’t make significant advances in the improvement of human condition relatively soon. I’d be aggravated if we overlook the risks.
I think many people who have thought about the implications of accelerating change are just interested in building useful stuff.
Of course everybody wants facts about the future. That would amount to clairvoyance. If this is indeed your requirement for talk about the future to not be “quasi-religious faith”, then maybe you should consider to stop talking about the future at all. And let rest of us have fun with our faith please 😀
Edward Ned Harvey says:
There is a logical fallacy here. The idea that “technology advances rapidly,” leading to “the singularity” or anything similar. This argument requires that technology becomes self-aware, and knows how to self-improve at an exponential, or otherwise very rapid rate, to infinity, or a very powerful limit. To demonstrate this fallacy, let’s assume you actually are an android, or a simulation (who knows, you might be). Let’s assume god, or the simulator, or a brain surgeon gives you the control to self-improve. Could you do it? No, we don’t even understand how we work, and can’t recreate what we are in machines we build, so even if you had those controls, you wouldn’t be able to do the infinite self-improvement thing that results in you becoming the singularity. Fear of the singularity is superstitious fear of the unknown, and I’ve never seen any rational argument supporting it.
Koo Zhengqun says:
The past does not dictate the future. The “double-exponential” trend might not and does not continue.
I think it’s fair to say that an increase in raw computational power does not necessarily mean we are any closer to AGI. There are probably a lot of problems in the development of AGI which need direct application of the human mind to solve. This progress does not happen on its own — it’s researchers like Zachary who actually cause this progress on the ground.
I think it’s similar to how building a reusable rocket is extremely hard despite the fact that we already have the necessary resources available to do it. But only now are we making a modicum of progress on that front.
You do know that Moore’s law (the thing you’re basing all your claims on) is drying up, right? Those advancements that you see plotted on those graphs are mostly because over that time, we got better and better at manufacturing semiconductors on higher-res nodes – have a read through this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_device_fabrication
Those data points you reference are nice and all, but they don’t reflect the reality that the driving force of Moore’s Law – the jumps in the node size of the manufacturing process – is almost over – we’re now on 14nm, and 5nm is pretty much the limit, which means that around 2020, this whole thing will dry up.
Then, there’s still architectural improvements that can help make progress, optimizations, maybe someone will figure out a way to go lower than 5nm – but nothing near the explosive growth in computational power we’ve seen these past few decades.
Is this written in your holy books?
The current paradigm in computational systems, Moore’s Law, will run out of steam. This will be the fifth time that this happens, after electromechanical relays, vacuum tubes, and discrete transistors.
“When Moore’s Law reaches the end of its S-curve, now expected before 2020, the exponential growth will continue with three-dimensional molecular computing, which will constitute the sixth paradigm.” Kurzweil, Ray (2005-09-22). The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (Kindle Locations 1370-1371). Penguin Group. Kindle Edition.
… and there was much rejoicing.
My kingdom for an edit button. I missed a comma:
“electromechanical, relays, vacuum tubes, and discrete transistors”
duality says:
I completely agree with Zac here.
I would be very very careful to extrapolate growth. There are physical limits than you cannot overcome, and, more importantly, things that are so complex to both describe and calculate that for example the number of bits to process the problem would be only writable on a storage medium as large as the universe. good luck.
There’s no edit button, so here is what I meant to say in this sentence:
“[…] readily observable in historical data of performance measures of technologies in different scientific fields based on information technology”
Also: More recent data https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/31409423572/
Hhiram says:
I think we can all appreciate that you’re an academic scientist with a focus on machine learning. But – no offense – it’s obvious you’re making a mountain out of a molehill here.
Are there some misunderstandings among the broad public and among journalists about machine intelligence? Sure. But is there an “epidemic of misinformation”? Hardly.
If you read mainstream media coverage of Ai, you might be pleased to see how consistently journalists make the distinction between narrow AI and general AI. And that really is the only distinction necessary.
Does narrow AI pose a technological unemployment threat? Of course it bloody does – just look at the millions of drivers who are staged to be out of work thanks to self-driving cars.
Is general AI an existential threat? Of course it bloody is, and you don’t need to read Nick Bostrom’s book to understand why.
So your concerns about “misinformation” are misplaced, because 1) the media generally *does* distinguish narrow and general AI; 2) narrow AI is every bit as big of a threat to employment as people fear; and 3) general AI is an existential threat and neither you nor anyone else has the slightest clue how far away we are from cracking it.
I think we agree on many points but I flatly disagree with you about the extent of the problem. It’s not a “molehill” – it truly is out of control. I’d say it’s at the point where the amount of misinformation is far larger than the amount of good coverage. There are many notable exceptions. Jack Clark (formerly Bloomberg, now OpenAI) and Katyanna Quach (Register) are notable examples of writers who lucidly describe developments in AI. Cade Metz (Wired) has gotten better. But the majority of the coverage is rubbish.
In my eyes, the situation is reminiscent of the news’ failure to adequately cover the derivatives market prior to the financial collapse. Even after it happened, they struggled to explain what had happened. Of course, it’s not easy. Most people with a decent grasp of the machine learning techniques receive enormous salaries. So both a) cultivating and b) retaining competent journalists with the tools to provide engaging but terrestrial coverage is difficult. Nevertheless I believe it’s essential.
Kunal Bhatia says:
I enjoyed reading the article as well as the comments. Thanks Zachary. If you compare this situation to derivatives and the financial market collapse, what are the negatives of spreading misinformation about AI? I’m not seeing your perspective or how the analogy works yet.
Fabian Romero says:
The stakes a really high. After “experts” as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking which for their opinion is easy to see they don’t fully understand the subject, but they are “recognized genius” and they even ask for a ban on this kind of research and to add government oversight…. As pointed out by the OP, this idea of the singularity is nothing but fiction, and very accurately said is just a religious idea, nothing really scientific about that. But very pervasively present on the pop culture, and the voters. They can actually ban or influence so dramatically this field.
SilverSlash says:
And this folks, is precisely why we need to address this issue. I don’t think Stephen Hawking ever asked for a ban on AI research, but rather issued a warning about autonomous weapons powered by AI. But of course, the media then fully capitalised on the statement by Hawking and blew it out of proportion with click-bait titles (beyond which most people don’t read anything).
This is why we now have people like the guy above, ironically, talking about it on this article.
The negatives are numerous. One is that people focus on the wrong problems, e.g. sentient AI, and are oblivious to the concrete problems including (i) discrimination in algorithmic decision making (ii) technical unemployment (iii) ceding control to mindless recommender systems that optimize only clicks (think Facebook’s fake news problem).
R.Möller says:
I can support that. As a consultant I increasingly face inflated expectations by customers regarding real-world AI application. The inflated expectations are a direct consequence of pop-science media coverage.
Lord Astral says:
Why don’t we just build an AI reporter to cover AI? I’m sure Skynet would tell us the truth 😀
Well, you told us what you are going to tell us but you haven’t said anything yet. I look forward to the time when you say what you are going to say.
Thank you in advance for “weighing in”.
Adeel Zaman says:
Valid comment until the very end. Being a ML Phd candidate and having perused the state of the art papers in the field, he probably has a ‘rough sense’ regarding how far we may be from AGI.
Usually that rough prediction by actual ML/DL scientists tends to be a lot longer than what is actively being portrayed in the media, for the sake of clickbait articles.
Carlos Perez says:
I agree with you here. I also do want to see what Zachary has to write about this.
You are right in that there is an appreciation of the difference between narrow AI and general AI and that may be all that we need to know for now. There’s a long way to go from narrow AI to general AI, however narrow AI is improving at a rapid clip. It is narrow AI and its employment destroying capability that we have to worry about now. The most imminent threat is obvious, self-driving vehicles.
Gbell says:
Self-driving vehicles is a threat to the status quo and particularly to all those employed in this industry.
I am so looking forward to the benefits of this technology, particularly in electrical vehicles… fewer unnecessary deaths, horrific injuries and stress from human-caused accidents, quieter cities and suburbs, more real-state for parks and people and a more efficient economy.
At the risk of promoting a futurist… this is an interesting read, regardless of how many of these predictions are realized. http://www.futuristspeaker.com/job-opportunities/25-shocking-predictions-about-the-coming-driverless-car-era-in-the-u-s/#/
I agree with Hhiram. Probably the biggest threat comes from humans building and becoming dependent on more advanced machines while continuing to struggle with the implicit limitations and contradictions of human behavior, thinking and reasoning. I believe Stephen Hawking stated he is more concerned about people accidentally creating a situation which negatively impacts the human race rather than the prospect of machines taking over through AGI.
The biggest casualty in this next phase of technological evolution is likely to be trust. Who do you trust, what do you trust? That’s always been a perennial question, although with advancing narrow AI/ML ‘black box’ processes upon which we are starting to rely, and may ‘soon’ be completely dependent, who will know enough about these systems to assess risk, real or perceived?
If we’re having such a problem with these conversations now, the blog threads in the future may look even more intriguing…
WALID S SABA says:
I very much enjoyed reading your article warning about the perils of unprecedented and mostly misguided hype about AI in general and machine learning/deep learning in particular.
I have tried in a couple of posts to do the same, but apparently the storm is too big and the commercialism (democracy?) in a capitalist society trumps (no pun intended!) reason and rationality.
Although I work in AI but in a completely different paradigm (I work in NLU, and I am one of those who believes that data-driven/ML approaches to NLU are futile (see this https://www.slideshare.net/walidsaba/w-saba-fsll-parts-1234)… I might be wrong, but what I know about the subject tells me so).
Regardless of where our niche is in AI, all those working in AI and doing fundamental work should continue to speak out against this craze, otherwise I fear another and more severe AI Winter
Zaplatynski says:
Thank you for your article. I think you are absolutely right. I see a lot iof marketing around AI which diplomatically spoken questionable. It leads to false tracks and people believe the end of the world as they know it is near. This is plain bullshit und it is good that someone is brave enough to dig into it.
Correct me if I am wrong but latest research around neuro biological findings reveal that our brain might be best compared with a quantum computer which we are effectively not able to build yet (a quantum computer which have a life span measured in seconds isn’t a real one for me). So we simply lack the hardware to have singularity. Notbto speak of relevant software. Neural networks of today must be designed for specific purpose or problem space and trained with relevant data. This is the biggest problem. With big data we might get the chance to manage huge amounts of data to train complex neutral networks. But this is no guarantee for success.
Hello. I confess this is not an area in which I have any experience. My own background is in a more well-trodden (and I daresay dull) profession, but that gives me another perspective on the problem.
A lot of your concern seems, justifiably, focused on wildly inaccurate, misleading, or misfocused journalistic coverage of AI.
This is a problem that impacts every area of expertise. Journalists are, for the most part, generalists rather than specialized correspondents on a particular area. Of course, there are some exceptions: sometimes you see journalists with medical backgrounds or finance backgrounds, for example. But for the most part this is not the case (and even where there is a degree of specialism, that is no guarantee of quality). I guess journalists don’t have the time or resources to become experts, or even particularly conversant, on all the different topics that they cover.
As you note, interest in AI is increasing. I suspect the defining feature of the issue you are experiencing is, in fact, as follows:
1. AI is not a special victim here, but is receiving more or less the same level of journalistic rigor as, say, natural sciences, economics, law, or medicine.
2. Press coverage of AI is only recently reaching the ‘critical mass’ where experts in the field can see (and despair at) the poor standard of journalistic reporting.
The reality is that, in many specialisms (and indeed entire industrial sectors), the poor standard of journalism is a fact of life to which people are already resigned. As one person I known frequently observes, it’s only when you see an article on something you know about, that you realize how inaccurate everything else probably is.
Haha, amen to the last sentence!
Jiro says:
I have held for years the same idea you express in your comment.
It is a statistical impossibility that every time I consume some reporting on a subject that I am familiar with are the only instances that the reporters have no idea what they are talking about. Thus goes journalism. Having a full appreciation of the subject is the exception.
That puts this entire post in the proper context in my opinion.
This is a very good point and certainly needs to be taken into account by Zachary. If you take a step back you can see how much generalism occurs in media reporting on every industry. It is always unfortunate when it damages promising and emerging technologies however.
Vasco says:
The author might be right there, but no quantitative analysis is provided. Would also be nice to see it in comparison to other “Missionformation” with potential social and political impact.
I am hoping his later blog posts will delve into the detail he has alluded to. As a machine learning amateur myself it would certainly be good to have a critical analysis of popular reporting!
Ahmad Tajuddin says:
I think it’s fair to wait for the entire posts by Zachary on his analyses in which including those FOUR main themes as described in the article above, before we questioning, agree/disagree, or rebutting the author’s authority for analysing and writing all this up. However, I couldn’t agree more with Zachary for what his intention is to shape a discourse of AI in the real sense of AI (by which it means deep understanding, not superficial) so that the world would have an informed society, as we know how imperative this task in the upcoming future.
Steve Swing says:
Thank you for the post and the upcoming editions. You used the word outsize in three places. Did you mean outside in each?
Thanks for the note. No, I do not mean outside. I mean disproportionately large.
Christopher Shawn Courtney says:
I personally believe you wrote a great article and pointed out a large flaw in media and most information sources in general.As well as the publics often irrational interpretation of information.Flawed by design.
Mentifex (Arthur T. Murray) says:
“AI Misinformation Epidemic”? https://www.reddit.com/r/artificial/comments/61xkgv/the_ai_misinformation_epidemic — sent me here to read all about it. Please let me tell y’all that yesterday at http://ai.neocities.org/perlmind.txt I uploaded a potentially immortal artificial intelligence that could put a stop to the epidemic.
interesting immortal AI you have there …
rdp says:
Oh my god, these comments.
“Technological capability is accelerating at an accelerating pace. It’s a double exponential”
“that a growing percentage of human endeavor is becoming based on information technologies.”
“neuro biological findings reveal that our brain might be best compared with a quantum computer”
Hey rdp,
Sorry for my post full of typos but there several sciences sources about it which popped up in November 2016:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161102-quantum-neuroscience/
If this proves to be right it explains why humans could be capable of so much more. But not everyone is a genius. What happens to those workforces who can be replaced by automation or digital transformation (to use marketing buzz words)… Amazon failed this week with its full automated supermarket (https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-delays-convenience-store-opening-to-work-out-kinks-1490616133) …. There is a danger that the uninformed held AI responsible for that kind of development…
Thank you for taking the time to reply Zaplatynski.
I included the quote from your post because like AI, quantum is another term that is abused to misinform people. People like Deepak Chopra have created entire careers obscuring nonsense with the word quantum.
My intention is not to pick on you specifically, but do you know the difference between a quantum computer and binary one? Are you familiar with the von Neumann computer architecture and it’s implications? Have you looked into the refutations of Penrose trying to apply Godel’s theorem to describe cognition?
My point is that Lipton’s critique of AI misinformation is applicable to many fields. His arguments can’t be countered by misinformation from other fields.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond.
Carl Youngblood says:
I think it’s perfectly fine for futurists and transhumanists to extrapolate from present trends and speculate about the future. I like what Carl Sagan said in his magnum opus: “We wish to find the truth, no matter where it lies. But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact.”
I also think that it’s OK for people to be religious about things. In fact, I think the bigger problem is not recognizing the boundaries of science and religiosity. Right now you are making a religious argument. You are trying to passionately persuade people about why imprecise thinking about technological trends may cause people to jump to unwarranted conclusions. But to persuade others of this claim, you must reach beyond science. You must appeal to some sense of morality. You must include words like “should,” while science can only provide facts and findings.
Scoping and framing the discussion about technological trends is important, but it’s also important to recognize the difference between long- and short-term thinking. Kurzweil’s law of accelerating returns is a useful observation about long-term increases in complexity and capability. It would be unwise to attribute too much precision to the principle, but it is still useful. Making predictions and decisions about the future is not the same as well-organized painstaking scientific research, but both endeavors have their uses.
Great comment.
Sanju says:
Agree. We need to approach each side of the debate with with a balanced cost-benefit analysis. Use each approach to extent its benefits outweigh the costs.
As computer sciencist I know von Neumann of cause but the other I am no expert. The difference between a normal computer and a quantum one is like (e.g. Bad comparison but close enough for me) the difference between finit state and non-finit-state machines. The later we can not build because we lack of massive parallel computations as expected from quantum computers. Any way my interest is enough to conclude that we have not the hardware (yet). So Jonny Depp’s movie Transcend is pure fiction.
Yes I agree with Lipton, he has good points. But I would go further since AI is hyped, regarding marketing misused (I see people calling stuff AI supported where I can not see AI but it seems to sell) and not understood by a broad mass it may end up like the witches at end of the middle age (witch hunt is not happened in Europe in the middle ages but after the period we call middle age). So I see a chance where politicians ban AI not only because it could make people unemployed but also like it is “evil technology” (a tool is always neutral). By the way not AI makes unemployment at the end but greedy people who try to live of the rest ofvthr population.
After working with computers for over 4 decades I too am very concerned with the fear mongering surrounding AI and see a real danger in the fear mongering itself. It can lead to public outcry at what could be very beneficial uses for AI out of fear, and will provide cover for AI engineers who can cause a catastrophe.
If interested I have written a short essay expressing similar thoughts about this subject.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/pulling-killer-cyborg-rabbits-out-hat-john-smith
Richard Abramson says:
I applaud Zachary’s attempt to call attention to the problem. Misinformation, exaggeration and fear-mongering around AI — much of it based on thematic elements borrowed from Terminator movies, for goodness sake! — is anything but harmless. Just look at the impact alarmist websites and conspiracy theories have had on consumer acceptance of GMO crops, the claimed dangers of which are rarely supported by sound scientific studies. Same point with respect to the anti-vaccine crowd, who confuse anecdotal evidence — almost all of which fails to establish anything other than statistically irrelevant correlation — with fact. Frankly, in a world in which “fact” seems to be just another word for opinion and ignorance is no barrier to pronouncement, I can take comfort only in the knowledge that validated facts are true whether you believe them or not!
The singularity is a quasi-religious event with no basis in reality? Are you talking about the singularity of the Big Bang? And if so, what on Earth does it have to do with religion, and how on Earth has it no basis in reality?
No, I am not talking about the big bang.
(Retired) Prof. Prakash says:
We are learning more and more about human brain structure, firing of neurons, dendrites, synapses, and so forth, but we do not have the vaguest idea of how all this physical activity transforms into thought: into a Shakespeare writing, “To be or not to be…” or “Put out the light and then put out the light …” and a Wordsworth writing, “Then my heart with pleasure fills…”
We train neural nets with zillions of examples and empirical data. Show Wright brothers zillions of birds, or dragon flies, or houseflies, and expect them to learn to “fly” using aerodynamics. It was Reverend Wright, their father, who said, if God intended man to fly, He would have given him Wings! The reverend was thinking like legendary Icarus.
If Human intelligence lies in memory recall or seeing patterns in massive amount of data, it will by definition be augmented by AI, Silicon implants, “Carbon copies.” But if human intelligence is exemplified as (1) Faraday’s noticing induced magnetism and dreaming up the concept of “field,” or as (2) Herz noticing simultaneous sparking across the room in gaps of not-connected wires when connected wires sparked this side, and postulating “electro magnetic waves,” or (3) Fitzgerald and Lorentz imagining a kid bouncing a ball in a railway coach against the front panel versus side panel and concluding space contraction and time dilation in relative motion, then Singularity, however defined seems farfetched. Will we get there some day is at best “religion” or faith. We have to first find how neural activity creates thought–not just any thought, creative thought. I have to still see a book by a Nobel Laureate that would teach me how to think Nobel-winning thoughts!
As a doctoral student at MIT in 1967-1970, I had long discussions on these ideas with Prof. Mc Culloch (who with Pitt started it all). Unfortunately his passing away in Sept 1969 changed my history. The philosophising halted. I drifted into Economics with Profs. Samuelson and Solow (both Nobel Laureates) after working with Prof. Marvin Minsky for a little while.
Again? Really? says:
God you guys are whiny. If you’ve come into the world recently and are less than 45 years old, part of the reason you’re astonished at the treatment of the field is because you weren’t here for the earlier part of it-
I was in graduate school doing AI research many years ago, and I saw it first hand- AI originally presented grand ideas; “We’ll be able to beat chess grandmasters in 5 years! We’ll have universal translators in the next 10 years! We’ll have a machine that can pass the turing test by the end of the decade!”… and people were throwing grant money at PhDs in the 1970s left and right with lofty promises for like these. That was before people caught on.
You see, for better or worse, after failing to deliver decade after decade, AI became known as snake oil; a foolhardy Computer Science money pit that only belonged in academia. (For the kids, snake oil is defined by google as “a product, policy, […] of little real worth or value that is promoted as the solution to a problem”). At the time, besides enduring the usual mockery that came from other CS disciplines for AI being pie-in-the-sky and generally useless, (such as from high performance computing people, information theory people, OS people, etc), you had the same nonsense about being asked about Westworld robots (kids – there was a movie in the 70s, before HBO or cable tv existed, it’s not bad, check it out) and later Terminators. By the time I finished my degree I was so disgusted with the level of… well, not straight up quackery but at least academic dishonesty with known capabilities, that I left that area of computer science and never went back.
So don’t be surprised when the press abuses you, because congratulations – you took up the same field the last generation screwed up for you -“We can dO TEH ANYTHING!”. So the assumption is why not crazy killer robots too?
No one’s going to give you the benefit of the doubt this time, it’s up for you to push the boundary to produce something meaningful – better than our old learning chess programs and pathfinding, (A* oh boy!). Now you can do such fantastical things as… search the web! (WOW!!) balance a robot on two feet! recognize a cat meme! and… drive a car. sorta…
And as for the Turing test? Well, someday. Don’t promise it, and people will respect you more, (and you won’t look like a damned fool later). As long as people are talking about your field, it’s a win. Vanity Fair did an article? Excellent, more exposure means more questions (and money) will come.
But quit whining; it’s pathetic. You’re partially defining the future of humanity. Try to act like it.
I think this is a misguided reply. The misrepresentation is not problematic because it harms AI researchers. To be frank, in the short run, in many ways it helps researchers: high salaries from eager startups, professors poached from academia creating opportunities for young talent, etc. I don’t feel bad for them (us).
The misrepresentation is problematic because it misleads the public. The difference between now and last time (pre-winter) is that then machine learning was just an idea. We didn’t have machine learning driving cars on the road (in a serious way), we didn’t have algorithms curating the news. So the misinformation wasn’t wasn’t so problematic with respect to social welfare.
petrux says:
Hi Zach,
good post, we really needed it! I’ll try to translate large part of it, or, at least, writing a large summary of the post in Italian. Would you mind if I do? Please, let me know!
petrux
Yes, of course. Please link to the source and let us know when it’s up. Thanks! 🙂
Brian Piccioni says:
I look forward to your article. I am sure you know you poked the bear by not showing due reverence to his holiness Kurzweil! I bought one of his books and couldn’t get past the first chapter: it is such unscientific garbage I find it amazing anybody takes him seriously.
I was force to sit through a presentation using his slides which showed something like “paradigm shifts” and which started with the Big Bang, included asteroid strikes, etc.. It’s like the guy doesn’t know that if you plot things on two axis and draw a line though it you imply causality!
As for AI, there is so much claptrap out there the mind absolutely boggles.
Remember: if you poke Elon Musk (peace be upon him) you’ll catch holy hell!
Anastassia Lauterbach says:
Each religion has its own Messiha, and the techno-religion is no exception. Kurzweil is taken seriously as such a “Messiha” as he came up with several inventions, e.g. first flatbed scanner, the first scanner that converted text to speech, the music synthesizer, and the first commercialized marketed large-vocabulary speech recognition. He predicted that something like Deep Blue would beat a chess grandmaster by 1998. In the early eithies he thought that by the early 200o internet would emerge as a global phenomenon.
Each religion has some kind of an institution, and Google cofinanced the Singularity University.
Each religion has followers. I don’t know exact numbers, but I assume AI as a business generate stable cash flow.
Of course, AI is not just a business. It is in business with practical use cases, (human generated) pitfalls due to bias in models, and people managing expectations according either to their pro bono enthusiasm, or their commercial agenda.
In this context every effort to help those “lost in translation” is helpful. This however should happen without fingerpointing. Good communication is an art, if not a science. I wish there would be more great comms from true experts.
Some of this makes sense. I’d advise caution with boogeyman phrases like “fingerpointing”:
This however should happen without fingerpointing
Any critical response could be described as “fingerpointing”, as rhetorical device to escape accountability.
Also – perhaps there is a different standard to which we can hold authors and commenters. I wouldn’t express my thoughts on the topic so viscerally as Brian, but I wouldn’t say it goes beyond what’s fair game for a comment thread.
Mthandeni kaDumisani Langa says:
Hi Zachary,
Refreshing views you hold. Our research group, Computational Intelligence, had a discussion regarding curbing the misinformation you are addressing.
Cheers to taking such a bold stance. We need this in our society, otherwise the Internet through the prophets of misinformation will continue to bombard the society with meaningless and unscientific views.
There is far reaching value in engaging in principled research. I can’t wait to read your subsequent articles.
Mthandeni kaDumisani Langa
PhD student, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
Thanks! Interested to hear the takeaways from your research group’s conversation.
Edit of my first comment:
The rate of technological change is accelerating exponentially. This is readily observable in historical data of performance measures of a wide variety of technologies.
Here is one of the most important trends https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/31409423572/ in which you can observe a double exponential* growth of calculations per second per constant dollar for the last 120 years. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_exponential_function
Here are some other trends: http://www.singularity.com/charts/page17.html (more recent data are available in Kurzweil’s recent presentations.)
Let’s assume that there’s a 50% probability that these trends will continue insofar as the laws of physics will allow. Try to describe, in the least esoteric terms possible, the implications of these trends for humanity in the short to medium term. I don’t see how religious thinking is necessary for accelerating change to still be a meaningful and important observation.
I’ve said this in the past: Technological innovation is about transcending our current capabilities. That is a powerful notion. It will attract good thinkers and bad thinkers, good artists and bad artists, good engineers and bad engineers.
True, there is no edit button. I suggest reading the comment before you submit. This is a polite spam warning. I will have to go back and delete your comments if you post too many near-identical comments.
Thanks, I will keep that in mind.
yoshua bengio says:
On the point of “Failure of the Press”, when you say “overstating the brain-like nature of neural networks, and injecting expert opinions despite lacking expertise”, you need to consider that this is also a failure of the academia. To see a prime example of this, take our colleague Geoffrey Hinton, who refers to the computations done in a Artificial Neural Network as “thoughts”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAu3jQWaN6E . That is surely a very controversial statement for computer scientists, psychologists, philosophers, and others. But that is the kind of statements that catch people’ attention. Even if they may be taken out of context or used dishonestly (hey, that guy Hinton built a machine that categorizes images by thinking about the properties that define each category!) .
These kind of over statements are all over the place in academia. Just look at abstracts of papers posted on arxiv every day. Or the blog posts from big research groups, from universities and industry. There is a large group of people who seem to be in a competition of who screams the loudest. Perhaps they do it out of conviction. Or perhaps they do it to convince the lay people that what hey do is interesting. Or perhaps it is just to convince the funding agencies and angel investors. In my opinion, the “failure of the press” that you describe is a product of vanity, and possibly greed, in academia.
I agree, academics own a share of the responsibility for this misinformation. One pattern that I’ve witnessed several times: an academic, who would never be so ostentatious in their formal work, will found a startup with a name like BrainMind, perhaps commissioning graphics that evoke brains/neurons, etc.
However, this shouldn’t annul the duty of the press to get to the truth. Similarly, while financiers bear responsibility for the financial crisis, so do cheerleaders like Jim Cramer (CNBC).
Here’s the actual bit:
https://youtu.be/XG-dwZMc7Ng?t=4m11s
David Krueger says:
I skimmed this article and the Vanity Fair article yesterday.
What did you find objectionable about it? It seemed pretty good to me.
I imagine you may be joking, David. In case you’re not… the problems with the Vanity Fair article are many. The piece portrays developments in AI as stemming principally from the personalities of Elon Musk and Demis Hassabis. It fails to qualitatively distinguish scientific developments from the religious prophesies. At a time when AI may have real effects on people’s lives, this article did nothing to clarify what they might be or to paint a realistic picture of what ML actually does.
I wasn’t joking. I strongly disagree with your characterizations of the piece, except: “At a time when AI may have real effects on people’s lives, this article did nothing to clarify what they might be”. But that wasn’t the point of the article, so I don’t know why you’d complain about it.
Steven Meyer says:
What do you people think of Peter Naur’s argument that all non computational forms of thought are being surpressed (See his 2005 Turing Award lecture plus http://www.naur.com web site). AI is just using computers for finding patterns in data and taking credit for technological improvements in sensors and actuators.
This argument appears vacuous. I’m not sure there’s enough content here to actually require a response. In short, start by substituting “machine learning” for “AI” since that’s what we’re actually talking about. Then “ML is just using computers for finding patterns in data” isn’t an argument worth discussing, it’s simply regurgitating the very definition of the field. The problem here is the word “just”, which trivializes a tremendously difficult undertaking.
Leave a Reply to Koo Zhengqun Cancel reply
Previous Previous post: Fake News Challenge – Revised and Revisited
Next Next post: Notes on Response to “The AI Misinformation Epidemic”
OpenAI Trains Language Model, Mass Hysteria Ensues
When are predictions policies?
The Greatest Trade Show North of Vegas (Pressing Lessons from NeurIPS 2018)
Is This a Paper Review?
Troubling Trends in Machine Learning Scholarship
Falaah Arif Khan on Death Note: Finally, an Anime about Deep Learning
David Krueger on The AI Misinformation Epidemic
wenqi on Are Deep Neural Networks Creative? v2
Wiretrip on OpenAI Trains Language Model, Mass Hysteria Ensues
Wiretrip on From AI to ML to AI: On Swirling Nomenclature & Slurried Thought
Machine Learning Ethics
Machine Learning Methodology
Machine Learning Policy
Approximately Correct Proudly powered by WordPress
|
cc/2020-05/en_middle_0050.json.gz/line6
|
__label__wiki
| 0.566679
| 0.566679
|
Home > Announcements > The Nordic Association of Architectural Research Symposium in Stockholm, 19-20 May 2016
The Nordic Association of Architectural Research Symposium in Stockholm, 19-20 May 2016
The Nordic Association of Architectural Research Symposium, 19-20 May 2016 in Stockholm
The Production of Knowledge in Architecture by PhD Research in the Nordic Countries
This symposium provides an essential context for an understanding of the function and practice of architectural knowledge production. A must for PhD students, PhD supervisors, senior researchers and Heads of Research and PhD-schools.
Conference Languages: English and Nordic languages (Danish, Norwegian, Swedish)
• Professor Halina Dunin-Woyseth, Oslo School of Architecture and Design
• Dr. Ann Legeby, PhD 2013, KTH/ School of Architecture
• Dr. Johan Linton, PhD 2013, Chalmers Architecture
• Dr. Marie Markman, PhD 2014, Aarhus School of Architecture
• Dr. Sari Tähtinen, PhD 2013, Aalto University
Link to homepage for the conference
https://www.arch.kth.se/en/forskning/konferenser-och-symposier/the-production-of-kn/the-production-of-knowledge-in-architecture-by-phd-research-in-the-nordic-countries-1.610217
What does a PhD in architecture lead to? What kind of PhD research is carried out in the Nordic countries, why, and how? What does performing research in architecture mean? What is the relevance and value of PhD research in architecture for the architectural education, the profession and society? What are the traditions and cultures of research at Nordic PhD schools, universities, institutes, art academies, architectural offices, municipalities and the industry? What is the significance of research settings in the Nordic countries for the emergence of research practices, formats, methods and discourses that determine the way we understand architecture as a field of research?
Researcher training in and about architecture has gained visibility over the past 25 years. Since the 1990s institutional and individual based frameworks for PhD training have been developed at both schools of architecture and universities. This has not just created an extra level of qualification but has also contributed to a reflective interest in the architectural field in the broadest sense: interior design, architectural design, city and landscape planning, urbanism, architectural history and architectural heritage, conservation and preservation - in short, all forms of spatial culture.
For 25 years The Nordic Association of Architectural Research has been a unifying key player for architectural research in the Nordic countries, and thus also an important representative for the different research cultures at PhD schools. With the symposium The Production of Knowledge in Architecture by PhD Research in the Nordic Countries the association wants to shed light on and map architectural research by starting a critical discussion on PhD research. At the symposium this will be done by asking questions about the benefit, relevance, formats, explorations, and interfaces of research - and about its current state and the perspectives for its future.
The mapping will take into consideration differences and similarities between the Nordic nations and between their different discursive traditions. Fundamentally, researcher training in and about architecture supports an institutionalised process of knowledge production that, among other things, includes grants, PhD positions, supervision, courses, project work, etc. From the perspective of The Nordic Association of Architectural Research it is also essential to make visible and discuss these elements in order to support trans-disciplinary and cross-institutional research development in the wide-ranging field of architecture.
Aims and purposes
The symposium aims at illustrating the Nordic research community and its positioning in a self-reflexive manner by putting into perspective the above. It is primarily aimed at PhD students and PhD supervisors, but will be relevant to anyone who works with research and knowledge production within interior design, architectural design, urban design and development, landscape architecture and physical planning, architectural history and theory or architectural heritage, conservation and preservation and who has an interest in the epistemological questions raised by the way the concept of architecture and the concept of research are interpreted in various research-related contexts.
The symposium seeks to connect subjective experience with the discipline-specific issues that researcher training programmes have made possible as PhD training has gained ground. Which notions on architecture have been promoted? What methodologies have been developed? In what way have the forms of presentation and dissemination changed since the 1990s?
The symposium aims at providing a broad platform for researchers, educators and professionals to share views, results and experiences on the production of knowledge in architecture, and it welcomes representatives from both academia and practice.
The symposium invites PhD students in the Nordic countries who engage in architectural research to submit papers in the following areas of research:
• Interior design
• Architectural design
• Urban design and development
• Landscape architecture and physical planning
• Architectural theory and history
• Architectural heritage, conservation and preservation
Proceedings Publication: A double-blind peer reviewed proceedings publication will follow the symposium. Proceedings will be in English, both printed and online.
Organizer: The Nordic Association of Architectural Research, http://arkitekturforskning.net/na, in cooperation with the School of Architecture at KTH, Sweden, https://www.arch.kth.se
Location: School of Architecture, Stockholm, Sweden
Conference fee: 1500 SEK
Nordic as well as international PhD-supervisors and senior researchers can attend the symposium at a reduced fee of 1000 SEK.
Contact: naf-conference@arch.kth.se
• Dr. Charlie Gullström Hughes, KTH/School of Architecture
• Dr. Daniel Koch, KTH/ School of Architecture + The Nordic Association of Architectural Research
• Associate Professor Magnus Rönn, KTH/School of Architecture + The Nordic Association of Architectural Research
• Associate Professor Anne Elisabeth Toft, Aarhus School of Architecture + The Nordic Association of Architectural Research
• Dr. Jonas E. Andersson, The Swedish Agency for Participation + The Nordic Association of Architectural Research
• Dr. Lars Brorson Fich, Department of Architecture and Media Technology; Aalborg University + The Nordic Association of Architectural Research
• Professor Elin Børrud, Norwegian University of Life Sciences + The Nordic Association of Architectural Research
• Dr. Lisbet Harboe, Institute of Urbanism and Landscape, AHO + The Nordic Association of Architectural Research
• Dr. Daniel Koch, KTH/School of Architecture + The Nordic Association of Architectural Research
• Dr. Anders Larsson, SLU/ Dept of Landscape Architecture, Planning and Management, Alnarp + The Nordic Association of Architectural Research
• Associate Professor Henrik Reeh, Department of Arts and Cultural Studies, Copenhagen University + The Nordic Association of Architectural Research
• Associate Professor Pirjo Sanaksenaho, School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Aalto University + The Nordic Association of Architectural Research
• Dr. Inger Lise Syversen, Chalmers-Architecture + The Nordic Association of Architectural Research
• Dr. Anni Vartola, Aalto University + The Nordic Association of Architectural Research
|
cc/2020-05/en_middle_0050.json.gz/line12
|
__label__cc
| 0.581324
| 0.418676
|
Deadly Verses
Submitted by jought on February 8, 2010 - 7:16am
In earlier times, poetry held an important place in many cultures. For the literate 200 years ago, poems were a way to gain not only pleasure but exercise for the imagination. Maybe you couldn't watch Avatar in 3D, but you could visit Coleridge's Xanadu or Blake's fiery spirits. Centuries before the Romantics, Northern European bards and balladeers were important in their cultures, historians of great deeds and heroes, their lays and songs affording a little immortality to compensate for short human life spans.
Now, despite occasional news flurries around the Griffin Prize or the appointment of a poet laureate, the art is marginalized. Mostly it is other poets, and aspiring ones, who attend readings and buy books. Few ordinary people today would have a shelf of poetry books , if they even own a bookshelf. Poetry is a small community speaking primarily to itself, inundated by the ceaseless gabbling of Twitter, RSS feeds, E-Yak TV and hip-hop downloads.
Yet there is one foothold that poetry – or at least verse-- maintains in the contemporary psyche. A friend once explained to me, when I was impatient with the lurching structure of the average opera, that “they sing when the emotion is too great to be contained in speech.” The same seems to be true of everyday people when it comes to the death of those near and dear to them. Whether it's from tradition or instinct, they often sense that the plain rhythms of prose are not enough to express their grief. So, to give some depth to the death notice they struggle to write for the local paper, they choose rhyming verses. Funeral homes and newspapers have a handy stock of these to comfort the bereaved who are not confident enough to pen an original elegy. I have no desire to mock the real heartbreak that comes with losing a spouse, parent or (worst of all) a child. It's the literary form of these expressions that concerns me.
I think every life deserves some strong and vivid commemorative writing. After all, with a little thought, you can have carved on your tombstone some genuine poetry like Yeats' epitaph, from “Under Ben Bulben”:
Cast a cold Eye
On Life, on Death.
Horseman, pass by.
Or, you could leave 'em laughing. I've always liked the verse a dentist had engraved on his granite marker: “Stranger! Approach this spot with gravity! John Brown is filling his last cavity.” British actor Wallace Ford chose: “At last I get top billing.”
However, consumers have many less felicitous pre-fab memorial verses available on-line. They generally have a sing-song quality that perhaps suggests the soothing effects of a lullaby. Some of them even have a space left so that you can slot in the name of your dear departed. Here's a sampling of such memorial verses written by that tireless author Anon.
Those who actually liked the lyrics to “Stairway to Heaven” might appreciate the far-fetched metaphor in this quatrain:
If tears could build a stairway
and thoughts a memory lane
I'd walk right up to heaven and
bring you home again
The next selection carries an unconscious reminder of how much unpaid work parents – especially mothers – do. It sounds like it should be followed by a “help wanted” ad.
A wonderful mother, woman and aid;
One who was better, God never made,
A wonderful worker, loyal and fair,
Tenderly helpful, O mother you were.
Does this sound to anyone else like an odd tribute? “I'm so sorry to hear about your mother,” “Yes, she was a wonderful aid.” But dads get missed for their contribution to the labour force, too:
Farewell, dear father, thy work is o'er,
Thy willing hands will toil no more.
If Dad was a devoted union member, it'd be tempting to add “But then Management's never did...”.
The next one isn't terrible as verse, but the imagery is a bit jarring, moving from a flood to furniture (perhaps a LazyBoy recliner) within two lines:
The rolling stream of life rolls on,
But still the vacant chair
Recalls the love, the voice, the smile
Of the one who once sat there.
I have a modest proposal . When you get your next tax refund, pay a Canadian poet to compose for you a tribute a bit more eloquent than an empty chair or a stairway built of tears. Not only will you have supported one of the lowest-paid professions in Canada, you can go to your eternal reward with the comforting assurance that a raspberry of generic, mawkish verses will not herald your departure.
jought's blog
Join to Comment
jought on February 8, 2010 - 10:18am said:
Yes, I like Nathan's poem as well -- there's a fine stillness about it. It reminds me of Carl Sandburg's poem "Grass" which starts by recalling the bodies of dead combatants piled high in war and then concludes:
I am the grass.
Let me work.
Poems like these about death give me, at least, some comfort.
John Oughton
Dimitra on February 8, 2010 - 9:14am said:
This is isn't really a tribute, but it's a lovely poem about loss by Leonard Nathan:
I hadn't noticed
till a death took me outside
and left me there
that grass lifts so quietly
to catch everything
we drop and we drop
www.dimitra.ca
The views expressed in the Writer-in-Residence blogs are those held by the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Open Book: Toronto.
John Oughton is the author of several books, including Time Slip: New and Selected Poems, published by Guernica Editions.
Go to John Oughton’s Author Page
|
cc/2020-05/en_middle_0050.json.gz/line18
|
__label__wiki
| 0.71069
| 0.71069
|
Changing the News: The Forces Shaping Journalism in by Wilson Lowrey, Peter J. Gade
February 27, 2017 admin Journalism
By Wilson Lowrey, Peter J. Gade
Changing the inside track examines the problems in altering information tactics and practices according to the evolving conditions and struggles of the journalism undefined. The editors have prepare this quantity to illustrate why the prescriptions hired to salvage the journalism thus far haven’t labored, and to provide an explanation for how constraints and pressures have motivated the field’s responses to demanding situations in an doubtful, altering atmosphere.
If journalism is to regulate and thrive, the subsequent questions want solutions: Why do reporters and information enterprises reply to uncertainties within the methods they do? What forces and buildings constrain those responses? What social and cultural contexts may still we consider after we pass judgement on even if journalism effectively responds and adapts? The e-book tackles those questions from various views and degrees of study, via chapters via students of reports sociology and media administration. Changing the News info the forces that form and problem journalism and journalistic tradition, and explains why reporters and their enterprises reply to problems, demanding situations and uncertainties within the approach they do.
Read Online or Download Changing the News: The Forces Shaping Journalism in Uncertain Times PDF
Similar journalism books
The Gutenberg Galaxy
The Gutenberg Galaxy catapulted Marshall McLuhan to reputation as a media theorist and, in time, a new media prognosticator. Fifty years after its preliminary e-book, this landmark textual content is extra major than ever ahead of.
Readers may be surprised through McLuhan’s prescience, unrivaled through a person on the grounds that, predicting as he did the dramatic technological thoughts that experience essentially replaced how we speak. The Gutenberg Galaxy foresaw the networked, compressed ‘global village’ that will emerge within the late-twentieth and twenty-first centuries — regardless of having been written whilst black-and-white tv was once ubiquitous.
This re-creation of The Gutenberg Galaxy celebrates either the centennial of McLuhan’s start and the fifty-year anniversary of the book’s ebook. a brand new inside layout updates The Gutenberg Galaxy for twenty-first-century readers, whereas honouring the leading edge, avant-garde spirit of the unique. This variation additionally comprises new introductory essays that light up McLuhan’s lasting influence on a number of scholarly fields and pop culture.
A must-read in the event you inhabit today’s worldwide village, The Gutenberg Galaxy is an essential street map for our evolving conversation landscape.
Journalism and Democracy: An Evaluation of the Political Public Sphere
The general public sphere is expounded to be in situation. Dumbing down, tabloidisation, infotainment and spin are purported to contaminate it, adversely affecting the standard of political journalism and of democracy itself. there's a pervasive pessimism in regards to the courting among the media and democracy, and frequent predicament for the way forward for the political technique.
Sports Guys: Insights, Highlights and Hoo-hahs From Your Favorite Sports Authorities
It really is not going the Midwest will ever see a extra eminent band of activities men. they're invoice Grigsby, Joe McGuff, Len Dawson, Don Fortune and Harold Ensley.
Gender, Citizenship and Newspapers: Historical and Transnational Perspectives
The gendered nature of the connection among the clicking and emergence of cultural citizenship from the 1860s to the Thirties is explored via unique facts and insightful comparisons among India, Britain and France during this built-in method of women's illustration in newspapers, their position as information assets and their expert job.
Travels with Myself and Another: A Memoir
Mindful Journalism and News Ethics in the Digital Era: A Buddhist Approach
European Identity: What the Media Say
Additional info for Changing the News: The Forces Shaping Journalism in Uncertain Times
2004). The vanishing newspaper. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press. Mindich, D. T. Z. (2008). Journalism and citizenship: making the connections right. Nieman Reports, 62(4), 23–25. Nichols, S. , Friedland, L. , & Shah, D. V. (2006). Examining the effects of public journalism on civil society from 1994–2002: Organizational factors, story frames and citizen engagement. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 77–100. Nooteboom, B. (2000). Learning and innovation in organizations and economics.
Hardy, & W. ), The handbook of organization studies (pp. 440–458). London: Sage. Whitney, D. C. (1982). Mass communicator studies: Similarity, difference and level of analysis. In J. S. Ettema & D. C. ), Individuals in mass media organizations: Creativity and constraint (pp. 241–254). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Whitney, D. , & Becker, L. B. (1982). Keeping the gates for gatekeepers: The effects of wire news. Journalism Quarterly, 59, 60–65. Williams, V. (2007). All eyes forward: How to help your newsroom get where it wants to go faster.
Daily newspaper circulation in the United States continues a downward trend, dropping in 2009 to about 43 million, with overall circulation down about 20 percent in the first decade of the twenty-first century (Newspaper Association of America, 2009; Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2010). 3 million viewers in 2009 for the evening newscast, down from about 32 million in 2000 and 52 million in 1980 (Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2006, 2009, 28 Peter J. Gade and Wilson Lowrey 2010). After a wave of mergers and acquisitions in the 1990s and 2000s, some prominent and respected news firms found themselves burdened with debt; stock prices for public companies tumbled, and well-known firms faced bankruptcy (Morton, 2009).
ANNE ALMASY Book Archive > Journalism > Changing the News: The Forces Shaping Journalism in by Wilson Lowrey, Peter J. Gade
|
cc/2020-05/en_middle_0050.json.gz/line22
|
__label__cc
| 0.714593
| 0.285407
|
Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico di Milano
Via Francesco Sforza, 35 Milano
Tel. 02 55189006 - Tel. 02 55192512
info@centrodinoferrari.com
PRIVACY INFORMATION ACCORDING TO DEL D. LGS. 196/03
According to art. 13 of D.Lgs 196/03, we inform you that all personal data voluntarily given will be treated in full respect of current laws on the matter.
Purpose of use
The Association will treat personal data received in the carrying out of its activity, laid out and described in the statute; by way of example and without limitation, among which is the promotion of various cultural activities and the collection of funds which will be designated to the promotion of clinical and scientific research.
Modes of collection and treatment of data
– Data supplied voluntarily by user
The collection and treatment of data for the aforementioned scope, may or may not be carried out automatically, but will nonetheless be held in respect of privacy and security regulations set out in law.
The information gathered through the website of the Association, www.associazionecentrodinoferrari.com, will be used to manage donations made by the interested party and also to send eventual communications also in paper form.
Data will only be handled by those eventually responsible and named by the association in merit as Holder of the treatment.
– Navigation data
Some data may be collected implicitly by using internet communication protocols during normal navigation of the Association’s site( e.g. IP addresses, the domain name of the computer used, the method used when requesting the server and the IT system of the user)
– Sending of information material
The data collected will be used for the management of information sent by paper and not for communications inherent to the Associations activities or promotions
– Submission of data and Consent
Other than with regards to navigation data, the submission of data is optional and any eventual withdrawal will incur no consequences, other than the impossibility to connect and/or contribute a donation to the Association, or to receive information material.
– Holder of treatment
The holder of treatment is Associazione “Centro Dino Ferrari”, in Milano, via Francesco Sforza, 35 – 20122 Milano.
– Users rights
The interested party of the personal data has, at any time, the right to obtain the existence or otherwise of said data and to know the content and origin, verify the correctness or request the integration or updating, or ratification or cancellation according to terms set out in art. 7 D.lgs no. 196/03, by writing directly to the Holder of treatment
Art. 7 del D.Lgs 196/03 (Rights to access of personal data and other rights)
The interested party has the right to obtain:
the origin of the personal data;
the scope and mode of treatment;
the logic applied in the case of treatment through electronic instruments;
the identification details of the holder, the managers and representatives designated according to art.5, comma 2;
those or the categories to whom personal data can be communicated or to whom it may be made known in the capacity of designated representative throughout the State, as manager or official appointee
The interested party my obtain:
The updating, the ratification or, when desired, the integration of the data;
The cancellation, transformation, anonymously or the blocking of data used in violation of the law, including those data unnecessarily held in relation to the scope for which they were gathered or subsequently used;
The statement that the operation in which letters a) and b) were made known, also regarding their content, to those whom the data was communicated and distributed , except in the case where compliance is impossible or involves disproportionate means in respect of control rights
The interested party has the right to oppose, in total or in part
For legitimate reasons, the treatment of personal data concerning them, also if pertinent to the scope of gathering ;
The treatment of personal data concerning them in terms of publicity or direct sales material, or for the carrying out of market research or commercial communications
Messaggio/Message*
|
cc/2020-05/en_middle_0050.json.gz/line27
|
__label__wiki
| 0.931982
| 0.931982
|
Home » Sports
Murray beats Roberto Bautista Agut
Andy Murray won two matches within a matter of hours to reach his first clay-court final at the Munich Open. After rain on Friday, the top seed saw off Lukas Rosol 4-6 6-3 6-2 and returned less than three hours later to beat Roberto Bautista Agut 6-4 6-4. Murray exchanged angry words with Rosol after the pair bumped into each other at a changeover, with Murray later describing it as “just silly”. The Briton will play German fifth seed Philipp Kohlschreiber in the final. Murray’s day began at 10:00 local time with a testing encounter against Czech Rosol, who reeled off five games in a row to take the first set.
Tempers frayed after the players made contact at the net between games, with Murray going on to tell Rosol across the court: “No-one likes you on the tour, everyone hates you.” Murray, who is travelling with Coach Jonas Bjorkman this week for the first time, responded positively to take control of the match, breaking five times on his way to victory. “He walked straight into me for no reason,” Murray explained later. “If I walked into someone for no reason I would say sorry. But he did it and then ran to the other end. “His fitness trainer later apologised. I should not have said what I did but if someone does that and you don’t respond, you let them dictate how the match goes. “I was told by my father that if you get pushed around then you stick up for yourself.”
He added: “I have had no problems with him before, but a lot of players say he does those sort of things. It’s just silly. It gives more motivation and I told him that in the locker room.” Third seed Bautista Agut beat Victor Estrella Burgos of the Dominican Republic 4-6 6-0 6-0, but the Spaniard could not build on a solid start against Murray in their semi-final. The Briton turned around a 3-0 deficit with back-to-back breaks and made the decisive move with a third break at the start of the second set.
Murray later played his third match of the day when he and Dutchman Jean-Julien Rojer lost 6-3 6-2 to top seeds Alexander Peya and Bruno Soares in the doubles semi-finals. Kohlschreiber had earlier needed one hour and 37 minutes to see off Austrian qualifier Gerald Melzer 2-6 6-1 6-4 in the second singles semi-final.
Alexander Peya
Andy Murray won
Rosol
|
cc/2020-05/en_middle_0050.json.gz/line29
|
__label__cc
| 0.642623
| 0.357377
|
People do not like to live in a spiceless city – Gil Penalosa
15 May 2014, Posted by Dayle Laing in Brampton Cycling, Cycling Benefits - Economics, Cycling Benefits - Health, Past Event Cycling
“People do not like to live in a spiceless city.”
These were the words of renowned urban expert and visionary Gil Penalosa, Executive Director of 8-80 Cities, when he spoke at the Rose Theatre in Brampton on April 23, 2014.
Rose Theatre ‘bike-bedecked’
The most important ingredient in this city ‘dish’ is pedestrians, added Mr. Penalosa. People walking, cycling and using public transit should have dignity and not be forced to dodge cars and use poorly designed and maintained facilities.
“Walking, biking and transit must be best friends.”
People should be able to move easily and conveniently amongst these three modes for a liveable city. We create vibrant cities with happy people. Cities should be fantastic whether you are 8 or 80 years old!
Mr. Penalosa entertained the large Rose Theatre crowd with hundreds of images to support his well-documented and inspirational 2-hour presentation. This event was sponsored by the Brampton Downtown Development Corporation , which has hired 8-80 Cities from an Ontario funded Doable Neighbourhood Project grant. Three “doable” pilot projects will be selected for Brampton’s downtown.
Gil Penalosa delivering keynote
Born in Columbia, and consulting for cities around the world, Gil Penalosa decided to settle and run his not-for-profit foundation from Toronto. As former Commissioner of Parks, Sport and Recreation for Bogota Columbia, he initiated a 360 hectare park, which has evolved into Ciclovia, where 121 km of roads are shut every Sunday for over 1 million cyclists, walkers, runners and skaters. His philosophy is that cities should be healthy and vibrant for everyone, despite social, economic, or ethnic background.
He cited the example of Copenhagen, with a similar climate and snowy winters, where the priority is to clear sidewalks first, then bike lanes and finally roads for cars. They changed their culture through a conscious decision.
“Walking and cycling are symbols of respect for people.”
“There is no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothing.”
Gil Penalosa on TED Talks, 2011
The Brampton Bicycle Advisory Committee was honoured to assist this presentation by helping local retailer Cyclepath supply several bicycles for stages props. Members cycled onto the Rose stage while BDDC President Peter VanSickle introduced Mr. Penalosa.
David Laing & Councillor Hutton backstage
Since the trend is for fewer young people to drive, we risk losing our bright and capable to urban areas that do accommodate their use of active transportation and public transit.
“We have learned how to survive, but not how to live.”
Living depends on the built environment and selecting quality over quantity.
“We build more roads like we are putting out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.”
The big success stories have resulted from the political will to act. Mr. Penalosa peppered the audience with examples that resonate. Melbourne Australia transformed their city with public art that can only be enjoyed by travelling slowly. New York provides cheap rent to flower sellers in return for 24 hour opening which improves street safety and cuts need for more policing. Ann Fenton, an Orangeville physical education teacher shut down her school parking lot, put up pylons to force parents to drop off children ¼ km away from school to encourage active transportation. On 9th Avenue in New York, two Commissioners transformed the street in only 30 days!
“We need to reward politicians to take risks, not do more of the same.”
In fact, this is more important than having dollars to throw at these changes.
“Think outside the box. This is not a financial issue; not a technical issue; it is a political issue.”
Gil Penalosa & David Laing
|
cc/2020-05/en_middle_0050.json.gz/line37
|
__label__cc
| 0.515221
| 0.484779
| "um.com\nRecently Posted Reviews\nReview by mscalzo54, posted 27 September 2019 4:45 pm EDT, attache(...TRUNCATED)
|
cc/2020-05/en_middle_0050.json.gz/line43
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
No dataset card yet
- Downloads last month
- 10