tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/alan-turing-2078/articles
Alan Turing – The Conversation
2024-01-03T20:26:58Z
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/219320
2024-01-03T20:26:58Z
2024-01-03T20:26:58Z
AI is our ‘Promethean fire’: using it wisely means knowing its true nature – and our own minds
<p>Future historians may well regard 2023 as a landmark in the advent of artificial intelligence (AI). But whether that future will prove <a href="https://a16z.com/ai-will-save-the-world/">utopian</a>, <a href="https://www.toolify.ai/ai-news/ais-apocalyptic-vision-24116">apocalyptic</a> or <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/whats-the-future-of-generative-ai-an-early-view-in-15-charts">somewhere in between</a> is anyone’s guess. </p>
<p>In February, ChatGPT set the record as the fastest app to reach <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-sets-record-fastest-growing-user-base-analyst-note-2023-02-01/">100 million users</a>. It was followed by similar “large language” AI models from Google, Amazon, Meta and other big tech firms, which collectively look poised to transform education, healthcare and many other knowledge-intensive fields. </p>
<p>However, AI’s potential for harm was underscored in May by an <a href="https://www.safe.ai/statement-on-ai-risk">ominous statement</a> signed by leading researchers: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In November, responding to the growing concern about AI risk, 27 nations (including the UK, US, India, China and the European Union) pledged cooperation at an inaugural AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park in England, to ensure the safe development of AI for the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-safety-summit-2023-the-bletchley-declaration/the-bletchley-declaration-by-countries-attending-the-ai-safety-summit-1-2-november-2023">benefit of all</a>. </p>
<p>To achieve this, researchers focus on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_alignment">AI alignment</a> – that is, how to make sure AI models are consistent with human values, preferences and goals. But there’s a problem – AI’s so-called “<a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/04/11/5113/the-dark-secret-at-the-heart-of-ai/">dark secret</a>”: large-scale models are so complex they are like a black box, impossible for anyone to fully understand. </p>
<h2>AI’s black box problem</h2>
<p>Although the transparency and explainability of AI systems are <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1566253519308103?casa_token=eMCns9rVBmoAAAAA:ZozMhIZEA-Sd4IWnBBWRC6KmXV3THV4lqMYkWKf8-NrwaTxEKHqU2EAw4B-RZP0sCg0wazbml3o">important research goals</a>, such efforts seem unlikely to keep up with the frenetic pace of innovation. </p>
<p>The black box metaphor explains why people’s beliefs about AI are all over the map. Predictions range from utopia to extinction, and many even believe an artificial general intelligence (AGI) will soon <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/if-ai-becomes-conscious-how-will-we-know">achieve sentience</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-year-of-chatgpt-5-ways-the-ai-marvel-has-changed-the-world-218805">A year of ChatGPT: 5 ways the AI marvel has changed the world</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But this uncertainty compounds the problem. AI alignment should be a two-way street: we must not only ensure AI models are consistent with human intentions, but also that our beliefs about AI are accurate. </p>
<p>This is because we are remarkably adept at creating futures that accord with those beliefs, even if we are unaware of them. </p>
<p>So-called “<a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770698">expectancy effects</a>”, or self-fulfilling prophecies, are well known in psychology. And research has shown that manipulating users’ beliefs influences not just how they <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3529225">interact with AI</a>, but how AI <a href="https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/152316/NMI_AI_beholder_Final-Unformatted%5B85%5D.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y">adapts to the user</a>. </p>
<p>In other words, how our beliefs (conscious or unconscious) affect AI can potentially increase the likelihood of any outcome, including catastrophic ones. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-ai-sees-the-world-what-happened-when-we-trained-a-deep-learning-model-to-identify-poverty-217586">How AI 'sees' the world – what happened when we trained a deep learning model to identify poverty</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>AI, computation, logic and arithmetic</h2>
<p>We need to probe more deeply to understand the basis of AI – like Alice in Wonderland, head down the rabbit hole and see where it takes us. </p>
<p>Firstly, what is AI? It runs on computers, and so is automated computation. From its origin as the “<a href="https://idp.springer.com/authorize/casa?redirect_uri=https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF02478259.pdf&casa_token=Joxu9OnlEd4AAAAA:uCl-_FASTbvXSWBtZAt5bS24ZSRvOMsdufe1PG6PXY1TSdNoU0gL8a5j6I7lGmk4rqrSCbIqE0CQoxd9BnA">perceptron</a>” – an artificial neuron defined mathematically in 1943 by neurophysiologist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Sturgis_McCulloch">Warren McCulloch</a> and logician <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Pitts">Walter Pitts</a> – AI has been intertwined with the cognitive sciences, neuroscience and computer science. </p>
<p>This convergence of <a href="https://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/academic/class/15883-f21/readings/churchland-1992-ch3.pdf">minds</a>, <a href="https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0896-6273(17)30509-3">brains</a> and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41583-020-00395-8">machines</a> has led to the widely-held belief that, because AI is computation by machine, then natural intelligence (the mind) must be computation by the brain.</p>
<p>But what is computation? In the late 19th century, mathematicians <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dedekind">Richard Dedekind</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Peano">Giuseppe Peano</a> proposed a set of axioms which <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms">defined arithmetic in terms of logic</a>, and inspired attempts to ground all mathematics on a secure <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_program">formal basis</a>. </p>
<p>Although the logician <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del">Kurt Gödel</a> later proved this goal was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems">unachievable</a>, his work was the starting point for mathematician (and code-breaker) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing">Alan Turing</a>. His “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine">Turing machine</a>”, an abstract device capable of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis">universal computation</a>, is the foundation of computer science. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/forget-dystopian-scenarios-ai-is-pervasive-today-and-the-risks-are-often-hidden-218222">Forget dystopian scenarios – AI is pervasive today, and the risks are often hidden</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Deep structure of perception</h2>
<p>So, computation is based on mathematical ideas that trace back to efforts to define arithmetic in logic. But our knowledge of arithmetic exists <a href="https://academic.oup.com/pq/article-abstract/68/273/717/4969397?redirectedFrom=PDF&casa_token=Z-7sIkFvtL0AAAAA:UOuTtFoVh9mpu6guxajdbe44O93oCe6PANK-Uz9yWL_0iX8lo-Lla-pPatTGINKxrAqB-MBpCtmts4cz">prior to logic</a>. If we want to understand the basis of AI, we need to go further and ask where arithmetic itself comes from. </p>
<p>My colleagues and I have recently shown that arithmetic is based on the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/arithmetic-has-a-biological-origin-its-an-expression-in-symbols-of-the-deep-structure-of-our-perception-211337">deep structure</a>” of perception. This structure is like coloured glasses that shape our perception in particular ways, so that our experience of the world is ordered and manageable. </p>
<p>Arithmetic consists of a set of elements (numbers) and operations (addition, multiplication) that combine pairs of elements to give another element. We asked: of all possibilities, why are numbers the elements, and addition and multiplication the operations? </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/arithmetic-has-a-biological-origin-its-an-expression-in-symbols-of-the-deep-structure-of-our-perception-211337">Arithmetic has a biological origin – it's an expression in symbols of the 'deep structure' of our perception</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We showed by <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2023-84614-001.pdf?sr=1">mathematical proof</a> that when the deep structure of perception was assumed to limit the possibilities, arithmetic was the result. In other words, when our mind views the abstract world through the same “coloured glasses” that shape our experience of the physical world, it “sees” numbers and arithmetic. </p>
<p>Because arithmetic is the foundation for mathematics, the implication is that mathematics is a reflection of the mind – an expression in symbols of its fundamental nature and creativity. </p>
<p>Although the deep structure of perception is shared with other animals and so a product of evolution, only humans have invented mathematics. It is our most intimate creation – and by enabling the development of AI, perhaps our most consequential. </p>
<h2>A Copernican revolution of the mind</h2>
<p>Our account of <a href="https://theconversation.com/arithmetic-has-a-biological-origin-its-an-expression-in-symbols-of-the-deep-structure-of-our-perception-211337">arithmetic’s origin</a> is consistent with views of the 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant. According to him, our knowledge of the world is structured by “pure intuitions” of space and time that exist prior to sense experience – analogous to the coloured glasses we can never remove.</p>
<p>Kant claimed his <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/?rid=903123293s840c38">philosophy</a> was a “Copernican revolution of the mind”. In the same way ancient astronomers believed the Sun revolved around the Earth because they were unaware of the Earth’s motion, Kant argued, philosophers who believed all knowledge is derived from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism">sense experience</a> (John Locke and David Hume, for example) overlooked how the mind shapes perception. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ai-is-closer-than-ever-to-passing-the-turing-test-for-intelligence-what-happens-when-it-does-214721">AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for ‘intelligence’. What happens when it does?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Although Kant’s views were shaped by the <a href="https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cBtOFUg4tHAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=Kant+and+the+exact+sciences&ots=2Uu_qCDZT-&sig=WKqrfULN9w5qL6TfVc63PEyP5RQ">natural sciences of his day</a>, they have proved <a href="https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(10)00216-0">influential in contemporary psychology</a>. </p>
<p>The recognition that arithmetic is a <a href="https://theconversation.com/arithmetic-has-a-biological-origin-its-an-expression-in-symbols-of-the-deep-structure-of-our-perception-211337">natural consequence of our perception</a>, and thus biologically based, suggests a similar Kantian shift in our understanding of computation.</p>
<p>Computation is not “outside” or separate from us in an abstract realm of mathematical truth, but inherent in our mind’s nature. The mind is more than computation; the brain is not a computer. Rather, computation – the basis for AI – is, like mathematics, a symbolic expression of the mind’s nature and creativity. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/computer-says-no-more-employers-are-using-ai-to-recruit-increasing-the-risk-of-discrimination-218598">'Computer says no’: more employers are using AI to recruit, increasing the risk of discrimination</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Promethean fire</h2>
<p>What are the implications for AI? Firstly, AI is not a mind and will never become sentient. The idea we can transcend our biological nature and achieve immortality by uploading our minds to the cloud is only <a href="https://medium.com/iva-to/on-achieving-immortality-3ed1d567f7a2">fantasy</a>. </p>
<p>Yet if the principles of mind on which AI is based are shared by all humanity (and likely other living creatures as well), it may be possible to transcend the limitations of our individual minds.</p>
<p>Because computation is universal, we are free to simulate and create any outcome we choose in our increasingly connected virtual and physical worlds. In this way, AI is truly our <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/editorials/2023/11/10/ai-global-governance/">Promethean fire</a>, a gift to humanity stolen from the gods as in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus">Greek mythology</a>. </p>
<p>As a global civilisation, we are likely at a turning point. AI will not become sentient and decide to <a href="https://newatlas.com/technology/ai-danger-kill-everyone/">kill us all</a>. But we are very capable of “apocalypsing” ourselves with it – expectation can create reality. </p>
<p>Efforts to ensure AI alignment, safety and security are vitally important, but may not be enough if we lack awareness and collective wisdom. Like Alice, we need to wake up from the dream and recognise the reality and power of our minds.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/219320/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Randolph Grace receives funding from the Royal Society Te Apārangi, Marsden Fund</span></em></p>
AI will not become sentient and decide to kill us all. But our own conscious or unconscious beliefs about AI can potentially increase the likelihood of any outcome, including catastrophic ones.
Randolph Grace, Professor of Psychology, University of Canterbury
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/214721
2023-10-16T19:05:07Z
2023-10-16T19:05:07Z
AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for ‘intelligence’. What happens when it does?
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/553931/original/file-20231016-17-wzq8rn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=77%2C113%2C3916%2C3880&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pexels/Google Deepmind</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 1950, British computer scientist Alan Turing proposed an experimental method for answering the question: can machines think? He suggested if a human couldn’t tell whether they were speaking to an artificially intelligent (AI) machine or another human after five minutes of questioning, this would demonstrate AI has human-like intelligence.</p>
<p>Although AI systems remained far from passing Turing’s test during his lifetime, he speculated that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“[…] in about fifty years’ time it will be possible to programme computers […] to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70% chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Today, more than 70 years after Turing’s proposal, no AI has managed to successfully pass the test by fulfilling the specific conditions he outlined. Nonetheless, as <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02361-7">some headlines</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/17/google-ai-lamda-turing-test/">reflect</a>, a few systems have come quite close.</p>
<p><a href="https://browse.arxiv.org/pdf/2305.20010.pdf">One recent experiment</a> tested three large language models, including GPT-4 (the AI technology behind ChatGPT). The participants spent two minutes chatting with either another person or an AI system. The AI was prompted to make small spelling mistakes – and quit if the tester became too aggressive. </p>
<p>With this prompting, the AI did a good job of fooling the testers. When paired with an AI bot, testers could only correctly guess whether they were talking to an AI system 60% of the time. </p>
<p>Given the rapid progress achieved in the design of natural language processing systems, we may see AI pass Turing’s original test within the next few years. </p>
<p>But is imitating humans really an effective test for intelligence? And if not, what are some alternative benchmarks we might use to measure AI’s capabilities?</p>
<h2>Limitations of the Turing test</h2>
<p>While a system passing the Turing test gives us <em>some</em> evidence it is intelligent, this test is not a decisive test of intelligence. One problem is it can produce "false negatives”. </p>
<p>Today’s large language models are often designed to immediately declare they are not human. For example, when you ask ChatGPT a question, it often prefaces its answer with the phrase “as an AI language model”. Even if AI systems have the underlying ability to pass the Turing test, this kind of programming would override that ability.</p>
<p>The test also risks certain kinds of “false positives”. As philosopher Ned Block <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2184371">pointed out</a> in a 1981 article, a system could conceivably pass the Turing test simply by being hard-coded with a human-like response to any possible input.</p>
<p>Beyond that, the Turing test focuses on human cognition in particular. If AI cognition differs from human cognition, an expert interrogator will be able to find some task where AIs and humans differ in performance.</p>
<p>Regarding this problem, Turing wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This objection is a very strong one, but at least we can say that if, nevertheless, a machine can be constructed to play the imitation game satisfactorily, we need not be troubled by this objection.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, while passing the Turing test is good evidence a system is intelligent, failing it is not good evidence a system is <em>not</em> intelligent.</p>
<p>Moreover, the test is not a good measure of whether AIs are conscious, whether they can feel pain and pleasure, or whether they have moral significance. According to many cognitive scientists, consciousness involves a particular cluster of mental abilities, including having a working memory, higher-order thoughts, and the ability to perceive one’s environment and model how one’s body moves around it.</p>
<p>The Turing test does not answer the question of whether or not AI systems <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.08708">have these abilities</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ai-pioneer-geoffrey-hinton-says-ai-is-a-new-form-of-intelligence-unlike-our-own-have-we-been-getting-it-wrong-this-whole-time-204911">AI pioneer Geoffrey Hinton says AI is a new form of intelligence unlike our own. Have we been getting it wrong this whole time?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>AI’s growing capabilities</h2>
<p>The Turing test is based on a certain logic. That is: humans are intelligent, so anything that can effectively imitate humans is likely to be intelligent.</p>
<p>But this idea doesn’t tell us anything about the nature of intelligence. A different way to measure AI’s intelligence involves thinking more critically about what intelligence is. </p>
<p>There is currently no single test that can authoritatively measure artificial or human intelligence. </p>
<p>At the broadest level, we can think of intelligence as the <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12712.pdf">ability</a> to achieve a range of goals in different environments. More intelligent systems are those which can achieve a wider range of goals in a wider range of environments. </p>
<p>As such, the best way to keep track of advances in the design of general-purpose AI systems is to assess their performance across a variety of tasks. Machine learning researchers have developed a range of benchmarks that do this.</p>
<p>For example, GPT-4 was <a href="https://openai.com/research/gpt-4">able to correctly answer</a> 86% of questions in massive multitask language understanding – a benchmark measuring performance on multiple choice tests across a range of college-level academic subjects. </p>
<p>It also scored favourably in <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.03688.pdf">AgentBench</a>, a tool that can measure a large language model’s ability to behave as an agent by, for example, browsing the web, buying products online and competing in games.</p>
<h2>Is the Turing test still relevant?</h2>
<p>The Turing test is a measure of imitation – of AI’s ability to simulate the human behaviour. Large language models are expert imitators, which is now being reflected in their potential to pass the Turing test. But intelligence is not the same as imitation.</p>
<p>There are as many types of intelligence as there are goals to achieve. The best way to understand AI’s intelligence is to monitor its progress in developing a range of important capabilities.</p>
<p>At the same time, it’s important we don’t keep “changing the goalposts” when it comes to the question of whether AI is intelligent. Since AI’s capabilities are rapidly improving, critics of the idea of AI intelligence are constantly finding new tasks AI systems may struggle to complete – only to find they have jumped over <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/the-mechanical-muse">yet another hurdle</a>. </p>
<p>In this setting, the relevant question isn’t whether AI systems are intelligent — but more precisely, what <em>kinds</em> of intelligence they may have.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/214721/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
The Turing test, first proposed in 1950 by Alan Turing, was framed as a test that could supposedly tell us whether an AI system could ‘think’ like a human.
Simon Goldstein, Associate Professor, Dianoia Institute of Philosophy, Australian Catholic University, Australian Catholic University
Cameron Domenico Kirk-Giannini, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Rutgers University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/204823
2023-05-17T16:24:50Z
2023-05-17T16:24:50Z
ChatGPT can’t think – consciousness is something entirely different to today’s AI
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525711/original/file-20230511-10496-d2f8t7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=16%2C0%2C5631%2C3988&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/low-polygon-brain-wireframe-mesh-on-686888194">Illus_man / Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There has been shock around the world at the rapid rate of progress with <a href="https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt">ChatGPT</a> and other artificial intelligence created with what’s known as large language models (LLMs). These systems can produce text that seems to display thought, understanding and even creativity.</p>
<p>But can these systems really think and understand? This is not a question that can be answered through technological advance, but careful philosophical analysis and argument tells us the answer is no. And without working through these philosophical issues, we will never fully comprehend the dangers and benefits of the AI revolution.</p>
<p>In 1950, the father of modern computing, Alan Turing, <a href="https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/activities/ieg/e-library/sources/t_article.pdf">published a paper</a> which laid out a way of determining whether a computer thinks. This is now called “the Turing test”. Turing imagined a human being engaged in conversation with two interlocutors hidden from view: one another human being, the other a computer. The game is to work out which is which. </p>
<p>If a computer can fool 70% of judges in a five-minute conversation into thinking it’s a person, the computer passes the test. Would passing the Turing test – something which now seems imminent – show that an AI has achieved thought and understanding? </p>
<h2>Chess challenge</h2>
<p>Turing dismissed this question as hopelessly vague, and replaced it with a pragmatic definition of “thought”, whereby to think just means passing the test.</p>
<p>Turing was wrong, however, when he said the only clear notion of “understanding” is the purely behavioural one of passing his test. Although this way of thinking now dominates cognitive science, there is also a clear, everyday notion of “understanding” that’s tied to consciousness. To understand in this sense is to consciously grasp some truth about reality. </p>
<p>In 1997, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_versus_Garry_Kasparov">Deep Blue AI beat chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov</a>. On a purely behavioural conception of understanding, Deep Blue had knowledge of chess strategy that surpasses any human being. But it was not conscious: it didn’t have any feelings or experiences. </p>
<p>Humans consciously understand the rules of chess and the rationale of a strategy. Deep Blue, in contrast, was an unfeeling mechanism that had been trained to perform well at the game. Likewise, ChatGPT is an unfeeling mechanism that has been trained on huge amounts of human-made data to generate content that seems like it was written by a person.</p>
<p>It doesn’t consciously understand the meaning of the words it’s spitting out. If “thought” means the act of conscious reflection, then ChatGPT has no thoughts about anything. </p>
<h2>Time to pay up</h2>
<p>How can I be so sure that ChatGPT isn’t conscious? In the 1990s, neuroscientist Christof Koch <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23831830-300-consciousness-how-were-solving-a-mystery-bigger-than-our-minds/">bet philosopher David Chalmers a case of fine wine</a> that scientists would have entirely pinned down the “neural correlates of consciousness” in 25 years. </p>
<p>By this, he meant they would have identified the forms of brain activity necessary and sufficient for conscious experience. It’s about time Koch paid up, as there is zero consensus that this has happened.</p>
<p>This is because consciousness can’t be observed by looking inside your head. In their attempts to find a connection between brain activity and experience, neuroscientists must rely on their subjects’ testimony, or on external markers of consciousness. But there are multiple ways of interpreting the data.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Chess player" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525841/original/file-20230512-27-bghacs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525841/original/file-20230512-27-bghacs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525841/original/file-20230512-27-bghacs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525841/original/file-20230512-27-bghacs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525841/original/file-20230512-27-bghacs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525841/original/file-20230512-27-bghacs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525841/original/file-20230512-27-bghacs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Unlike computers, humans consciously understand the rules of chess and the underlying strategy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/concentrated-beautiful-girl-playing-chess-on-1740304379">LightField Studios / Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://philarchive.org/rec/MICCPA-6">Some scientists</a> believe there is a close connection between consciousness and reflective cognition – the brain’s ability to access and use information to make decisions. This leads them to think that the brain’s prefrontal cortex – where the high-level processes of acquiring knowledge take place – is essentially involved in all conscious experience. Others deny this, <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncel.2019.00302/full">arguing instead that</a> it happens in whichever local brain region that the relevant sensory processing takes place. </p>
<p>Scientists have good understanding of the brain’s basic chemistry. We have also made progress in understanding the high-level functions of various bits of the brain. But we are almost clueless about the bit in-between: how the high-level functioning of the brain is realised at the cellular level.</p>
<p>People get very excited about the potential of scans to reveal the workings of the brain. But fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) has a very low resolution: <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06976">every pixel</a> on a brain scan corresponds to 5.5 million neurons, which means there’s a limit to how much detail these scans are able to show.</p>
<p>I believe progress on consciousness will come when we understand better how the brain works.</p>
<h2>Pause in development</h2>
<p>As I argue in my forthcoming book <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/why-the-purpose-of-the-universe-9780198883760?lang=en&cc=jp">“Why? The Purpose of the Universe”</a>, consciousness must have evolved because it made a behavioural difference. Systems with consciousness must behave differently, and hence survive better, than systems without consciousness. </p>
<p>If all behaviour was determined by underlying chemistry and physics, natural selection would have no motivation for making organisms conscious; we would have evolved as unfeeling survival mechanisms. </p>
<p>My bet, then, is that as we learn more about the brain’s detailed workings, we will precisely identify which areas of the brain embody consciousness. This is because those regions will exhibit behaviour that can’t be explained by currently known chemistry and physics. Already, <a href="http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2019/09/beyond-reductionism-systems-biology.html">some neuroscientists</a> are seeking potential new explanations for consciousness to supplement the basic equations of physics. </p>
<p>While the processing of LLMs is now too complex for us to fully understand, we know that it could in principle be predicted from known physics. On this basis, we can confidently assert that ChatGPT is not conscious. </p>
<p>There are many dangers posed by AI, and I fully support the recent call by tens of thousands of people, including tech leaders Steve Wozniak and Elon Musk,<a href="https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/"> to pause</a> development to address safety concerns. The potential for fraud, for example, is immense. However, the argument that near-term descendants of current AI systems will be super-intelligent, and hence a major threat to humanity, is premature. </p>
<p>This doesn’t mean current AI systems aren’t dangerous. But we can’t correctly assess a threat unless we accurately categorise it. LLMs aren’t intelligent. They are systems trained to give the outward appearance of human intelligence. Scary, but not that scary.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204823/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Goff does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Of the risks posed by AI, overtaking human intelligence isn’t an immediate concern.
Philip Goff, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Durham University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/191930
2023-01-30T13:12:46Z
2023-01-30T13:12:46Z
Limits to computing: A computer scientist explains why even in the age of AI, some problems are just too difficult
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/506497/original/file-20230125-24-e7inac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5700%2C3788&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Computers are growing more powerful and more capable, but everything has limits.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/futuristic-semiconductor-and-circuit-board-royalty-free-image/1366897838">Yuichiro Chino/Moment via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Empowered by artificial intelligence technologies, computers today can <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/12/openai-chatgpt-chatbot-messages/672411/">engage in convincing conversations</a> with people, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/ai-can-now-compose-pop-music-even-symphonies-here-s-ncna1010931">compose songs</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/technology/openai-images-dall-e.html">paint paintings</a>, play <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/alphabets-latest-ai-show-pony-has-more-than-one-trick/">chess and go</a>, and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-021-03612-z">diagnose diseases</a>, to name just a few examples of their technological prowess. </p>
<p>These successes could be taken to indicate that computation has no limits. To see if that’s the case, it’s important to understand what makes a computer powerful. </p>
<p>There are two aspects to a computer’s power: the number of operations its hardware can execute per second and the efficiency of the algorithms it runs. The hardware speed is limited by the laws of physics. Algorithms – basically <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-an-algorithm-how-computers-know-what-to-do-with-data-146665">sets of instructions</a> – are written by humans and translated into a sequence of operations that computer hardware can execute. Even if a computer’s speed could reach the physical limit, computational hurdles remain due to the limits of algorithms.</p>
<p>These hurdles include problems that are impossible for computers to solve and problems that are theoretically solvable but in practice are beyond the capabilities of even the most powerful versions of today’s computers imaginable. Mathematicians and computer scientists attempt to determine whether a problem is solvable by trying them out on an imaginary machine.</p>
<h2>An imaginary computing machine</h2>
<p>The modern notion of an algorithm, known as a Turing machine, was formulated in 1936 by British mathematician <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alan-Turing/Computer-designer">Alan Turing</a>. It’s an imaginary device that imitates how arithmetic calculations are carried out with a pencil on paper. The Turing machine is the template all computers today are based on.</p>
<p>To accommodate computations that would need more paper if done manually, the supply of imaginary paper in a <a href="https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/projects/raspberrypi/tutorials/turing-machine/one.html">Turing machine</a> is assumed to be unlimited. This is equivalent to an imaginary limitless ribbon, or “tape,” of squares, each of which is either blank or contains one symbol. </p>
<p>The machine is controlled by a finite set of rules and starts on an initial sequence of symbols on the tape. The operations the machine can carry out are moving to a neighboring square, erasing a symbol and writing a symbol on a blank square. The machine computes by carrying out a sequence of these operations. When the machine finishes, or “halts,” the symbols remaining on the tape are the output or result. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dNRDvLACg5Q?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">What is a Turing machine?</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Computing is often about decisions with yes or no answers. By analogy, a medical test (type of problem) checks if a patient’s specimen (an instance of the problem) has a certain disease indicator (yes or no answer). The instance, represented in a Turing machine in digital form, is the initial sequence of symbols. </p>
<p>A problem is considered “solvable” if a Turing machine can be designed that halts for every instance whether positive or negative and correctly determines which answer the instance yields. </p>
<h2>Not every problem can be solved</h2>
<p>Many problems are solvable using a Turing machine and therefore can be solved on a computer, while many others are not. For example, the domino problem, a variation of the tiling problem formulated by Chinese American mathematician <a href="https://digitalcommons.rockefeller.edu/faculty-members/109/">Hao Wang</a> in 1961, is not solvable. </p>
<p>The task is to use a set of dominoes to cover an entire grid and, following the rules of most dominoes games, matching the number of pips on the ends of abutting dominoes. It turns out that there is no algorithm that can start with a set of dominoes and determine whether or not the set will completely cover the grid.</p>
<h2>Keeping it reasonable</h2>
<p>A number of solvable problems can be solved by algorithms that halt in a reasonable amount of time. These “<a href="https://mathworld.wolfram.com/PolynomialTime.html">polynomial-time algorithms</a>” are efficient algorithms, meaning it’s practical to use computers to solve instances of them.</p>
<p>Thousands of other solvable problems are not known to have polynomial-time algorithms, despite ongoing intensive efforts to find such algorithms. These include the Traveling Salesman Problem. </p>
<p>The Traveling Salesman Problem asks whether a set of points with some points directly connected, called a graph, has a path that starts from any point and goes through every other point exactly once, and comes back to the original point. Imagine that a salesman wants to find a route that passes all households in a neighborhood exactly once and returns to the starting point. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xi5dWND499g?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The Traveling Salesman Problem quickly gets out of hand when you get beyond a few destinations.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These problems, called <a href="https://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/np-complete.html">NP-complete</a>, were independently formulated and shown to exist in the early 1970s by two computer scientists, American Canadian <a href="https://amturing.acm.org/award_winners/cook_n991950.cfm">Stephen Cook</a> and Ukrainian American <a href="https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Leonid_Levin">Leonid Levin</a>. Cook, whose work came first, was awarded the 1982 Turing Award, the highest in computer science, for this work.</p>
<h2>The cost of knowing exactly</h2>
<p>The best-known algorithms for NP-complete problems are essentially searching for a solution from all possible answers. The Traveling Salesman Problem on a graph of a few hundred points would take years to run on a supercomputer. Such algorithms are inefficient, meaning there are no mathematical shortcuts.</p>
<p>Practical algorithms that address these problems in the real world can only offer approximations, though <a href="https://theconversation.com/planning-the-best-route-with-multiple-destinations-is-hard-even-for-supercomputers-a-new-approach-breaks-a-barrier-thats-stood-for-nearly-half-a-century-148308">the approximations are improving</a>. Whether there are efficient polynomial-time algorithms that can <a href="https://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems/p-vs-np-problem">solve NP-complete problems</a> is among the <a href="https://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems/millennium-prize-problems">seven millennium open problems</a> posted by the Clay Mathematics Institute at the turn of the 21st century, each carrying a prize of US$1 million.</p>
<h2>Beyond Turing</h2>
<p>Could there be a new form of computation beyond Turing’s framework? In 1982, American physicist <a href="http://www.richardfeynman.com/">Richard Feynman</a>, a Nobel laureate, put forward the idea of computation based on quantum mechanics. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jHoEjvuPoB8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">What is a quantum computer?</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 1995, Peter Shor, an American applied mathematician, presented a quantum algorithm to <a href="https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/shors-factorization-algorithm/">factor integers in polynomial time</a>. Mathematicians believe that this is unsolvable by polynomial-time algorithms in Turing’s framework. Factoring an integer means finding a smaller integer greater than 1 that can divide the integer. For example, the integer 688,826,081 is divisible by a smaller integer 25,253, because 688,826,081 = 25,253 x 27,277. </p>
<p>A major algorithm called the <a href="https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/rsa-algorithm-cryptography/">RSA algorithm</a>, widely used in securing network communications, is based on the computational difficulty of factoring large integers. Shor’s result suggests that quantum computing, should it become a reality, will <a href="https://theconversation.com/quantum-computers-threaten-our-whole-cybersecurity-infrastructure-heres-how-scientists-can-bulletproof-it-196065">change the landscape of cybersecurity</a>. </p>
<p>Can a full-fledged quantum computer be built to factor integers and solve other problems? Some scientists believe it can be. Several groups of scientists around the world are working to build one, and some have already built small-scale quantum computers. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, like all novel technologies invented before, issues with quantum computation are almost certain to arise that would impose new limits.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/191930/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jie Wang does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
In the age of AI, people might wonder if there’s anything computers can’t do. The answer is yes. In fact, there are numerous problems that are beyond the reach of even the most powerful computers.
Jie Wang, Professor of Computer Science, UMass Lowell
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/174371
2022-01-06T11:30:44Z
2022-01-06T11:30:44Z
Pardons for historic homosexual offences are welcome - but we still need to address the legacy of criminalisation
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/439637/original/file-20220106-25-ec17oq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=53%2C67%2C4284%2C2182&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/two-gay-men-wrapped-pride-flags-1453580081">InkDrop/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>About 40 years ago, a man named George was arrested in Earl’s Court, London, and charged with persistent importuning. His offence? Striking up a conversation with another man who then invited George back to his flat, only to reveal that he was a police officer. George would later plead guilty and be fined £100 (roughly £350 today), after feeling pressured by the police following his arrest.</p>
<p>For gay and bisexual men in the years following the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality, this experience was not uncommon. George’s case is one of many listed in the first annual report of the <a href="https://galop.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/galop-annual-report-1984.pdf">Gay London Police Monitoring Group</a> in 1984. Several of these involved police officers arresting gay and bisexual men after they exited bars at closing time.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/4-5/69/section/32">Importuning</a>, which effectively criminalised a man from making an advance on another man in public, is one of several offences that the UK government may now move to pardon. The <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59863140">recently announced reforms</a> to expand the pardoning of historic homosexual offences are to be brought forward as an amendment to the government’s <a href="https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2839">Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill</a>. Other aspects of the bill have attracted controversy over their <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-mps-and-peers-say-curbs-on-protests-are-inconsistent-with-human-rights-12338171">impact on human rights</a>.</p>
<p>The existing pardoning scheme, known as the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37711518">Turing Law</a>, was introduced in 2016 following the 2013 posthumous royal pardon for second world war code breaker Alan Turing. Under the current process, applications for past convictions to be disregarded can only be made in respect of a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disregarding-convictions-for-decriminalised-sexual-offences/disregarding-convictions-for-decriminalised-sexual-offences-guidance-accessible-version">limited range of offences</a>.</p>
<p>Importuning is not included among these. The offence remained on the statute books until 2003, long after the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality in England and Wales in 1967. This reflects the fact that decriminalisation only extended to consensual behaviour occurring in private. This was a recommendation of the government-commissioned <a href="https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/wolfenden-report-conclusion">Wolfenden report</a>. This report, along with <a href="https://theconversation.com/buggery-bribery-and-a-committee-the-story-of-how-gay-sex-was-decriminalised-in-britain-79597">numerous campaigns</a> led by those <a href="https://theconversation.com/against-the-law-review-a-fitting-tribute-to-gay-men-whose-persecution-in-1950s-paved-way-for-new-rights-74785">who were criminalised and persecuted</a>, was instrumental in changing the law.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A bronze statue of Alan Turing sitting on a bench in Manchester" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/439639/original/file-20220106-13-b3othr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/439639/original/file-20220106-13-b3othr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/439639/original/file-20220106-13-b3othr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/439639/original/file-20220106-13-b3othr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/439639/original/file-20220106-13-b3othr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/439639/original/file-20220106-13-b3othr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/439639/original/file-20220106-13-b3othr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pardons for some now-abolished offences have been available under the Turing Law since 2016.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/manchester-united-kingdom-12292019-alan-turing-1628626516">Igor Paszkiewicz / Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2021, a <a href="https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/43678/documents/964">proposed amendment</a> in the House of Lords sought to extend the pardon scheme to all offences that “regulated, or [were] used in practice to regulate, sexual activity between persons of the same sex”, which had subsequently been repealed. This amendment was withdrawn after the government committed to return to the issue as the policing bill progressed, but the new announcement <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/04/past-convictions-for-homosexual-activity-to-be-wiped-from-records-patel-to-announce">appears similar</a> to last year’s proposals. </p>
<h2>Who is left out</h2>
<p>If the scheme is broadened in this way, including cases such as George’s involving importuning, pardons may become available for many who were <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49730231">denied one</a> when the process was first introduced. The new scheme will not, however, cover behaviour that is capable of being prosecuted under current criminal law. This may, for instance, exclude some arrested in <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1350/jcla.2007.71.6.506">public lavatories</a>, who could be charged with an offence under the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/71">Sexual Offences Act 2003</a> today.</p>
<p>Careful consideration of the historic context in which many gay and bisexual men were prosecuted, which often included strict policing and prosecution, is needed to ensure that pardons are extended to all who should receive one. </p>
<p>In many cases, the exclusion of convictions covered by current law is an appropriate response to behaviour that would still be prosecuted today. But this may also exclude some prosecuted for more serious offences partly due to disgust and disapproval of sexual diversity. Concerns about such attitudes <a href="https://www.gayinthe80s.com/2012/12/1982-gay-london-police-monitoring-group-galop/">contributed to the formation</a> of the Gay London Police Monitoring Group, which recorded George’s story. These attitudes are <a href="https://theconversation.com/on-sexuality-the-law-still-caters-to-the-norms-of-public-disgust-79705">still present in the law, on issues such as sadomasochistic sex</a>, today.</p>
<p>Harsh prosecutions and tactics like the use of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/23/fifty-years-gay-liberation-uk-barely-four-1967-act">“pretty police”</a> – <a href="https://galop.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/galop-annual-report-1985.pdf">plain clothes officers</a> like the one who spoke to George – effectively subjected many men to greater surveillance and scrutiny than they would receive today. As such, the limits to the proposed pardoning scheme will need to be carefully determined. </p>
<h2>A ‘strong, symbolic apology’</h2>
<p>Lord Cashman, who – along with Lord Lexden, Lord Faulkner and Baroness Jones – put forward the proposed amendment last year, <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2021-11-17/debates/42CB0ACD-EB6B-4CFA-946E-58269AFAA48E/PoliceCrimeSentencingAndCourtsBill#contribution-6E759D8C-B83B-407E-8331-866F578FFC25">said at the time</a>: “A pardon, aside from its legal status, is a strong, symbolic apology to each and every person who has been wronged.”</p>
<p>Besides the impact this symbolic apology may have for those personally affected, it can also send a message about the historic treatment of sexual minorities by branches of the state. A critical eye needs to be placed on modern law, as well as on the legacies of criminalisation. </p>
<p>Evidence suggests that the legacy of criminalisation and policing of homosexual behaviour <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/10439463.2019.1588269">continues to impede trust</a> between the police and LGBTQ+ people today. Given <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/03/recorded-homophobic-hate-crimes-soared-in-pandemic-figures-show">recent increases</a> in hate crimes targeting LGBTQ+ people, this should be a cause for concern.</p>
<p>Even with the expansion of the pardon scheme, modern law often fails to embrace sexual diversity. Laws that position “traditional” private heterosexual relationships as the default may, for instance, hinder efforts to address issues such as domestic violence, which some suggest “has been <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429021589-20/legal-equality-enough-catherine-donovan">socially constructed</a> as a heterosexual problem”. </p>
<p>While this development is welcome, it should not be the end of the conversation on the legacy of criminalisation and legal reform regarding LGBTQ+ people in the UK.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/174371/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cameron Giles does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Expanding the disregarding and pardoning scheme for historic homosexual offences should prompt further reflection on the law.
Cameron Giles, Lecturer in Law, London South Bank University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/169792
2021-11-29T13:33:12Z
2021-11-29T13:33:12Z
Who invented video games?
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433755/original/file-20211124-19-zqmsvc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=237%2C270%2C5037%2C3186&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">For almost as long as there have been computers, there have been video games.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/year-old-ansel-the-photographers-son-plays-fortnite-news-photo/1220667015">Neilson Barnard/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/curious-kids-us-74795">Curious Kids</a> is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to <a href="mailto:curiouskidsus@theconversation.com">curiouskidsus@theconversation.com</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Who invented video games? TJ, age 7, Worcester, Massachusetts</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>Some people just love to play. Give them a ball, or a pen, or a pile of leaves and they’ll find a way to play with it. In fact, enough people love to play that just about any time someone invents something new, people find a way to play with it.</p>
<p><a href="https://history.computer.org/pioneers/strachey.html">Christopher Strachey</a> didn’t invent modern computers. He didn’t even see one until 1951, several years after others had first created the first ones. But he had been friendly with <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alan-Turing">Alan Turing</a>, who was one of the inventors of modern computers, when he was in college in England. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433536/original/file-20211123-15-1u4v3no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Five vertical racks of antique electronics" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433536/original/file-20211123-15-1u4v3no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433536/original/file-20211123-15-1u4v3no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433536/original/file-20211123-15-1u4v3no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433536/original/file-20211123-15-1u4v3no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433536/original/file-20211123-15-1u4v3no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=574&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433536/original/file-20211123-15-1u4v3no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=574&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433536/original/file-20211123-15-1u4v3no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=574&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Mark I is considered the first computer because it could store programs written for it.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/arenamontanus/2287363013">Anders Sandberg/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So when Strachey heard about the new <a href="https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Manchester_Mark_I">Mark I computer</a> installed at the University of Manchester in the U.K., he was able to ask Turing for a copy of the programming manual. He studied the manual, then got the chance to write a program for the computer. People were so impressed with his work that he soon had access to the computer whenever he had time off from his job as a teacher. </p>
<p>Strachey spent his school breaks working on a checkers-playing program, which was remarkably complicated for the time. It showed the board on a screen – a cathode-ray tube. Players wrote their moves on a <a href="https://www.howtogeek.com/727213/what-are-teletypes-and-why-were-they-used-with-computers/">teletype</a>, a typewriter electronically connected to the computer, which both printed the moves on paper and sent them to the computer. The machine would “look ahead” at the different possible moves and countermoves, both to choose what it should do next and to make fun of players for particularly bad moves.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433561/original/file-20211123-24-f6wssc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="a checkerboard displayed on a black and white cathode ray tube" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433561/original/file-20211123-24-f6wssc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433561/original/file-20211123-24-f6wssc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=573&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433561/original/file-20211123-24-f6wssc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=573&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433561/original/file-20211123-24-f6wssc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=573&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433561/original/file-20211123-24-f6wssc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=721&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433561/original/file-20211123-24-f6wssc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=721&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433561/original/file-20211123-24-f6wssc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=721&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The first video game was a digital version of checkers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Strachey_draughts_ferranti.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I call this game “M.U.C. Draughts” in my book “<a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/how-pac-man-eats">How Pac-Man Eats</a>,” because Strachey never gave it a name. M.U.C. stands for Manchester University Computer and draughts is the British name for checkers. I think it’s the first video game. But there are lots of playful people out there, so someone else might have come first. Around the same time that Strachey was creating M.U.C. Draughts, A.S. (Sandy) Douglas created a game of tic-tac-toe, which was also displayed on a cathode-ray tube, for the University of Cambridge EDSAC computer. In the future we may find that other playful people made other video games for early computers.</p>
<p>People still play video game versions of board games and card games, but they’re usually not the first thing you think of when someone says “video games.” Generally people think about the video display showing a simulated space, with one or more features the player can control in that space – maybe gliding across the sky in <a href="https://www.zelda.com/breath-of-the-wild/">The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild</a> or the buildings and people in <a href="https://civilization.com/">Civilization</a>. </p>
<p>The next big step (that I know about) toward such games is now called <a href="https://www.bnl.gov/about/history/firstvideo.php">Tennis for Two</a> – though it didn’t have a name when it was created. William Higinbotham, Robert V. Dvorak and David Potter created it as a demonstration for the 1958 visitors’ day at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York. They used an old-fashioned analog computer to create a side view of a tennis court, showing the ground, a net and a ball that would fly over the net. But after visiting day it got taken apart.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.computerhistory.org/pdp-1/spacewar/">Spacewar!</a> was another demonstration project, released in 1962 by a group of MIT engineers that included Steve “Slug” Russell, Peter Samson, Dan Edwards and Martin Graetz. It took the computing world by storm.</p>
<p>Rolling Stone magazine even sponsored a “<a href="https://www.wheels.org/spacewar/stone/rolling_stone.html">Spacewar! Olympics</a>” in 1972 – an amazing level of publicity at a time when most people had never even seen a computer in person, much less played a video game.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_L1HeZ2kPck?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Spacewar! was the first video game to catch the public’s attention.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Spacewar! is the first game to do all the things people today commonly expect a video game to do. It had a simulated space, with objects moving around. In this case it was outer space, with a backdrop of stars and a central sun that exerted gravity. There were elements that players controlled in that space, specifically two spaceships locked in battle. And there were visual flourishes, such as fire emerging from the backs of the ships whenever players used their thrusters to move around.</p>
<p>Video games first came into the home in 1972 with the release of the <a href="https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1302004">Magnavox Odyssey</a> game console. Ralph Baer, Bob Tremblay, Bob Solomon, Bill Rush and other engineers at Sanders Associates were trying to figure out a way to play games on home televisions. They came up with the idea of a ball being hit back and forth: <a href="https://www.pong-story.com/odyssey.htm">electronic ping-pong</a>, the precursor to <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pong">Pong</a>, a game that became wildly popular.</p>
<p>From there video games became a growing force in world culture – powered by people who love to play.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to <a href="mailto:curiouskidsus@theconversation.com">CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com</a>. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.</em></p>
<p><em>And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/169792/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Noah Wardrip-Fruin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Video games are everywhere. So who was the first person to come up with the idea of playing a game on a computer screen?
Noah Wardrip-Fruin, Professor of Computational Media, University of California, Santa Cruz
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/162086
2021-06-07T20:04:21Z
2021-06-07T20:04:21Z
It’s time to talk about gay reparations and how they can rectify past persecutions of LGBTQ people
<p>The word “reparations” comes from the Latin verb reparāre, meaning “to repair.” However, nowadays, many people equate reparations with the payment of compensation or damages. </p>
<p>We need to understand and embrace the true meaning of the word and start to have genuine conversations about reparations for LGBTQ people — a group that has endured a long and painful history of persecution around the globe. </p>
<h2>A brief history of gay persecution</h2>
<p>Perhaps the most high-profile persecutions of gays were those perpetrated by the Nazis during the second world war. Thousands of gay men were sent to concentration camps where they were forced to wear a <a href="https://theconversation.com/lgbtq-history-month-gay-victims-and-survivors-of-the-holocaust-are-often-forgotten-we-need-to-tell-their-stories-154417">pink triangle</a> and ultimately killed. </p>
<p>But the history of gay persecution predates the Holocaust, and has continued after the Nazi regime ended. </p>
<p>From the 12th century, gays in Christian Europe were castrated, decapitated, drowned in swamps and <a href="https://www.the-low-countries.com/article/the-sodom-of-the-north-homosexuals-were-burned-at-the-stake-in-medieval-bruges">burned at the stake</a>. And in modern times, the <a href="https://cpjp.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/State-sanctioned-killing-of-sexual-minorities_Final.pdf">state-sanctioned killing</a> of LGBTQ people continues in many countries, including <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/05/iran-murder-of-gay-man-highlights-dangers-of-state-sanctioned-abuses-against-lgbti-people/">Iran</a> and <a href="https://www.out.com/news/2019/4/29/saudi-arabia-kills-5-after-homosexual-acts-confession">Saudi Arabia</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/most-countries-score-an-f-on-our-lgbt-human-rights-report-card-78732">Most countries score an F on our LGBT human rights report card</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There are still <a href="https://antigaylaws.org/">71 countries</a> that criminalise consensual gay sex — half of which are Commonwealth nations — but thankfully this number is going down.</p>
<h2>What are gay reparations?</h2>
<p>There are <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/05/29/gay-reparations-lgbtq-united-states/">numerous forms</a> that gay reparations can take. They often entail a formal government apology to the LGBTQ community for past wrongs and a promise to do better in the future.</p>
<p>They can also include memorialising the victims of state-sponsored repression of gays, as Germany did in 2008 when it unveiled a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-homosexuals-monument-idUSL2773392820080527">memorial to gay victims of the Holocaust</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"757333947256889344"}"></div></p>
<p>Gay reparations often include <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37711518">pardons</a> to those convicted of the “crime” of being gay. </p>
<p>In 2017, for instance, the UK issued posthumous <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/31/uk-issues-posthumous-pardons-thousands-gay-men-alan-turing-law">pardons to thousands</a> of gay and bisexual men convicted of “gross indecency” in the past, including <a href="https://theconversation.com/calls-for-a-posthumous-pardon-but-who-was-alan-turing-4773">Alan Turing</a>, the mathematician who famously broke the Germans’ Enigma codes during the second world war. He committed suicide two years after he was convicted for “acts of gross indecency”, based on his relationship with Arnold Murray, and underwent <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-37443639">chemical castration</a>.</p>
<p>Occasionally, gay reparations can involve financial compensation for wages or pensions lost due to time spent in prison or a mental institution because of a homosexual offense. Such <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/05/29/gay-reparations-lgbtq-united-states/">compensation</a> has been available in Spain since 2009 and in Germany since 2016.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/calls-for-a-posthumous-pardon-but-who-was-alan-turing-4773">Calls for a posthumous pardon ... but who was Alan Turing?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What are the arguments against gay reparations?</h2>
<p>There is strong resistance to the idea of gay reparations in some countries, especially the United States. </p>
<p>Some of the opposition is rooted in run-of-the-mill homophobia. Statistics show a rise in hate crimes against LGBTQ people in recent years in many countries, including <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-51049336">the UK</a> and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-lgbt-crime-idUSKBN2CL1TN">Germany</a>. Homophobic hate speech by politicians is <a href="https://www.rferl.org/a/homophobic-hate-speech-rise-europe-report/31106026.html">on the rise</a> in many places, and in Poland, nearly 100 localities have declared themselves <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-54191344">“anti-LGBTQ” zones</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Police scuffle with LGBTQ protesters in Poland." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/404697/original/file-20210607-21-1mcsx1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/404697/original/file-20210607-21-1mcsx1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/404697/original/file-20210607-21-1mcsx1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/404697/original/file-20210607-21-1mcsx1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/404697/original/file-20210607-21-1mcsx1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=562&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/404697/original/file-20210607-21-1mcsx1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=562&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/404697/original/file-20210607-21-1mcsx1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=562&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Police scuffle with LGBTQ protesters at a rally against the arrest of an LGBTQ activist in Poland last year.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Czarek Sokolowski/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But the arguments against gay reparations are more nuanced. <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-case-for-gay-reparations-9780197535660?cc=us&lang=en&">Omar G Encarnacion</a>, a US scholar who wrote the new book The Case for Gay Reparations, identified five arguments used by opponents against gay reparations:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>it is wrong to apply today’s values to the historic persecution of gays because the discrimination perpetrated against gays in the past was generally legal at the time</p></li>
<li><p>this is no more than an exercise in virtue signaling (the conspicuous expression of moral righteousness), with the risk of becoming a slippery slope that could open the floodgates to reparations for just about anyone who has faced hardship or discrimination in life</p></li>
<li><p>gay reparations are divisive and take identity politics and “victimhood” to a new level</p></li>
<li><p>gay reparations lack justification because, unlike the case of racial discrimination, there is little evidence of intergenerational damage linked to anti-gay discrimination</p></li>
<li><p>they are redundant because of the economic success of the gay community. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Encarnacion systematically refutes each of these arguments, noting that critics of gay reparations are misinformed about the purpose of acknowledging and repairing the wrongs perpetrated against LGBTQ people. </p>
<p>Their arguments rely on stereotypes and flawed comparisons between gays and other groups that have been persecuted (especially African Americans), and generally show a lack empathy for the gay community.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1142940900953395200"}"></div></p>
<h2>What reparations can look like in practice</h2>
<p>There is a clear <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43822234">trend</a> towards countries decriminalising homosexuality with Bhutan, Angola, Gabon, Botswana, Mozambique, the Seychelles and Trinidad and Tobago all abolishing these laws in recent years.</p>
<p>While these reforms are welcomed, they are merely the start of the journey towards equality for LGBTQ people — not the end. It is time all countries acknowledge and offer reparations for the mistakes of homophobic laws that have targeted gays and destroyed millions of lives. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-research-documents-the-severity-of-lgbtqa-conversion-practices-and-why-faith-matters-in-recovery-154740">New research documents the severity of LGBTQA+ conversion practices — and why faith matters in recovery</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Australia provides a useful model. In 2016, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews, in a world first, apologised for the homophobic laws of the past in his state. In a moving <a href="https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/state-apology-those-convicted-under-unjust-laws-against-homosexual-acts-premiers-speech">speech</a> he said,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There was a time in our history when we turned thousands of ordinary young men into criminals. And it was profoundly and unimaginably wrong. […] This parliament and this government are to be formally held to account for designing a culture of darkness and shame. […] We are so sorry. Humbly, deeply, sorry.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This apology came after laws were enacted in the state of Victoria <a href="https://theconversation.com/expunging-convictions-for-gay-sex-an-old-wrong-is-finally-righted-33013">expunging convictions</a> for homosexual conduct. And it has been followed by other landmark actions, including the enactment of laws <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-victorian-parliament-has-passed-a-bill-banning-gay-conversion-therapy">banning “conversion therapy”</a> and the <a href="https://www.vic.gov.au/pride-centre">construction of the first Pride Centre</a> in Australia to support the LGBTQ community.</p>
<p>Reparations like this must be the ultimate goal. As the writer and philosopher Michael Bassey Johnson once observed: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Sometimes, the mistake is not the problem; the lack of remorse is the real mistake.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162086/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paula Gerber is a director of Kaleidoscope Human Rights Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation that works to protect the rights of LGBTIQ people in the Asia Pacific region.</span></em></p>
It’s time we embrace the true meaning of the word ‘reparations'—this isn’t just about giving people money, it’s about offering apologies and taking account for previous mistakes.
Paula Gerber, Professor of Human Rights Law, Monash University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/120644
2019-10-16T11:26:58Z
2019-10-16T11:26:58Z
Why a computer will never be truly conscious
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293299/original/file-20190919-22446-1f0h3jm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=53%2C8%2C6000%2C3979&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What makes a brain tick is very different from how computers operate.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/human-brain-digital-illustration-electrical-activity-719796733">Yurchanka Siarhei/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Many advanced artificial intelligence projects say they are <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/f/609226/could-we-build-a-machine-with-consciousness/">working toward</a> <a href="https://singularityhub.com/2019/03/26/what-would-it-mean-for-ai-to-become-conscious/">building</a> a <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-build-a-self-conscious-ai-machine/">conscious machine</a>, based on the idea that brain functions merely <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3292">encode and process multisensory information</a>. The assumption goes, then, that once brain functions are properly understood, it should be possible to program them into a computer. Microsoft recently announced that it would <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/f/613994/microsoft-is-investing-1-billion-in-openai-to-create-brain-like-machines/">spend US$1 billion on a project</a> to do just that.</p>
<p>So far, though, attempts to build supercomputer brains have not even come close. A <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/ten-years-human-brain-project-simulation-markram-ted-talk/594493/">multi-billion-dollar European project</a> that began in 2013 is now <a href="http://nautil.us/blog/the-big-problem-with-big-science-ventureslike-the-human-brain-project">largely understood to have failed</a>. That effort has shifted to look more like a <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/BRAIN">similar but less ambitious project</a> in the U.S., developing <a href="https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/the-human-brain-project-reboots-a-search-engine-for-the-brain-is-in-sight">new software tools for researchers</a> to study brain data, rather than simulating a brain.</p>
<p>Some researchers continue to insist that <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2019.00032">simulating neuroscience with computers</a> is the way to go. <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0126">Others</a>, like me, view these efforts as doomed to failure because we <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.14704/nq.2019.17.5.2359">do not believe consciousness is computable</a>. Our basic argument is that brains integrate and compress multiple components of an experience, including sight and smell – which simply can’t be handled in the way today’s computers sense, process and store data.</p>
<h2>Brains don’t operate like computers</h2>
<p>Living organisms store experiences in their brains by <a href="https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer">adapting neural connections</a> in an <a href="http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/gibson-james.pdf">active process between the subject and the environment</a>. By contrast, a computer records data in short-term and long-term memory blocks. That difference means the brain’s information handling must also be different from how computers work.</p>
<p>The mind actively explores the environment to find elements that guide the performance of one action or another. Perception is not directly related to the sensory data: A person can <a href="https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/research/ecological-psychology-overcoming-the-metaphor-of-the-brain-computer/">identify a table from many different angles</a>, without having to consciously interpret the data and then ask its memory if that pattern could be created by alternate views of an item identified some time earlier. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293301/original/file-20190919-22416-14ijxu3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293301/original/file-20190919-22416-14ijxu3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293301/original/file-20190919-22416-14ijxu3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=201&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293301/original/file-20190919-22416-14ijxu3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=201&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293301/original/file-20190919-22416-14ijxu3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=201&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293301/original/file-20190919-22416-14ijxu3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=253&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293301/original/file-20190919-22416-14ijxu3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=253&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293301/original/file-20190919-22416-14ijxu3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=253&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Could you identify all of these as a table right away? A computer would likely have real trouble.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/mellis/8981595">L to R: pashminu/Pixabay; FDR Presidential Library/Flickr; David Mellis/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another perspective on this is that the most mundane memory tasks are associated with <a href="https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/14/11/1214/331407">multiple areas of the brain – some of which are quite large</a>. Skill learning and expertise involve <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3912552/">reorganization and physical changes</a>, such as changing the strengths of connections between neurons. Those transformations cannot be replicated fully in a computer with a fixed architecture.</p>
<h2>Computation and awareness</h2>
<p>In my own recent work, I’ve highlighted some <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.14704/nq.2019.17.5.2359">additional reasons that consciousness is not computable</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293387/original/file-20190920-135092-mbhdqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293387/original/file-20190920-135092-mbhdqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293387/original/file-20190920-135092-mbhdqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=953&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293387/original/file-20190920-135092-mbhdqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=953&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293387/original/file-20190920-135092-mbhdqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=953&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293387/original/file-20190920-135092-mbhdqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1197&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293387/original/file-20190920-135092-mbhdqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1197&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293387/original/file-20190920-135092-mbhdqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1197&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Werner Heisenberg.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild183-R57262,_Werner_Heisenberg.jpg">Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R57262/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293388/original/file-20190920-135074-1rrtrix.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293388/original/file-20190920-135074-1rrtrix.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293388/original/file-20190920-135074-1rrtrix.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=828&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293388/original/file-20190920-135074-1rrtrix.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=828&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293388/original/file-20190920-135074-1rrtrix.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=828&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293388/original/file-20190920-135074-1rrtrix.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1041&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293388/original/file-20190920-135074-1rrtrix.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1041&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293388/original/file-20190920-135074-1rrtrix.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1041&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Erwin Schrödinger.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger_(1933).jpg">Nobel Foundation/Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293389/original/file-20190920-135084-wd5xj3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293389/original/file-20190920-135084-wd5xj3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293389/original/file-20190920-135084-wd5xj3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=817&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293389/original/file-20190920-135084-wd5xj3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=817&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293389/original/file-20190920-135084-wd5xj3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=817&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293389/original/file-20190920-135084-wd5xj3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1027&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293389/original/file-20190920-135084-wd5xj3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1027&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293389/original/file-20190920-135084-wd5xj3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1027&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alan Turing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alan_Turing_Aged_16.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A conscious person is aware of what they’re thinking, and has the ability to stop thinking about one thing and start thinking about another – no matter where they were in the initial train of thought. But that’s impossible for a computer to do. More than 80 years ago, pioneering British computer scientist Alan Turing showed that there was no way ever to prove that any particular <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-turings-halting-pr">computer program could stop on its own</a> – and yet that ability is central to consciousness.</p>
<p>His argument is based on a trick of logic in which he creates an inherent contradiction: <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-to-describing-alan-turings-halting-problem-to_b_58d1ae08e4b062043ad4add7">Imagine there were a general process</a> that could determine whether any program it analyzed would stop. The output of that process would be either “yes, it will stop” or “no, it won’t stop.” That’s pretty straightforward. But then Turing <a href="https://www.tutorialspoint.com/automata_theory/turing_machine_halting_problem.htm">imagined that a crafty engineer</a> wrote a program that included the stop-checking process, with one crucial element: an instruction to keep the program running if the stop-checker’s answer was “yes, it will stop.” </p>
<p>Running the stop-checking process on this new program would <a href="https://www.quora.com/Why-is-%E2%80%9Cthe-halting-problem%E2%80%9D-a-problem-Why-does-it-exist">necessarily make the stop-checker wrong</a>: If it determined that the program would stop, the program’s instructions would tell it not to stop. On the other hand, if the stop-checker determined that the program would not stop, the program’s instructions would halt everything immediately. That makes no sense – and the nonsense gave Turing his conclusion, that there can be no way to analyze a program and be entirely absolutely certain that it can stop. So it’s impossible to be certain that any computer can emulate a system that can definitely stop its train of thought and change to another line of thinking – yet certainty about that capability is an inherent part of being conscious.</p>
<p>Even before Turing’s work, German quantum physicist Werner Heisenberg showed that there was a distinct difference in the nature of the <a href="https://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/physics/heisenberg_cut.html">physical event and an observer’s conscious knowledge</a> of it. This was interpreted by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger to mean that consciousness cannot come from a physical process, like a computer’s, that <a href="https://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/116/12/1951.pdf">reduces all operations to basic logic arguments</a>. </p>
<p>These ideas are confirmed by medical research findings that there are no unique structures in the brain that exclusively handle consciousness. Rather, functional MRI imaging shows that <a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00081-0">different cognitive tasks happen in different areas</a> of the brain. This has led neuroscientist Semir Zeki to conclude that “<a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00081-0">consciousness is not a unity</a>, and that there are instead many consciousnesses that are distributed in time and space.” That type of limitless brain capacity isn’t the sort of challenge a finite computer can ever handle.</p>
<p>[ <em>Like what you’ve read? Want more?</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=likethis">Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120644/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Subhash Kak does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Brain functions integrate and compress multiple components of an experience, including sight and smell – which simply can’t be handled in the way computers sense, process and store data.
Subhash Kak, Regents Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Oklahoma State University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/123468
2019-10-03T07:53:03Z
2019-10-03T07:53:03Z
Turing Test: why it still matters
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295243/original/file-20191002-49361-1q2iclt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/businessmen-robot-having-discussion-future-reality-1049679836">IR Stone</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>We’re entering the age of artificial intelligence. And as AI programs gets better and better at acting like humans, we will increasingly be faced with the question of whether there’s really anything that special about our own intelligence, or if we are just machines of a different kind. Could everything we know and do one day be reproduced by a complicated enough computer program installed in a complicated enough robot?</p>
<p>In 1950, computer pioneer and wartime codebreaker <a href="https://theconversation.com/imitation-game-brings-to-life-the-real-alan-turing-pioneer-of-the-computer-age-32517">Alan Turing</a> made one of the most influential attempts to tackle this issue. In a <a href="https://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf">landmark paper</a>, he suggested that the vagueness could be taken out of the question of human and machine intelligence with a simple test. This “Turing Test” assesses the ability of a computer to mimic a human, as judged by another human who could not see the machine but could ask it written questions.</p>
<p>In the last few years, several pieces of AI software have been <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27762088">described as</a> having <a href="https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-duplex-beat-the-turing-test-are-we-doomed/">beaten the Turing Test</a>. This has led <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/turing-test-computer-intelligence-too-easy-test-would-look-computer-creativity-180953640/">some to argue</a> that the test is too easy to be a useful judge of artificial intelligence. But I would argue that the Turing Test hasn’t actually been passed at all. In fact, it won’t be passed in the foreseeable future. But if one day a properly designed Turing Test is passed, it will give us cause to worry about our unique status.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DMlX7GV-axI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Some have claimed Google software has passed the Turing Test.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Turing Test is really a test of linguistic fluency. Properly understood, it can reveal the thing that is arguably most distinctive about humans: our different cultures. These give rise to enormous variations in belief and behaviour that aren’t seen among animals or most machines. And the fact we can program this kind of variation into computers is what gives them the potential to mimic human abilities. In judging fluent mimicry, the Turing Test lets us look for the ability of computers to share in human culture by demonstrating their grasp of language in a social context.</p>
<p>Turing based his test on the “imitation game”, a party game in which a man pretended to be a woman and a judge tried to guess who was who by asking the concealed players questions. In the Turing Test, the judge would try to guess who was a computer and who was a real human. </p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, in 1950, Turing didn’t work out the necessary detailed protocol for us to judge today’s AI software. For one thing, he suggested the test could be done in just five minutes. But he also didn’t work out that the judge and the human player had to share a culture and that the computer would have to try to emulate it. That’s led to lots of people claiming that the test has been passed and others claiming that the test is <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429992-900-forget-turing-i-want-to-test-computer-creativity/">too easy</a> or should include emulation of <a href="https://theconversation.com/our-turing-test-for-androids-will-judge-how-lifelike-humanoid-robots-can-be-120696">physical abilities</a>.</p>
<h2>First claimed pass</h2>
<p>Some of this was made obvious nearly 50 years ago with the construction of the program <a href="http://www.med-ai.com/models/eliza.html">known as ELIZA</a> by computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum. ELIZA was used to simulate a type of psychotherapist known as a <a href="https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/Client-centered_therapy">Rogerian</a>, or person-centred, therapist. Several patients who interacted with it thought it was real, leading to the earliest claim that the Turing Test had been passed.</p>
<p>But Weizenbaum <a href="https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=540249">was clear</a> that ELIZA was, in effect, a joke. The setup didn’t even follow what little protocol Turing did provide because patients didn’t know they were looking out for fraud and there were no simultaneous responses from a real psychotherapist. Also, culture wasn’t part of the test because Rogerian therapists say as little as possible. Any worthwhile Turing Test has to have the judge and the human player acting in as human-like a way as possible.</p>
<p>Given that this is a test of understanding text, <a href="https://www.wiley.com/en-gb/Artifictional+Intelligence%3A+Against+Humanity%27s+Surrender+to+Computers-p-9781509504152">computers need to be judged</a> against the abilities of the top few percent of copy-editors. If the questions are right, they can indicate whether the computer has understood the material culture of the other participants.</p>
<h2>Winograd schemas</h2>
<p>The right kind of question could be based on the 1975 idea of “Winograd schemas”, pairs of sentences that differ by just one or two words that require a knowledge of the world to understand. A test for AI based on these is known as a <a href="https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/KR/KR12/paper/viewPaper/4492">Winograd Schema Challenge</a> and was first proposed in 2012 as an improvement on the Turing Test.</p>
<p>Consider the following sentence with two possible endings: “The trophy would not fit in the suitcase because it was too small/large.” If the final word is “small”, then “it” refers to the suitcase. If the final word is “large”, then “it” refers to the trophy.</p>
<p>To understand this, you have to understand the cultural and practical world of trophies and suitcases. In English-speaking society, we use language in such a way that even though a small trophy doesn’t exactly “fit” a large suitcase that’s not what a normal English speaker would mean by “fit” in this context. That’s why in normal English, if the final word is “small”, “it” has to refer to the suitcase.</p>
<p>You also have to understand the physical world of trophies and suitcases as well as if you had actually handled them. So a Turing Test that took this kind of approach would make a test that included an assessment of an AI’s ability to emulate a human’s physical abilities redundant.</p>
<h2>A higher bar</h2>
<p>This means a Turing Test based on Winograd schemas is a much better way to assess a computer’s linguistic and cultural fluency than a simple five-minute conversation. It also sets a much higher bar. All the computers in one such competition in 2016 <a href="https://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/2639">failed miserably</a>, and no competitors were entered from the large AI-based firms because they knew they would fail.</p>
<p>None of the claims that the Turing Test has already been passed mean anything if it is set up as a serious test of humanity’s distinctive abilities to create and understand culture. With a proper protocol, the test is as demanding as it needs to be. Once more, Alan Turing got it right. And, as we stand, there is no obvious route to creating machines that can participate in human culture sufficiently deeply to pass the right kind of linguistic test.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123468/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Harry Collins receives funding from ESRC. </span></em></p>
Some people claim it’s already been passed. But Alan Turing’s test of whether artificial intelligence can act like a human remains an important benchmark for our species.
Harry Collins, Professor of Social Science, Cardiff University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/119425
2019-06-28T15:18:50Z
2019-06-28T15:18:50Z
Alan Turing: how the world’s most famous codebreaker unlocked the secrets of nature’s beauty
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281654/original/file-20190627-76701-tojybz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=36%2C476%2C2303%2C840&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An mbu pufferfish wearing a particularly mesmerising Turing pattern.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/mbu-pufferfish-tetraodon-habitat-355726493?src=jAWiVIlAVAa4biHB_4wtkw-1-0&studio=1">Dennis Jacobsen/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Getting out into nature may seem a world away from a maths classroom. But the beauty that surrounds us has order – and one of the world’s best codebreakers was the key to unlocking it.</p>
<p>Alan Turing may be best known for decrypting German messages created by their enigma machine in World War II. But the <a href="https://www.wired.co.uk/article/turing-contributions">influential scientist</a> thought about the interaction between nature and mathematics in great depth before his untimely death in 1954. In fact, his <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02459572">last published paper</a> became one of the founding theories of mathematical biology, a subject devoted to understanding how nature’s mechanisms work by finding equations that describe them, from species population changes to the way cancerous tumours grow.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281642/original/file-20190627-76726-1yl3ar5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281642/original/file-20190627-76726-1yl3ar5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281642/original/file-20190627-76726-1yl3ar5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281642/original/file-20190627-76726-1yl3ar5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281642/original/file-20190627-76726-1yl3ar5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281642/original/file-20190627-76726-1yl3ar5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281642/original/file-20190627-76726-1yl3ar5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">No need to call the fire brigade.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/beautiful-cheetah-hunting-savannah-portrait-watching-1086005573?src=3bF9cYznFqve2pCWV6vf7Q-1-10&studio=1">rokopix/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Turing proposed that two biological chemicals moving and reacting with each other in a mathematically predictable way could explain shapes and patterns across nature. For example, imagine that a cheetah’s coat is a dry forest with chemical “fires” breaking out all over. Simultaneously, firefighting chemicals of a second type work to surround and contain these fires, leaving charred patches – or spots – in the furry landscape.</p>
<p>Importantly, the speed of the firefighting inhibitor chemical must be faster than that of the spot-creating activator chemical for patterns to be created. Too slow, and the activator chemical will dominate, leading to uniform colour. </p>
<p>Turing came up with two equations that model what kinds of patterns would be produced as both the concentration of the two chemicals and the speed at which they diffuse changes. However, it was incredibly difficult to solve these complex equations with the primitive computing machines around at the time. Turing did undertake the painstaking task once though, producing a dappled pattern that resembled a cow’s skin.</p>
<p>Aided by modern computers, scientists have shown that Turing’s equations can be used to mimic countless two-dimensional patterns seen across the natural world, from <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3141687/pdf/1742-4682-8-24.pdf">fingerprints</a> and the <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-leopard-gets-its-spots/?redirect=1">coats of animals</a> to <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspa.2011.0194">semi-arid landscapes</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5WGg1OkS8-4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Showing that the reactions and movements of chemicals is actually behind the creation of nature’s patterns was more difficult. For example, we can’t watch how the spots of cheetahs develop in the womb. Even observing the growing angel fish’s remarkable patterns <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21897/pdf/pq005549.pdf">change as they develop</a> from juvenile stage to adulthood doesn’t provide proof that a dance of two activator inhibitor chemicals is at work.</p>
<p>Recently though, <a href="https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/turing-patterns/4991.article">Turing patterns</a> in <a href="http://biomedicalcomputationreview.org/content/biological-evidence-turing-patterns">hair follicles</a>, <a href="https://www.quantamagazine.org/ancient-turing-pattern-builds-feathers-hair-and-now-shark-skin-20190102/">chicken feathers</a>, and <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/11/eaau5484">teeth-like shark “scales”</a> have all directly been shown to be produced by the interaction between an activator and an inhibitor chemical.</p>
<p>Of course, nature is rarely as simple as two chemicals interacting in isolation. Scientists have now extended Turing’s theory to explain more complex systems such as <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6234">mussel beds</a>, which extend for hundreds of metres in a large Turing pattern, and display a completely different type of pattern at a smaller scale. A four-chemical version of the theory also accurately models the <a href="https://phys.org/news/2012-02-alan-turing-1950s-tiger-stripe.html">formation of ridges</a> in a vertebrate’s mouth.</p>
<p>Interestingly, we can also apply Turing’s work to a whole range of non-visual patterns. For example, <a href="http://46.32.240.41/natashaellison.com/2018/04/10/poster-on-long-tailed-tits/">my research</a> explores how we use them to model the territory patterns of animals. Instead of describing the concentration and reactions between chemicals, we’ve used similar equations to describe the probability of the location of individuals, and the interactions between each individual and its environment.</p>
<p>As you can imagine, the equations are often highly complex, as <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2014.0231">multiple factors</a> influence an animal’s movement, from the <a href="https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1365-2656.12267">scent marks</a> and physical presence of other animals to the location of prey and even memory.</p>
<p>But the movement patterns predicted by equations that model these factors compare <a href="https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1365-2656.12267">surprisingly well</a> to the actual movement of animals in an area. As well as being fascinating in itself, research like this can <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2014.0231">help us understand</a> how changes in the habitat of a species affect wider ecosystems – which could be highly important considering the threat of extinction climate breakdown poses to hundreds of thousands of species.</p>
<p>This method of modelling territory patterns can even be extended to human populations. For example, one piece of research <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437118308604">showed</a> that the movement of Los Angeles gang members can be accurately predicted by equations that model the central location of their gang and the graffiti tags of other gangs.</p>
<p>Perhaps not even Turing would have imagined just how many of nature’s beautiful secrets his seminal paper would unlock. And it’s not just mathematical biology to which he made a defining contribution – we have his genius to thank for <a href="https://theconversation.com/alan-turings-legacy-is-even-bigger-than-we-realise-34735">so much more</a>. Thanks Alan.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/119425/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Natasha Ellison does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Alan Turing’s last published paper revealed the mathematics behind the beautiful patterns that adorn the natural world.
Natasha Ellison, PhD Researcher, University of Sheffield
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/118491
2019-06-21T12:32:13Z
2019-06-21T12:32:13Z
Robots may care for you in old age – and your children will teach them
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280581/original/file-20190620-149835-oogzmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4045%2C2054&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Smart eve versus the iCub. iCub learns from how children play.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sandy Spence</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s likely that before too long, robots will be in the home to care for older people and help them live independently. To do that, they’ll need to learn how to do all the little jobs that we might be able to do without thinking. Many modern AI systems are trained to perform specific tasks by analysing thousands of annotated images of the action being performed. While these techniques are helping to solve increasingly complex problems, they still focus on very specific tasks and require lots of time and processing power to train. </p>
<p>If a robot is to help take care of people in old age, then the range of problems it will encounter in the home will vary enormously compared to these training situations. During the course of a day, robots might be expected to do everything from making a cup of tea to changing the bedding while holding a conversation. These are all challenging tasks that are more challenging when attempted together. No two homes will be the same, which will mean robots will have to learn fast and adapt to their environment. As anyone sharing a home will appreciate, the objects you need won’t always be found in the same place – robots will need to think on their feet to find them.</p>
<p>One approach is to develop a robot capable of lifelong learning which could store knowledge based on experiences, and work out how to adapt and apply it to new problems. After learning to make a cup of tea, the same skills could be applied to making coffee. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280697/original/file-20190621-61743-17r9tqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280697/original/file-20190621-61743-17r9tqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280697/original/file-20190621-61743-17r9tqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280697/original/file-20190621-61743-17r9tqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280697/original/file-20190621-61743-17r9tqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280697/original/file-20190621-61743-17r9tqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280697/original/file-20190621-61743-17r9tqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Folding towels – not so easy when you’re a robot.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/robotic-arm-holds-terry-towels-bar-1286298154?src=2KWq8p8yNaGVkxYt5OLBcw-1-4&studio=1">Tanja Esser/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The best learning agent that scientists know of is the human mind, which is capable of learning throughout its life – adapting to complex and ever-changing environments and solving a wide variety of problems on a daily basis. Modelling how humans learn could help develop robots that we can interact with naturally, almost like how we’d interact with another person.</p>
<h2>Simulating a child’s development</h2>
<p>The first question to ask when starting to model humans is, where to start? <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/alan-turing-2078">Alan Turing</a>, the famous mathematician and thinker on artificial intelligence <a href="https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238">once said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Instead of trying to produce a programme to simulate the adult mind, why not rather try to produce one which simulates the child’s? If this were then subjected to an appropriate course of education one would obtain the adult brain.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He compared the child’s brain to an empty notebook that could be filled through education to develop an intelligent adult “system”. But what’s the age of a human child that scientists should try to model and install in robots? What initial knowledge and skills does a robot need to start with?</p>
<p>Newborn babies are very limited in what they can do and what they can perceive of the world around them. The muscle strength in a baby’s neck isn’t sufficient to support the head and they haven’t yet learned to control their arms and limbs. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280699/original/file-20190621-61767-1q9x5h9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280699/original/file-20190621-61767-1q9x5h9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280699/original/file-20190621-61767-1q9x5h9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280699/original/file-20190621-61767-1q9x5h9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280699/original/file-20190621-61767-1q9x5h9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280699/original/file-20190621-61767-1q9x5h9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280699/original/file-20190621-61767-1q9x5h9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Newborn babies are limited by what their body can do, but this helps them focus on gradually improving their performance of small tasks.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/new-born-baby-boy-resting-mothers-663728050?src=OzwG6NCaqUhTAnenzgOhGw-1-5&studio=1">KieferPix/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Starting at month zero may seem very limiting for a robot, but the physical constraints on the baby actually help it to focus its learning on a small subset of problems, such as learning to coordinate its eyes with what it is hearing and seeing. These steps form the initial stages of a baby building up a model of its own body, before trying to understand all the complexities of the world around it. </p>
<p>We applied a similar set of constraints on a robot by initially locking various joints from moving to simulate the absence of muscle control. We also adjusted the images from the robot’s camera vision to “see” the world how a newborn baby would – a much more blurry view than adults are used to. Rather than telling the robot how to move, we can allow it to discover this for itself. The benefit to this is that as calibrations change over time, or as limbs get damaged, the robot will be able to adapt to these changes and continue to operate.</p>
<h2>Learning through play</h2>
<p>Our studies show that through applying these constraints on learning, not only does the rate at which new knowledge and skills are learned increase, but <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.2478/s13230-013-0103-y">the accuracy of what is learned increases too</a>.</p>
<p>By giving the robot control over when the constraints are lifted – allowing more control over its joints and improving its vision – <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1059712307082085">the robot can control its own learning rate</a>. By lifting these constraint when the robot has saturated its current scope for learning, we can simulate muscle growth in infants and allow the robot to mature at its own rate. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbot.2014.00001/full">We modelled how an infant learns</a> and simulated the first 10 months of growth. As the robot learned correlations between the motor movements they made and the sensory information they received, stereotypical behaviours observed in infants, such as “hand regard” – where children spend long periods staring at their hands as they move – emerged in the robot’s behaviour.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280702/original/file-20190621-61747-1pddboe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280702/original/file-20190621-61747-1pddboe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280702/original/file-20190621-61747-1pddboe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280702/original/file-20190621-61747-1pddboe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280702/original/file-20190621-61747-1pddboe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280702/original/file-20190621-61747-1pddboe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280702/original/file-20190621-61747-1pddboe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Children learn through playing. Robots could learn the same way.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/asian-boy-about-2-year-5-1170468457?src=BeLiJI5uoN1xqGyTiDoWDA-1-9&studio=1">BonNontawat/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As the robot learns to coordinate its own body, the next major milestone it passes is beginning to understand the world around it. <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/5527/modeling-play-in-early-infant-development#overview">Play is a major part of a child’s learning</a>. It helps them explore their environment, test various possibilities and learn the results. </p>
<p>Initially, this might be something as simple as banging a spoon against a table, or trying to put various objects in their mouths, but this can develop into building towers of blocks, matching shapes or slotting objects into the correct holes. All of these activities are constructing experiences that will provide the foundation for skills later on, such as finding the right key to fit in a lock and the fine motor skills for slotting the key into the keyhole then turning it.</p>
<p>In the future, building on these techniques could give robots the means for learning and adapting to the complex environments and challenges that humans take for granted in everyday life. One day, it could mean robot carers that are as in tune with human needs and as capable of meeting them as another human.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118491/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patricia Shaw receives funding from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. She is a member of the BCS.</span></em></p>
Teaching robots to care for us in old age will be child’s play.
Patricia Shaw, Lecturer in Computer Science, Aberystwyth University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/118647
2019-06-13T14:28:12Z
2019-06-13T14:28:12Z
Ethics of AI: how should we treat rational, sentient robots – if they existed?
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279424/original/file-20190613-32327-1vzyd0q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A scene from Ex Machina, where a man becomes close to a robot who displays emotion.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Pictures</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Imagine a world where humans co-existed with beings who, like us, had minds, thoughts, <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/hot-thought/201712/will-robots-ever-have-emotions">feelings</a>, self-conscious awareness and the capacity to perform purposeful actions – but, unlike us, these beings had artificial mechanical bodies that could be switched on and off.</p>
<p>That brave new world would throw up many issues as we came to terms with our robot counterparts as part and parcel of everyday life. How should we behave towards them? What moral duties would we have? What <a href="https://www.diametros.iphils.uj.edu.pl/diametros/article/view/415">moral rights</a> would such non-human persons have? Would it be morally permissible to try to thwart their emergence? Or would we have a duty to promote and foster their existence?</p>
<p>Intriguing ethical questions such as these are raised in Ian McEwan’s recent novel, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/apr/11/machines-like-me-by-ian-mcewan-review">Machines Like Me</a>, in which <a href="https://www.bbc.com/timelines/z8bgr82">Alan Turing</a> lives a long successful life and explosively propels the development of <a href="https://futureoflife.org/background/benefits-risks-of-artificial-intelligence/?cn-reloaded=1">artificial intelligence</a> (AI) that leads to the creation of “a manufactured human with plausible intelligence and looks, believable motion and shifts of expression”.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3wLqsRLvV-c?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>As intellectual speculation, to consider the ethics of the treatment of rational, sentient machines is interesting. But two common arguments might suggest that the matter has no practical relevance and any ethical questions need not be taken seriously.</p>
<p>The first is that such artificial people could not possibly exist. The second, often raised in <a href="https://academic.oup.com/analysis/article/37/4/197/165548?searchresult=1">the abortion debate</a>, is that only persons who have living and independently viable human bodies are due moral respect and are worthy of moral consideration. As we shall see, these arguments are debatable. </p>
<h2>Mind, matter and emergent properties</h2>
<p>We might suppose that mental phenomena – consciousness, thoughts, feelings and so on, are somehow different from the stuff that constitutes computers and other machines manufactured by humans. And we might suppose that material brains and material machines are fundamentally different from conscious minds. But whether or not such suppositions are true – and I think that they are – it does not follow that sentient, consciously aware, artificially produced people are not possible.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/artificial-intelligence-can-now-emulate-human-behaviors-soon-it-will-be-dangerously-good-114136">Artificial intelligence can now emulate human behaviors – soon it will be dangerously good</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The French sociologist <a href="https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2015/05/steven-lukes-on-durkheim/">Emile Durkheim</a> has argued very convincingly that we should beware of simplistic arguments in social science. Social phenomena, such as language, could not exist without the interaction of individual human beings with their particular psychological and biological features. But it does not follow that the resultant social phenomena – or “emergent properties” – can be completely and correctly explained solely in terms of these features. </p>
<p>The same point about the possibility of emergent properties applies to all sciences. There could not be, for instance, computers of the sort I am now working at without the pieces of plastic, wires, silicon chips and so forth that make up the machine. Still, the operations of a computer cannot be explained solely in terms of the features of these individual components. Once these components are combined and interact in particular ways with electricity, a phenomenon of a new sort emerges: a computer. Similarly, once computers are combined and interact in particular ways, the internet is created. But clearly, the internet is a different sort of phenomenon from a tangible, physical computer. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279344/original/file-20190613-32342-g59wn1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279344/original/file-20190613-32342-g59wn1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=685&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279344/original/file-20190613-32342-g59wn1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=685&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279344/original/file-20190613-32342-g59wn1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=685&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279344/original/file-20190613-32342-g59wn1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=860&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279344/original/file-20190613-32342-g59wn1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=860&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279344/original/file-20190613-32342-g59wn1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=860&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In 1950, WWII codebreaker Alan Turing created a test to see if a computer could fool a human into thinking it too was human.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#/media/File:Alan_Turing_Aged_16.jpg">Wiipedia</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In a similar way, we need not suppose that minds are reducible to brains, molecules, atoms or any other physical elements that are required for them to function. They might be entities of a different sort that emerge from particular interactions and combinations of them. </p>
<p>There’s no obvious logical reason why conscious awareness of the sort that human beings possess – the capacity to think and make decisions – could not appear in a human machine some day. Whether it is physically possible and, therefore likely to actually happen, is <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/">open to debate</a>.</p>
<h2>Do machines deserve our consideration?</h2>
<p>It doesn’t seem controversial to say that we shouldn’t slander dead people or wantonly destroy the planet so that future generations of unborn people are unable to enjoy it as we have. Both groups are due moral respect and consideration. They <a href="https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2019/04/24/medethics-2019-105470">should be regarded</a> as potential objects of our moral duties and potential recipients of our benevolence.</p>
<p>But the dead and the yet to be born do not have viable bodies of any sort – whether natural or artificial. To deny conscious persons moral respect and consideration on the grounds that they had artificial rather than natural bodies would seem to be arbitrary and whimsical. It would require a justification, and it is not obvious what that might be. </p>
<p>One day, maybe sooner than we think, a consideration of the ethics of the treatment of rational, sentient machines might turn out to be more than an abstract academic exercise.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118647/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hugh McLachlan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
In the future, consciously aware robots could be part of our everyday world, deserving of moral respect and consideration.
Hugh McLachlan, Professor Emeritus of Applied Philosophy, Glasgow Caledonian University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/111225
2019-02-06T09:44:56Z
2019-02-06T09:44:56Z
BBC Icons: Alan Turing was a worthy winner – but where were the women?
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/257448/original/file-20190206-174851-ppm020.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Let us now praise famous men.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">BBC/72 Films</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Who was the greatest icon of the 20th century? The <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/TftBcdwzpP4y7qlzXmXRTy/about-the-show">BBC2 Icons</a> show reminded us of people who had struggled against adversity to fight for a better, fairer, more inclusive world. But whatever you thought of the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3Tk2LpLg755Js0LQF7t3TQ2/the-finalists">line up</a> for the grand final on February 5, one thing was striking – there were no women on the list. Not one. The most iconic leader, activist, artist or writer, explorer, entertainer, scientist and sports star were all deemed to be men.</p>
<p>So what happened to the women? How could it be that not one woman ended up in the final? Usually in these situations we would blame the programme makers. However, to do so in this case would be rather unfair. I speak with some experience here, as I sat on the shortlisting panel in two of the categories (leaders and activists). </p>
<p>The production company was aware of diversity and was careful to include balance both in the longlists that we were given to consider, and the composition of the panels that considered them.</p>
<p>This is further evidenced in the shortlists that emerged from those panels, and upon which the public voted to produce the final (all-male) line up. There were outstanding women on every single one of those shortlists. Women who achieved great things, changed the world, reached the very zenith of their careers. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/257451/original/file-20190206-174870-zg3ogq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/257451/original/file-20190206-174870-zg3ogq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257451/original/file-20190206-174870-zg3ogq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257451/original/file-20190206-174870-zg3ogq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257451/original/file-20190206-174870-zg3ogq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257451/original/file-20190206-174870-zg3ogq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257451/original/file-20190206-174870-zg3ogq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What would Emmeline Pankhurst have said?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">BBC/72 Films/Alamy</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Women such as Marie Curie or Helen Keller, without whom the world would be a much poorer place. Women such as Billie Jean King or Tanni Grey-Thompson who dominated their field. Brilliant women such as Agatha Christie, Beatrix Potter, Enid Blyton, Ella Fitzgerald, Tina Turner, Rosa Parks, and many many more who didn’t even make it to the shortlists.</p>
<h2>Social prejudice</h2>
<p>So why, in the face of so many iconic women, did the final feature only men?</p>
<p>To answer this, we have to move beyond the shortlists and think more broadly about our collective attitudes. As a society, we do not always reward merit when we see it, sometimes blinded by our own prejudice. </p>
<p>The declaration of Alan Turing as the overall winner came as recognition both of his outstanding achievement and of the failure of society to acknowledge his contribution in his own lifetime, due to attitudes at that time towards autism and homosexuality. While many of us are now able to see past such prejudice, other forms of bias endure.</p>
<p>For example, while we rightly celebrate Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr for standing up to racial discrimination, we have seen recent evidence from other televised contests such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/16/black-strictly-come-dancing">Strictly Come Dancing</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jan/30/the-disturbing-racial-bias-of-the-greatest-dancer">The Greatest Dancer</a> that racial bias still influences public voting. But for the Icons show, the voting public comprised at least as many women as men. So why were men preferred systematically over women?</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2c9sCWlQbk4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>There is some truth to the claim made by presenter Clare Balding that women were not given as much opportunity as men to flourish in the 20th century. For example, on the leaders panel, we shortlisted more men than women for the simple reason that there were few female world leaders. But many of the women who did make it onto the various shortlists did so in spite of the restrictions placed upon them and the barriers that they encountered, and their stories of triumph over adversity were at least as inspiring as those of the men who were chosen over them.</p>
<h2>Everyday sexism</h2>
<p>So we need to dig deeper and consider how we, as a society, still treat people differently depending on whether they are male or female. Both historically and today, we are more likely to praise, celebrate and remember men’s achievements. In contrast, many of the achievements of women – even when, as was the case for many of the women who did not make the Icons final, those achievements were spectacular – are more likely to be downplayed, overlooked, and ultimately forgotten. In a show that asks the public to vote based on our collective awareness and memory of achievement, it is perhaps not so surprising after all that we more easily accord iconic status to men than to women.</p>
<p>And this inequality really matters. It matters symbolically – every girl and young woman who watched that final will be left with the false impression that all of the most important figures of recent history were men. This might curtail their own ambition and sense of self-worth.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/257452/original/file-20190206-174887-44ulh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/257452/original/file-20190206-174887-44ulh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=829&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257452/original/file-20190206-174887-44ulh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=829&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257452/original/file-20190206-174887-44ulh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=829&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257452/original/file-20190206-174887-44ulh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1042&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257452/original/file-20190206-174887-44ulh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1042&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257452/original/file-20190206-174887-44ulh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1042&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alan Turing: also a victim of prejudice.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">BBC/72 Films/Elliott & Fry/NPG</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But it also matters substantively. There is repeated evidence that people rate men more highly than women on things like <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018839203698">job applications</a>, <a href="https://news.yale.edu/2012/09/24/scientists-not-immune-gender-bias-yale-study-shows">salary evaluations</a> and <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00781.x">political candidate evaluations</a>. This is the case even when fictional examples are used where the candidates are identical in everything except assigned gender. In other words, where all other things really are equal, we are still more likely to think that men are worth employing, promoting, even electing, rather than women.</p>
<p>It doesn’t end there. The <a href="https://everydaysexism.com/">#EverydaySexism</a> project documents thousands of testimonies of women being patronised, insulted, harassed and even assaulted in routine, everyday contexts. From the summit of achievement to daily lived experience, women are accorded less worth and status than men. The incidences of everyday sexism are so common as to be perceived as banal – and yet they are very real in the way that they undermine women, silence them or render them invisible.</p>
<p>What can we learn from all this? First, that it is not women’s lack of achievement, but our collective inability to give adequate recognition to that achievement, that is at fault. Second, that we are not yet as meritocratic a society as we might imagine ourselves to be. Third, that we need to do all that we can to acknowledge the true contribution of women, past, present and future, because one of the most important lessons of a historical show is to ensure that the errors of the past are not repeated.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/111225/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rainbow Murray was an advisor to the BBC series, The Icons.</span></em></p>
Several outstanding women were nominated, but Rainbow Murray, an adviser to the series, says the public vote showed how we’re still more inclined to recognise male achievement.
Rainbow Murray, Professor of Politics, Queen Mary University of London
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/106470
2018-11-07T11:53:20Z
2018-11-07T11:53:20Z
Alan Turing: visionary, war hero and the only choice for the £50 note
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244148/original/file-20181106-74754-1pwmxwr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Alan Turing statue at Bletchley Park.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/duanewessels/6917285604/in/photolist-bxfU1U-RozdC9-rc7BuN-4d5RMa-9QxfYX-YY2etd-a6sVfr-Hnjh6V-jutcpH-rxBMWW-9dVwqz-B5tU6Z-FqPa62-izenRi-7hfYvD-7qRKfN-mmUUcW-eaJzNC-g6StoF-26WQP6o-Rw7uks-6tkrVg-rtzvjz-6FPum6-cK3EfG-rtzvf6-9QxkDH-9ZMWqv-pTN7fF-8bpezT-gRY2TC-iMseax-9z7TQW-g6S39y-cK3EAh-pqbKaF-RUD6Uk-aMn5RP-9hUhMP-7wRvTt-9E1Mzs-48Ka8f-5X1TZP-7UuTK7-61YjTy-7DGKma-rD2yc7-77CVDR-H1WU9Q-aHpvCZ">Duane Wessels/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Bank of England has decided that the next prominent figure to feature on the £50 note <a href="https://theconversation.com/five-lesser-known-scientists-who-deserve-a-place-on-the-50-note-106376">should be a scientist</a> and have put the call out for nominations from the general public. For me, there is one scientist who stands out above all the rest. Forget <a href="https://theconversation.com/stephen-hawking-martin-rees-looks-back-on-colleagues-spectacular-success-against-all-odds-93379">Hawking</a> or <a href="https://theconversation.com/frederick-sangers-achievements-cannot-be-overstated-20596">Sanger</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/ada-lovelace-blazed-a-trail-in-science-we-need-more-women-to-follow-in-her-footsteps-66661">Lovelace</a> or <a href="https://theconversation.com/dorothy-hodgkin-britains-only-female-nobel-scientist-deserves-to-be-on-the-new-50-note-106394">Hodgkin</a>. I give you a war hero, a pioneer of the computer age, a martyr of the LGBT community and the forerunner of a whole field of science: I give you Alan Turing.</p>
<p>Turing, is probably best-known for his pioneering codebreaking work during World War II (featured in the Hollywood blockbuster <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084970/">The Imitation Game</a>). Turing made the first breakthroughs into the German naval Enigma code, which eased the passage of allied ships across the Atlantic. He was also instrumental in creating a machine called the Bombe, an early forerunner of modern-day computers that could routinely crack Enigma. Turing’s war work, for which he was awarded the OBE, saved countless lives and is conjectured to have significantly <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18419691">shortened the war</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/j2jRs4EAvWM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Astonishingly, this was perhaps not even Turing’s most influential contribution to modern civilisation, and was certainly not his first. When he was at Cambridge, in 1936, Turing tackled a famous, and unresolved, mathematics challenge known as the “<a href="http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DecisionProblem.html">decision problem</a>”. In resolving the problem, <a href="https://www.cs.virginia.edu/%7Erobins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf">Turing proposed</a> a universal machine that could decide whether any given mathematical problem was provable or not.</p>
<p>In the universal machine, Turing introduced the idea of the stored programme computer years before such machines existed. Over a decade later, electronic technology had become sufficiently advanced to allow Turing’s ideas to make the leap from his brilliant mind into the real world. Although no one person can claim to have invented the computer, the descendants of Turing’s theoretical machine sit in billions of offices, homes and pockets around the world.</p>
<h2>The maths of life</h2>
<p>During his short academic career, Turing made towering contributions to a diverse range of areas, from pure mathematics to the theory of artificial intelligence. In 1952, aged 40, Turing wrote a lesser-known paper in a new area, which was no less brilliant than his preceding work. In <a href="http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/237/641/37">The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis</a>, Turing proposed a mechanism by which patterns might form in the early embryo known as “diffusion-driven instability”.</p>
<p>The same mechanism, he realised, might account for a multitude of patterns in nature including those seen on animal coats, suggesting a mechanism for how the <a href="https://plus.maths.org/content/how-leopard-got-its-spots">leopard got its spots</a>. In particular, Turing’s theory predicts that animals can have spotty bodies and stripy tails, but not the other way around, a prediction that is borne out in many species of animals.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244315/original/file-20181107-74760-4lmkxa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244315/original/file-20181107-74760-4lmkxa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244315/original/file-20181107-74760-4lmkxa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244315/original/file-20181107-74760-4lmkxa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244315/original/file-20181107-74760-4lmkxa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244315/original/file-20181107-74760-4lmkxa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244315/original/file-20181107-74760-4lmkxa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Spotty body, stripy tail.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/cheetahs-on-termite-hill-masai-mara-539719981?src=3bF9cYznFqve2pCWV6vf7Q-1-92">Africa Wildlife/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Turing’s idea of using mathematics to untangle the secrets of life were highly influential in the development of the relatively new field of science called “mathematical biology”. At the heart of this rapidly growing subject is the attempt to represent biological systems of interest mathematically or computationally using models.</p>
<p>Today, Turing’s legacy - the idea of taking a quantitative approach to biology - is helping to unravel some of life’s most enigmatic mysteries. Mathematical biologists are attempting to understand <a href="https://kityates.com/publications/">how things can go wrong during the development of an embryo</a> and to suggest the best way to tackle outbreaks of deadly diseases like <a href="https://plus.maths.org/content/ebola-evidence-numbers">Ebola</a>.</p>
<h2>A gross injustice</h2>
<p>In 1951, Turing was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. The great honour is conferred on only the most eminent scientists. With it came recognition and respect from wider society, with no hint of the distress and humiliation this same society would inflict upon him the following year.</p>
<p>Turing was a gay man in a time when, in the UK, it was illegal to be gay. In 1952, he was charged with “gross indecency”. At his trial, Turing pleaded guilty, insisting that he saw nothing wrong with his actions. He was duly convicted and offered the choice between prison or probation with a course of the hormone stilboestrol for a year: a so-called “chemical castration”.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244154/original/file-20181106-74757-sukkna.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244154/original/file-20181106-74757-sukkna.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=774&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244154/original/file-20181106-74757-sukkna.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=774&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244154/original/file-20181106-74757-sukkna.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=774&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244154/original/file-20181106-74757-sukkna.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=972&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244154/original/file-20181106-74757-sukkna.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=972&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244154/original/file-20181106-74757-sukkna.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=972&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Appallingly treated.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alan_Turing_az_1930-as_%C3%A9vekben.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The “treatment” was designed to reduce libido and had the effect of rendering Turing impotent and causing him to grow breasts. If this were not humiliation enough, his conviction also meant that Turing’s security clearance was revoked. As a consequence, he was barred from continuing the consultancy work for Government Communication Headquarters that had grown from his war-time codebreaking successes.</p>
<p>On June 7, 1954, Turing died of cyanide poisoning. Next to his bed lay a half-eaten apple. It was speculated (since Snow White was one of Turing’s favourite fairy tales) that he had laced the fruit with cyanide before consuming his own “poisoned apple”. The inquest into his death recorded a verdict of suicide.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/dorothy-hodgkin-britains-only-female-nobel-scientist-deserves-to-be-on-the-new-50-note-106394">Dorothy Hodgkin: Britain's only female Nobel scientist deserves to be on the new £50 note</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In 2009, then prime minister <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-alan-turing">Gordon Brown</a>, apologised on behalf of the British government for the appalling way Turing was treated and in 2013 Turing received a <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25495315">posthumous royal pardon</a>. In 2017, the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37711518">Alan Turing law</a> came into force, retrospectively pardoning all men convicted of “gross indecency” for acts no longer considered offences.</p>
<p>In light of his war heroism, his scientific prowess, his technological foresight, his far-reaching computational influence and his stoicism in the face of injustice, the question is not “Why should Alan Turing feature on the new £50 note?” but rather, “How can we ignore this British icon any longer?”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106470/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christian Yates does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
The man who conceived the computer and helped crack the Nazi Enigma code deserves national recognition.
Christian Yates, Senior Lecturer in Mathematical Biology and author of "The Maths of Life and Death" out September 2019, University of Bath
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/85053
2017-10-04T11:42:02Z
2017-10-04T11:42:02Z
How animals got their spots and stripes – according to maths
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/188730/original/file-20171004-6697-ze4s92.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/macro-shot-zebra-danio-tropical-fish-680522524?src=I3gqRJ4T4k5pIb2RBhE8TQ-2-47">Ian Grainger/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The natural world presents a palette of beautiful complexity. From the peacock tail and the <a href="https://www.livescience.com/2820-butterflies-eye-spots.html">eyespots of a butterfly</a>, to the evolving camouflage of the chameleon, nature loves patterns.</p>
<p>Biologists may be able to tell you why an animal has a certain pattern. For example, it may have evolved its skin pattern for <a href="https://static.pexels.com/photos/33118/peacock-animal-iridescent.jpg">mating purposes</a>, as a <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Micrurus_tener.jpg">warning sign</a>, or for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception_in_animals#/media/File:Peacock_Flounder_Bothus_mancus_in_Kona.jpg">defence purposes</a>. However, we are still in the dark when it comes to how the patterns are produced.</p>
<p>Although we currently lack the experimental insight, mathematicians have been playing around with pattern formation equations since 1952, when <a href="https://theconversation.com/alan-turings-legacy-is-even-bigger-than-we-realise-34735">the great Alan Turing</a> published the seminal paper, <a href="http://cba.mit.edu/events/03.11.ASE/docs/Turing.pdf">The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis</a>. In this paper, he presented a theory that said patterns could spontaneously appear using nothing more than a protein’s natural tendency to move randomly through tissue and interact with other cells and proteins.</p>
<p>The theory is incredibly counter-intuitive, and we can only wonder how Turing discovered it. Patterns, as Turing saw them, depend on two components: interacting agents and agent diffusion. Each component on its own does not create a pattern. In fact, diffusion is a well-known pattern destroyer: if you put milk in water (and don’t stir), the milk will diffuse – or spread – out across the cup. You don’t end up with spots, or stripes of milk. You just have a cup of uniform milky water. </p>
<p>Turing’s genius saw through this and he demonstrated that if you combine these two components in just the right way, diffusion could actually drive the system to form spots and stripes. This idea was so far ahead of its time that we are still working on unravelling its complexity 65 years later.</p>
<h2>Light and dark</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, biology refuses to be so simple. Diffusion assumes that the agents which create a pattern – for example, chemicals, proteins or cells – are dumb, in that they move around space randomly. However, in 2014, the experimental lab of Shigeru Kondo demonstrated that cells in particular are <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/01/video-zebrafish-stripes-caused-cells-chase-each-other">more cunning than we thought</a>.</p>
<p>Kondo’s lab works on understanding the black and white stripes presented on zebrafish, a tropical freshwater fish, which is native to the Himalayan region. They discovered that zebrafish skin patterns are made up of a light type of cell (xanthophore) and a dark type of cell (melanophore) that interact with each other. Specifically, the light cells spread out tendrils to investigate their environment. </p>
<p>Unexpectedly, Kondo’s team found that when the light cell touches a dark cell a chasing mechanism is instigated. The light cell slowly moves towards the dark cell while the dark cell quickly “runs away”. Complicating matters further is the fact that the chasing doesn’t occur along a straight line. The cells move at an angle to one another, resulting in a spiralling chase.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0wECUnwgN8A?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>My work extended Turing’s theory to accommodate this new knowledge of “chasing” cells. First, I modelled the system as a set of discrete, individual cells. This mathematical model is highly accurate, but difficult to work with. I then simplified the model by assuming that there are a large number of cells. </p>
<p>Having more cells may seem to complicate the system, but by increasing the number of cells you can stop worrying about each individual component and simply consider the properties of the whole population. To put this in real world terms, it means that when you consider the Great Wall of China, you do not have to worry about a single brick, but rather see it as the whole structure.</p>
<p>Although I lost accuracy on individual cell locations, the simplification allowed me to use a whole toolbox of other techniques that mathematicians have been constructing over the past 60 years. So I am able to exactly specify the conditions under which cellular populations will produce patterns and conditions under which patterns will not exist.</p>
<p>Incredibly, with the additional complexity of chasing cells we were able to greatly expand the catalogue of available patterns. No longer does a system have to evolve to a stationary pattern of spots or stripes. These chasing cells can produce patterns of rotating hexagons, spots that shuttle past each other and, perhaps most complex of all, constantly evolving stripes that oscillate to and fro.</p>
<p>All of this complexity is wrapped up in the description of how the cells chase one another: if you change the description, you change the pattern. Critically, this confirms one of Kondo’s experimental hypotheses, as not only did he experiment on normal, or wild-type, zebrafish he also experimented on mutant fish that presented broken stripes, spots, or no pattern at all. </p>
<p>Specifically, he discovered that the mutant fish which presented different patterns also presented a different chasing strategy between the dark and light cells. He concluded that the tissue-scale pattern of the skin, could be dictated by the micro-scale pattern of the cells. Incredibly, the mathematics appears to confirm this idea, although more work needs to be done to ensure a complete comparison between theory and experiment.</p>
<p>There is little doubt in my mind that the cellular interactions will still be more complicated than we currently know. Indeed, it maybe another 65 years before we are able to truly pin down the causes of zebrafish pattern formation. In the meantime, you can be sure that mathematics will be providing biologists with a new microscope with which to examine biological problems beyond their current experimental expertise.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85053/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thomas Woolley would like to thank Cardiff University, St John's College, Oxford and the Mathematical Biosciences Institute (MBI) at Ohio State University, for financially supporting this research through the National Science Foundation grant DMS 1440386. Thomas would also like to recognise the support of BBSRC grant BKNXBKOO BK00.16.</span></em></p>
A mathematician has joined the dots between Alan Turing and chasing cells to find out how skin patterns are formed.
Thomas Woolley, Lecturer in Applied Mathematics, Cardiff University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/82338
2017-08-21T11:38:33Z
2017-08-21T11:38:33Z
We don’t want AI that can understand us – we’d only end up arguing
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182770/original/file-20170821-27189-38nchc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Forget the Turing test. Computing pioneer Alan Turing’s most pertinent thoughts on machine intelligence come from a neglected paragraph of <a href="https://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf">the same paper</a> that first proposed his <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/09/what-is-the-alan-turing-test">famous test</a> for whether a computer could be considered as smart as a human.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The original question, “Can machines think?” I believe to be too meaningless to deserve discussion. Nevertheless I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Turing’s 1950 prediction was not that computers would be able to think in the future. He was arguing that, one day, what we mean when we talk about computers thinking would morph in such a way that it would become a pretty uncontroversial thing to say. We can now see that he was right. Our use of the term has indeed loosened to the point that attributing thought to even the most basic of machines has become common parlance.</p>
<p>Today, advances in technology mean that understanding has become the new thought. And again, the question of whether machines can understand is arguably meaningless. With the development of artificial intelligence and machine learning, there already exists a solid sense in which robots and artificial assistants such as Microsoft’s Cortana and Apple’s Siri are said to understand us. The interesting questions are just what this sense is and why it matters what we call it. </p>
<h2>Defining understanding</h2>
<p>Deciding on how to define a concept is not the same as making a discovery. It’s a pragmatic choice (usually) based on empirical observations. We no more discover that machines think or understand than we discover that <a href="http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2008-06/plutoids">Pluto isn’t a planet</a>. </p>
<p>In the case of artificial intelligence, people often talk of 20th-century science fiction writers such as Isaac Asimov as having had prophetic visions of the future. But they didn’t so much anticipate the thought and language of contemporary computing technology as directly influence it. Asimov’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/after-75-years-isaac-asimovs-three-laws-of-robotics-need-updating-74501">Three Laws of Robotics</a> have been an inspiration to a whole generation of engineers and designers who talk about machines that learn, understand, make decisions, have emotional intelligence, are empathetic and even <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/815755/artificial-intelligence-AI-RISE-OF-THE-MACHINES-self-doubt">doubt themselves</a>.</p>
<p>This vision <a href="http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/83hbx7fr9780252029851.html">enchants us</a> into forgetting the other possible ways of thinking about artificial intelligence, gradually eroding the nuance in our definitions. Is this outweighed by what we gain from Asimov’s vocabulary? The answer depends on why we might want understanding between humans and machines in the first place. To handle this question we must, naturally, first turn to bees. </p>
<p>As the philosopher of language <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Rationality.html?id=odKaXDh7eK0C&redir_esc=y">Jonathan Bennett writes</a>, we can talk about bees having a “language” they use to “understand” each other’s “reports” of discoveries of food. And there is a sense in which we can speak – without quote marks even – of bees having thought, language, communication, and understanding and other qualities we usually think of as particularly human. But think what a giant mess the whole process would be if they were also able to question each other’s motives, grow jealous, become resentful, and so on like humans.</p>
<p>A similar disaster would occur if our sat-nav devices started bickering with us, like an unhappy couple on holiday, over the best route to our chosen destination. The ability to understand can seriously interfere with performance. A good hoover doesn’t need to understand why I need more powerful suction in order for it to switch to turbo mode when I press the appropriate button. Why should a good robot be any different?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182775/original/file-20170821-27181-1xkaz43.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182775/original/file-20170821-27181-1xkaz43.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182775/original/file-20170821-27181-1xkaz43.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182775/original/file-20170821-27181-1xkaz43.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182775/original/file-20170821-27181-1xkaz43.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182775/original/file-20170821-27181-1xkaz43.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182775/original/file-20170821-27181-1xkaz43.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When Siri answers back.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Understanding isn’t (usually) helpful</h2>
<p>One of key things that makes artificial personal assistants such as Amazon’s Alexa useful is precisely the fact that our interactions with them could never justify reactive attitudes on either side. This is because they are not the sort of beings that could <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-not-me-its-her-i-cant-fall-in-love-with-my-operating-system-22613">care or be cared about</a>. (We may occasionally feel anger towards a machine but it is misplaced.)</p>
<p>We need the assistant’s software to have accurate voice-recognition and be as sensitive to the context of our words as possible. But we hardly want it to be capable of understanding – and so also misunderstanding – us in the everyday ways that could produce mutual resentment, blame, gratitude, guilt, indignation, or pride. </p>
<p>Only a masochist would want an artificial PA that could fall out with her, go on strike, or refuse to update its software.</p>
<p>The only exception in which we might conceivably seek such understanding is in the provision of <a href="https://theconversation.com/robot-companions-are-coming-into-our-homes-so-how-human-should-they-be-63154">artificial companions</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/robot-revolution-why-technology-for-older-people-must-be-designed-with-care-and-respect-71082">for the elderly</a>. As cognitive scientist <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/05/30/care-bots-for-the-elderly-are-dangerous-warns-artificial-intelli/">Maggie Boden warns</a>, it is emotionally dangerous to provide care-bots that cannot actually care but that people could become deeply attached to. </p>
<p>The aim of <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608571/alexa-understand-me/">AI that understands us</a> as well (<a href="http://www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com/article/view/3372">or as badly</a>) as we understand one another sounds rather grand and important, perhaps the major scientific challenge of the 21st century. But what would be the point of it? We would do better to focus on the other side of the same coin and work towards having a less anthropocentric understanding of AI itself. The better we can comprehend the way AI reasons, the more useful it will be to us.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82338/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Constantine Sandis is a Visiting Professor at Microsoft Research Lab, Cambridge.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Harper does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Asking whether machines can really understand us is meaningless.
Constantine Sandis, Professor of Philosophy, University of Hertfordshire
Richard Harper, Professor of Computer Science and Communications, Lancaster University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/77416
2017-06-15T10:17:44Z
2017-06-15T10:17:44Z
The maths of life and death: our secret weapon in the fight against disease
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173635/original/file-20170613-25839-emxoef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Maths is the language of science. It crops up everywhere from physics to engineering and chemistry – aiding us in understanding the origins of the universe and building bridges that won’t collapse in the wind. Perhaps a little more surprisingly, maths is also increasingly integral to biology.</p>
<p>For hundreds of years mathematics has been used, to great effect, to model relatively simple physical systems. Newton’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/13/newtons-universal-law-of-gravitation">universal law of gravitation</a> is a fine example. Relatively simple observations led to a rule which, with great accuracy, describes the motion of celestial bodies billions of miles away. Traditionally, biology has been viewed as too complicated to submit to such mathematical treatment.</p>
<p>Biological systems are often classified as “complex”. Complexity in this sense means that, due to the complicated interaction of many sub-components, biological systems can exhibit what we call emergent behaviour – the system as a whole demonstrates properties which the individual components acting alone cannot. This biocomplexity has often been mistaken for <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/vitalism">vitalism</a>, the misconception that biological processes are dependent on a force or principle distinct from the laws of physics and chemistry. Consequently, it has been assumed that complex biological systems are not amenable to mathematical treatment.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173577/original/file-20170613-25860-1k8wqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173577/original/file-20170613-25860-1k8wqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173577/original/file-20170613-25860-1k8wqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173577/original/file-20170613-25860-1k8wqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173577/original/file-20170613-25860-1k8wqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173577/original/file-20170613-25860-1k8wqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173577/original/file-20170613-25860-1k8wqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How did the leopard get his spots?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">VarnaK / Shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There were some early dissenters. Famous computer scientist and World War II code-breaker <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/alan-turing-2078">Alan Turing</a> was one of the first to suggest that biological phenomena could be studied and understood mathematically. In 1952 he proposed a pair of <a href="http://www.dna.caltech.edu/courses/cs191/paperscs191/turing.pdf">beautiful mathematical equations</a> which provide an explanation for how pigmentation patterns might form on animals’ coats.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173597/original/file-20170613-25855-1lp0ybb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173597/original/file-20170613-25855-1lp0ybb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=592&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173597/original/file-20170613-25855-1lp0ybb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=592&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173597/original/file-20170613-25855-1lp0ybb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=592&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173597/original/file-20170613-25855-1lp0ybb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=743&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173597/original/file-20170613-25855-1lp0ybb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=743&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173597/original/file-20170613-25855-1lp0ybb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=743&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Examples of different types of Turing patterns.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">© Kit Yates</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Not only was his work beautiful, it was also counter-intuitive – the sort of work that only a brilliant mind like Turing’s could ever have dreamed up. Even more of a pity, then, that he was so poorly treated under the draconian anti-homosexuality laws of the time. After a course of “corrective” hormone treatment, he killed himself just two years later.</p>
<h2>An emerging field</h2>
<p>Since then, the field of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHZe84bRsVI">mathematical biology</a> has exploded. In recent years, increasingly detailed experimental procedures have lead to a huge influx in the biological data available to scientists. This data is being used to generate hypotheses about the complexity of previously abstruse biological systems. In order to test these hypotheses, they must be written down in the form of a model which can be interrogated to determine whether it correctly mimics the biological observations. Mathematics is the natural language in which to do this. </p>
<p>In addition, the advent of, and subsequent increase in, computational ability over the last 60 years has enabled us to suggest and then interrogate complex mathematical models of biological systems. The realisation that biological systems can be treated mathematically, coupled with the computational ability to build and investigate detailed biological models, has led to the dramatic increase in the popularity of mathematical biology.</p>
<p>Maths has become a vital weapon in the scientific armoury we have to tackle some of the most pressing questions in medical, biological and ecological science in the 21st century. By describing biological systems mathematically and then using the resulting models, we can gain insights that are impossible to access though experiments and verbal reasoning alone. Mathematical biology is incredibly important if we want to change biology from a descriptive into a predictive science – giving us power, for example, to avert pandemics or to alter the effects of debilitating diseases.</p>
<h2>A new weapon</h2>
<p>Over the last 50 years, for example, mathematical biologists have built increasingly complex computational representations of the heart’s physiology. Today, these highly sophisticated models are being used in an attempt to understand better the complicated functioning of the human heart. Computer simulations of heart function allow us to make predictions about how the heart will interact with candidate drugs, designed to improve its function, without having to undertake expensive and potentially risky clinical trials.</p>
<p>We use mathematical biology to study disease as well. On an individual scale, researchers have elucidated the mechanisms by which our immune systems battles with viruses through <a href="http://rsfs.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/6/2/20150093">mathematical immunology</a> and suggested potential interventions for tipping the scales in our favour. On a wider scale, mathematical biologists have proposed mechanisms that can be used to control the spread of <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2006.00609.x/full">deadly epidemics like Ebola</a>, and to ensure the finite resources dedicated to this purpose are employed in the most efficient way possible.</p>
<p>Mathematical biology is even being used to inform policy. There has been research done on fisheries for example, using mathematical modelling to set realistic quotas in order to ensure we <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/W6914E/W6914E04.htm">do not overfish our seas</a> and that we protect some of our most important species.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173617/original/file-20170613-21449-j3arx6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173617/original/file-20170613-21449-j3arx6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173617/original/file-20170613-21449-j3arx6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173617/original/file-20170613-21449-j3arx6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173617/original/file-20170613-21449-j3arx6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173617/original/file-20170613-21449-j3arx6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173617/original/file-20170613-21449-j3arx6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A day’s haul.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AJP / Shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The increased comprehension gleaned by taking a mathematical approach can lead to better understanding of biology at a range of different scales. At <a href="http://www.bath.ac.uk/cmb/">the Centre for Mathematical Biology in Bath</a>, for example, we study a number of pressing biological problems. At one end of the spectrum, we try to develop strategies for averting the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-many-locusts-does-it-take-to-start-a-biblical-plague-just-three-49548">devastating effects of locust plagues</a> comprising up to a billion individuals. At the other end, we try to elucidate the mechanisms that give rise to the correct <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-cat-got-its-coat-and-other-furry-tails-52184">development of the embryo</a>.</p>
<p>Although mathematical biology has traditionally been the domain of applied mathematicians, it is clear that mathematicians who self-classify as pure have a role to play in the mathematical biology revolution. The pure discipline of topology is being used to understand the <a href="http://www.biochemsoctrans.org/content/41/2/491">knotty problem of DNA packing</a> and algebraic geometry is being used to select the most appropriate model of <a href="http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/13/123/20160256">biochemical interaction networks</a>.</p>
<p>As the profile of mathematical biology continues to rise, emerging and established scientists from disciplines across the scientific spectrum will be drawn to tackle the rich range of important and novel problems that biology has to offer.</p>
<p>Turing’s revolutionary idea, although not fully appreciated in his time, demonstrated that there was no need to appeal to vitalism – the god in the machine – to understand biological processes. Chemical and physical laws encoded in mathematics, or “mathematical biology” as we now call it, could do just fine.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77416/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christian Yates does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Biologists only really started to use maths in the last few decades.
Christian Yates, Senior Lecturer in Mathematical Biology, University of Bath
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/76737
2017-05-11T11:49:03Z
2017-05-11T11:49:03Z
Ten ways Manchester is set to become one of the world’s top ‘digital cities’
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168772/original/file-20170510-21627-18zuv2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hand-holding-tablet-device-media-application-496929427?src=kd3Rkjkl1ExZqOY4DUKkYg-2-7">ra2studio/shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>With the new metro mayor, Andy Burnham, calling Manchester a “<a href="http://www.burnhamformayor.co.uk/ourmanifesto">world-leading digital city”</a>“ it seems timely to assess whether or not this is really the case.</p>
<p>Manchester is the home of the computer and technology has long been a part of its history. <a href="http://msimanchester.org.uk/whats-on/show/meet-baby">Baby</a> – the first computer to store and run a programme – was created in the city and celebrates its 70th birthday in 2018. A statue of <a href="http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3134438">Alan Turing</a>, the man credited as the creator of modern computing, marks the place in the city centre where he worked to create the <a href="http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/about-us/history/">Mark1</a> – the Manchester Universal Electronic Computer – in 1949. But what about today? </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168917/original/file-20170511-32593-lfoj95.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168917/original/file-20170511-32593-lfoj95.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168917/original/file-20170511-32593-lfoj95.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168917/original/file-20170511-32593-lfoj95.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168917/original/file-20170511-32593-lfoj95.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168917/original/file-20170511-32593-lfoj95.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168917/original/file-20170511-32593-lfoj95.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Alan Turing Memorial in Sackville Park, Manchester.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/manchester-united-kingdom-30-sept-2016the-491295394?src=957HV36txVT3pJHmIQbMnQ-1-3">amirraizat/shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Building on this heritage, the metropolitan county of Greater Manchester, for which Burnham is now mayor – including the cities of Manchester and Salford and ten Metropolitan Boroughs – has one of Europe’s largest city economies (£56bn) and is certainly aiming to become one of the world’s <a href="http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240225453/Five-top-UK-tech-startup-clusters-outside-of-London">top 20 digital cities by 2020</a>. But how?</p>
<p>1) Manchester Network Access Point, or MaNAP, is a major global internet traffic hub and serves the UK’s access to worldwide networks. As such, Greater Manchester is in fact the only city in the UK to offer truly next generation broadband with "fibre to the premises” – a service allowing speeds of up to <a href="http://www.investinmanchester.com/why-manchester/connectivity/">100mbps in a true open access network</a>. </p>
<p>2) A £575m investment programme recently completed by BT places Manchester ten years ahead of other UK cities in terms of access to digital communications. At Salford’s MediaCityUK in particular <a href="http://www.investinmanchester.com/why-manchester/connectivity/">20m metres of fibre deliver speeds up to ten gigabits</a>.</p>
<p>3) Tim Newns, chief executive of Manchester’s Inward Investment Agency (MIDAS) told Computer Weekly the city already has more than 100,000 people employed in its technology sector, as well as <a href="http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240225453/Five-top-UK-tech-startup-clusters-outside-of-London">6,000 technology-related businesses</a>. </p>
<p>4) Meanwhile Manchester has more than 100,000 students studying in one of the four universities located in the city. TechHub, Northern Quarter, MediaCityUK, South Manchester Corridor and The Corridor are all digital clusters within Manchester. And support networks exist including so-called tech “incubators” such as <a href="http://www.thelanding.org.uk/">The Landing</a> – a <a href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/landing-chosen-digital-catapults-first-10796780">UK Digital Catapult</a> partner, <a href="http://www.thesharpproject.co.uk/">Sharp Project</a> and <a href="http://www.innospace.co.uk/">Innospace</a> which nurture start-ups eager to join the city’s thriving digital sector.</p>
<p>5) All this makes Manchester the <a href="http://www.investinmanchester.com/dbimgs/MIDAS%20Sector%20Factsheet%20Creative%20Digital%20Tech.pdf">largest UK digital and tech hub</a> outside London – and its growth shows no signs of slowing down. <a href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/talktalk-home-office-sign-up-9470629">Talk Talk is relocating hundreds of tech jobs to Salford</a> to join <a href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/moneysupermarket-to-open-manchester-base-11088900">Moneysupermarket.com</a> and <a href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/property/auto-trader-move-600-staff-6730775">Auto Trader</a>. <a href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/media/sainsburys-create-150-digital-technology-11201249">Sainsbury’s</a> and <a href="https://www.gchq.gov.uk/features/our-culture">GCHQ</a> are both creating large tech teams there.</p>
<p>6) Unlike cities such as Cambridge and Oxford, where digital innovation is clustered around the universities, the digital and tech industry in Manchester – a far bigger metropolitan area – is more scattered. It is the distillation of success in many industry areas and digital <a href="https://digitalcityindex.eu">start-ups and scale-ups</a> in Manchester have a wide and growing regional base to serve. Outside London, only Bristol is doing marginally better for start-ups but lacks the broadband infrastructure that Manchester boasts.</p>
<p>7) In some senses, Manchester’s booming global eCommerce industry owes its thanks to the city-region’s heritage. The textile and cotton trade that originally put Manchester on the world map in the 19th century made it the richest city in the world after London for a time. Although the global trade in cotton is long gone, the brick-built mills and warehouses now boast open-plan hi-tech offices, with canal-side restaurants and bars. In 2014, the <a href="http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2012t.html">Globalization and World Cities Research Network</a> ranked Manchester as a “beta” world city, the highest-ranked British city apart from London.</p>
<p>8) There has been a strong broadcast and TV sector since the 1950s. Both the BBC and Granada have studios in Manchester and the phenomenon of convergence – whereby the old “broadcast” TV has now gone digital – has seen this spill out and enrich the tech scene. Salford’s <a href="http://www.mediacityuk.co.uk/">MediaCityUK</a> is now home to large parts of the BBC, ITV and more than <a href="http://obiproperty.co.uk/the-rise-and-rise-of-mediacityuk/">250 small creative and technology</a> companies – including <a href="http://www.dock10.co.uk">Dock10</a>, <a href="http://www.anmc.co.uk">ANMC</a>, <a href="https://www.duodesign.co.uk">Duo Design</a> as well as international offices such as Dutch firm <a href="http://www.businesscloud.co.uk/news/dutch-edtech-firm-prowise-opens-uk-base-at-mediacity">Prowise</a>. On some measures, Salford now <a href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/salford-outranks-london-start-ups-13000882">outranks London for start-up growth</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168775/original/file-20170510-21593-1vpfnt5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168775/original/file-20170510-21593-1vpfnt5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168775/original/file-20170510-21593-1vpfnt5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168775/original/file-20170510-21593-1vpfnt5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168775/original/file-20170510-21593-1vpfnt5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168775/original/file-20170510-21593-1vpfnt5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168775/original/file-20170510-21593-1vpfnt5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Salford’s Media City.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/media-city-salford-quays-248557546?src=bz6mIO_hZkSKou0r069Mug-1-3">GordonBell/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>9) Manchester was also home to one of the first Internet Service Providers, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poptel">Poptel</a>, which for the curious companies located on it led to the start of the digital agency scene and much tinkering with new digital products and services – such as The Phone Coop and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Broadband_Network">Community Broadband Network</a>.</p>
<p>10) Manchester’s digital sector is robustly represented and supported by its own trade association – Manchester Digital – which has grown from 80 members in 2011 to 500 members in 2017. Its high-profile celebration of digital excellence in the region, the <a href="http://bigchipawards.com">Big Chip Awards</a>, has been an annual event since 2004. The Big Chip has loyally traced and rewarded the growth of the digital sector in the region and the excellence of the region’s digital workforce. Having been on the Judging Panel since 2006, I have seen first-hand how the quality of work, range and reach of agencies and profile of clients have all improved, enlarged, and spread both nationally and internationally. </p>
<p>And the sector continues to grow. Indeed supply is currently unable to match demand as permanent roles and vacancies remain unfilled. In <a href="https://www.manchesterdigital.com/sites/default/files/Skills%20Audit%20Report%202017.pdf">Manchester Digital’s 2017 Skills Audit</a> of the region’s digital sector, 83% of companies reported growth in the past 12 months – a figure reliably maintained since 2014.</p>
<p>Today only a quarter of Manchester Digital’s members are digital agencies. Companies affiliated with the trade association now also include infrastructure (ISP and “cloud”-based companies); hosting; eCommerce (retail); public relations, marketing and media agencies; design agencies; technology providers; product developers and consultancy software developers. </p>
<p>All in all, Manchester considers itself peerless as a digital city that’s going places. It’s already <a href="http://www.investinmanchester.com/sectors/creative-digital-and-technology">in the top 20 European digital cities</a> and is heading for the top 20 in the world. So Burnham is almost right. Manchester might not be “world-leading” just yet but if it continues to grow in the way it has in recent years, it won’t be long until it’s one of the top digital cities in the world.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76737/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Kreps is affiliated with Manchester Digital, having volunteered as a Judge for the Big Chip Awards every year since 2006. Katie Gallagher, Managing Director of Manchester Digital, provided details of the organisation's membership, and other notes, to David, towards this article. </span></em></p>
This is how Greater Manchester is set to become one of the world’s leading ‘digital cities’.
David Kreps, Senior Lecturer in Centre for Digital Business, University of Salford
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/61454
2016-06-28T14:02:45Z
2016-06-28T14:02:45Z
Running makes you smarter – here’s how
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128500/original/image-20160628-7851-y2yxzs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=Ya9hpeWc18KCy_bkJidIqQ&searchterm=marathon&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=272797034">Bikeworldtravel/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As far back as the Greeks and Romans, humans have documented the belief that there is a strong link between exercise and intelligence. But in the last two decades, neuroscience has begun to catch up with <a href="http://bit.ly/294Xtmw">Thales</a> and <a href="http://bit.ly/298DQXO">Juvenal’s</a> idea that a sound mind flourishes in a healthy body. While the studies unite in telling us that running will makes us smarter, it is only partly true. The process is more complicated and reveals more about the wonderful complexities of both the human body and its evolution. Although the science might be helping us to understand how the mechanisms work, an important question remains: why does running make us smarter?</p>
<p>Two studies, one published by Finnish researchers <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/JP271552/abstract">in February</a> and the other in Cell Metabolism in <a href="http://bit.ly/29k88px">June</a>, have expanded our understanding of the mechanisms involved in running and the ways that it enhances memory and cognition. Before these, it was understood that exercise induced a process called neurogenesis (where new brain cells are created) in a part of the brain involved in memory formation and spatial navigation, known as the hippocampus.</p>
<p>While intense exercise will create brain cells, they are basically stem cells waiting to be put to use. Exercise doesn’t create new knowledge; rather, it gives you the mental equivalent of a sharpened pencil and clean sheet of paper. It prepares you for learning, but you have to actively do some learning yourself, too. Integrating exercise into your working or studying day would seem like a sensible option, if this particular benefit is of interest to you.</p>
<p>What the new research tells us is that it is not just any exercise that will create new brain cells for you. In the <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/JP271552/abstract">study by Finnish researchers</a>, they discovered that only certain kinds of exercise are likely to result in the growth of new brain cells in adults. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128505/original/image-20160628-7842-inavs0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128505/original/image-20160628-7842-inavs0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128505/original/image-20160628-7842-inavs0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128505/original/image-20160628-7842-inavs0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128505/original/image-20160628-7842-inavs0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1136&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128505/original/image-20160628-7842-inavs0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1136&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128505/original/image-20160628-7842-inavs0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1136&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Marathon man, Alan Turing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=0b7Ci9aHwT3syfCYuWBdxQ&searchterm=Alan%20Turing&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=3271334">Guy Erwood/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>According to the researchers, the exercise needs to be “aerobic and sustained”. But they also looked at the neurobiological effects of the currently popular “high intensity interval training” (HIT), as well as resistance training (weightlifting). While the team discovered a minor response after HIT there was no response at all after the resistance training. So HIT will have a small impact on cognitive abilities, while weightlifting, it seems, will definitely not make you smarter. (The weightlifters have Arnold Schwarzenegger in their camp. Runners have the mathematical genius capable of running a marathon in 2 hours 46 minutes, Alan Turing, in theirs. As a committed distance runner, I’m saying nothing …)</p>
<h2>Brain’s Miracle-Gro</h2>
<p>Since the <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006899396002739">1990s</a>, it has been understood that exercise also assists in learning because the activity produces a protein called <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-derived_neurotrophic_factor#Function">brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF)</a>. BDNF promotes the growth of new neurons and supports existing ones. <a href="http://johnratey.typepad.com/blog/2008/03/miracle-gro-for.html">John Ratey</a>, a Harvard professor of psychiatry, called it “Miracle-Gro for the brain”. </p>
<p>The Cell Metabolism study examined Cathepsin B (CTSB) protein secretion during running. By assisting in the expression of BDNF, this protein had beneficial effects on cognition, specifically enhanced adult brain cell growth in the hippocampus and spatial memory function.</p>
<p>The science is just settling into its pace and I am sure that in the next few years more and more research will appear to make sense of our deep love for this most simple and natural form of exercise. But there’s still that question: why does the body need to reward us with greater cognitive function and more effective spatial memory and awareness just because we run?</p>
<p>I think the answer is to be found in natural selection. We have not evolved to be healthy, or to have a nice experience on this earth. Evolution is only really interested in the human body staying alive long enough to procreate. From that point on, natural selection is more or less disinterested in our well-being. When we look at these cognitive rewards in this way what do they tell us about ourselves and the human body?</p>
<h2>Outrunning your knowledge</h2>
<p>The human body has been around for about 2m years, and only in the last few thousand of these have we become literate – map-makers that can walk, make notes, and record journeys. For most of our history we have not had the technology that allows us to outsource this heavy cognitive work to a piece of paper, or a GPS.</p>
<p>As a child, the 19th-century poet, John Clare, desired to walk to the edge of the horizon to find new worlds beyond. He wanted, he said, to walk all the way <a href="http://bit.ly/28RfGhD">out of his knowledge</a>. I think that what these discoveries about running and improving cognitive abilities tell us is that the hunter-gatherers of prehistory had to have the ability to outrun theirs. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128499/original/image-20160628-7832-pnk4p9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128499/original/image-20160628-7832-pnk4p9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=734&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128499/original/image-20160628-7832-pnk4p9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=734&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128499/original/image-20160628-7832-pnk4p9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=734&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128499/original/image-20160628-7832-pnk4p9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=922&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128499/original/image-20160628-7832-pnk4p9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=922&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/128499/original/image-20160628-7832-pnk4p9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=922&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">John Clare outwalked his knowledge.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/John_Clare.jpg">Wikimedia</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The many tweaks to the human body that make it possible for us to run for 10km on a hot day (standing on two feet, with the ability to sweat to keep cool) mean that even though we are slow in a sprint, we can chase down almost any animal on the planet to the point of exhaustion over longer distances. This is called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting">persistence hunting</a>, and it was a risky activity because it required hunters to leave behind the places they knew in the determined pursuit of prey. With no map-making technologies, the navigational skills of the brain had to step up and do all the work. So those people who adapted this brain cell growth response to distance running were more likely to find their way back to their tribe, and consequently, to survive.</p>
<p>The growth of new brain cells in the hippocampus and the enhancement of spatial memory that is brought on by endurance running is basically an evolutionary safety net for when you have outrun your knowledge, when you have run so far that you no longer know where you are and you need to learn, fast. It is a mechanism that makes information uptake easiest when historically you might have been tired, lost, and at your most vulnerable.</p>
<p>So lace up, step out the door, and prepare yourself for the rewards of an out of knowledge experience.</p>
<p><em>Correction: The original version of this article said that Alan Turing could run a marathon in “2.4 hours”. It has now been corrected to: “2 hours 46 minutes”.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61454/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vybarr Cregan-Reid receives funding from The Arts Council. He is the author of 'Footnotes: how running makes us human' published by Ebury.</span></em></p>
Running causes new brain cells to grow. But why does this happen? What is the evolutionary advantage?
Vybarr Cregan-Reid, Author of 'Footnotes: How Running Makes us Human' (Ebury, 2016) & Reader in Nineteenth-Century Studies at the the University of Kent, University of Kent
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/56335
2016-05-03T00:59:31Z
2016-05-03T00:59:31Z
Looking for art in artificial intelligence
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120393/original/image-20160427-30970-12plltp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Who will make a better dance mix -- a computer or a human?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.annelisecapossela.com">Copyright © Annelise Capossela; used by permission</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Algorithms help us to choose which <a href="https://motherboard.vice.com/read/is-this-algorithm-a-better-movie-critic-than-roger-ebert">films to watch</a>, which <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/30/9416579/spotify-discover-weekly-online-music-curation-interview">music to stream</a> and which <a href="http://publishingperspectives.com/2011/12/do-you-trust-an-algorithm-to-help-you-choose-books/">literature to read</a>. But what if algorithms went beyond their jobs as mediators of human culture and started to create culture themselves?</p>
<p>In 1950 English mathematician and computer scientist <a href="http://www.turing.org.uk/">Alan Turing</a> published a paper, “<a href="http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html">Computing Machinery and Intelligence</a>,” which starts off by proposing a thought experiment that he called the “Imitation Game.” In one room is a human “interrogator” and in another room a man and a woman. The goal of the game is for the interrogator to figure out which of the unknown hidden interlocutors is the man and which is the woman. This is to be accomplished by asking a sequence of questions with responses communicated either by a third party or typed out and sent back. “Winning” the Imitation Game means getting the identification right on the first shot. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120074/original/image-20160425-22360-elk9gf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120074/original/image-20160425-22360-elk9gf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120074/original/image-20160425-22360-elk9gf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120074/original/image-20160425-22360-elk9gf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120074/original/image-20160425-22360-elk9gf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120074/original/image-20160425-22360-elk9gf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120074/original/image-20160425-22360-elk9gf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120074/original/image-20160425-22360-elk9gf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alan Turing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Alan_Turing.jpg">Stephen Kettle sculpture; photo by Jon Callas</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Turing then modifies the game by replacing one interlocutor with a computer, and asks whether a computer will be able to converse sufficiently well that the interrogator cannot tell the difference between it and the human. This version of the Imitation Game has come to be known as the “Turing Test.” </p>
<p>Turing’s simple, but powerful, thought experiment gives a very general framework for testing many different aspects of the human-machine boundary, of which conversation is but a single example. </p>
<p>On May 18 at Dartmouth, we will explore a different area of intelligence, taking up the question of distinguishing machine-generated art. Specifically, in our “<a href="http://bregman.dartmouth.edu/turingtests/node/1">Turing Tests in the Creative Arts</a>,” we ask if machines are capable of generating sonnets, short stories, or dance music that is indistinguishable from human-generated works, though perhaps not yet so advanced as <a href="http://shakespeare.mit.edu/">Shakespeare</a>, <a href="https://americanliterature.com/author/o-henry/bio-books-stories">O. Henry</a> or <a href="https://www.daftpunk.com/">Daft Punk</a>.</p>
<h2>Conducting the tests</h2>
<p>The dance music competition (“Algorhythms”) requires participants to construct an enjoyable (fun, cool, rad, choose your favorite modifier for having an excellent time on the dance floor) dance set from a predefined library of dance music. In this case the initial random “seed” is a single track from the database. The software package should be able to use this as inspiration to create a 15-minute set, mixing and modifying choices from the library, which includes standard annotations of more than 20 features, such as <a href="http://bregman.dartmouth.edu/turingtests/specifications">genre, tempo (bpm), beat locations, chroma (pitch) and brightness (timbre)</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120071/original/image-20160425-22396-j08gml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120071/original/image-20160425-22396-j08gml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120071/original/image-20160425-22396-j08gml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120071/original/image-20160425-22396-j08gml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120071/original/image-20160425-22396-j08gml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120071/original/image-20160425-22396-j08gml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120071/original/image-20160425-22396-j08gml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120071/original/image-20160425-22396-j08gml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Can a computer write a better sonnet than this man?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AShakespeare_Droeshout_1623.jpg">Martin Droeshout (1623)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In what might seem a stiffer challenge, the sonnet and short story competitions (“PoeTix” and “DigiLit,” respectively) require participants to submit self-contained software packages that upon the “seed” or input of a (common) noun phrase (such as “dog” or “cheese grater”) are able to generate the desired literary output. Moreover, the code should ideally be able to generate an infinite number of different works from a single given prompt. </p>
<p>To perform the test, we will screen the computer-made entries to eliminate obvious machine-made creations. We’ll mix human-generated work with the rest, and ask a panel of judges to say whether they think each entry is human- or machine-generated. For the dance music competition, scoring will be left to a group of students, dancing to both human- and machine-generated music sets. A “winning” entry will be one that is statistically indistinguishable from the human-generated work. </p>
<p>The competitions are open to any and all comers. To date, entrants include academics as well as nonacademics. As best we can tell, no companies have officially thrown their hats into the ring. This is somewhat of a surprise to us, as in the literary realm companies are already springing up around machine generation of more formulaic kinds of “literature,” such as <a href="http://www.wired.com/2012/04/can-an-algorithm-write-a-better-news-story-than-a-human-reporter/">earnings reports and sports summaries</a>, and there is of course a good deal of AI automation around streaming music playlists, most famously <a href="http://www.pandora.com/">Pandora</a>. </p>
<h2>Judging the differences</h2>
<p>Evaluation of the entries will not be entirely straightforward. Even in the initial Imitation Game, the question was whether conversing with men and women over time would reveal their gender differences. (It’s striking that this question was posed by a <a href="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/08/24/heartbreaking-alan-turing-letters-reveal-turmoil-over-gay-cure-treatment/">closeted gay man</a>.) The Turing Test, similarly, asks whether the machine’s conversation reveals its lack of humanity not in any single interaction but in many over time.</p>
<p>It’s also worth considering the context of the test/game. Is the probability of winning the Imitation Game independent of time, culture and social class? Arguably, as we in the West approach a time of more fluid definitions of gender, that original Imitation Game would be more difficult to win. Similarly, what of the Turing Test? In the 21st century, our communications are increasingly with machines (whether we <a href="https://theconversation.com/customer-service-on-hold-we-hate-phone-menus-and-dont-trust-virtual-assistants-like-siri-51017">like it or not</a>). Texting and messaging have dramatically changed the form and expectations of our communications. For example, abbreviations, misspellings and dropped words are now almost the norm. The same considerations apply to art forms as well. </p>
<h2>Who is the artist?</h2>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120075/original/image-20160425-22383-qmnoh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120075/original/image-20160425-22383-qmnoh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120075/original/image-20160425-22383-qmnoh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120075/original/image-20160425-22383-qmnoh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120075/original/image-20160425-22383-qmnoh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120075/original/image-20160425-22383-qmnoh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120075/original/image-20160425-22383-qmnoh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120075/original/image-20160425-22383-qmnoh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Who is the creator – human or machine? Or both?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-145187638/stock-photo-touch-to-the-future-hands-of-robot-and-human-isolated-on-black.html?src=5o8SR4fX74_NGMgHVKwHHg-1-8">Hands image via shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Thinking about art forms leads naturally to another question: who is the artist? Is the person who writes the computer code that creates sonnets a poet? Is the programmer of an algorithm to generate short stories a writer? Is the coder of a music-mixing machine a DJ? </p>
<p>Where is the divide between the artist and the computational assistant and how does the drawing of this line affect the classification of the output? The sonnet form was constructed as a high-level algorithm for creative work – though one that’s executed by humans. Today, when the Microsoft Office Assistant “corrects” your grammar or “questions” your word choice and you adapt to it (either happily or out of sheer laziness), is the creative work still “yours” or is it now a human-machine collaborative work?</p>
<p>We’re looking forward to seeing what our programming artists submit. Regardless of their performance on “the test,” their body of work will continue to expand the horizon of creativity and machine-human coevolution.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56335/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Casey receives funding from National Science Foundation, National Endowment for the Humanities, Neukom Institute for Computational Science at Dartmouth College. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel N. Rockmore receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the Neukom Institute for Computational Science at Dartmouth College and Dartmouth College. He is also on the External Faculty of The Santa Fe Institute.</span></em></p>
Testing whether machines are capable of generating sonnets, short stories or dance music that is indistinguishable from human-generated works.
Michael Casey, James Wright Professor of Music, Professor of Computer Science, Dartmouth College
Daniel N. Rockmore, Professor, Department of Mathematics, Computational Science, and Computer Science, Dartmouth College
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/58018
2016-04-21T10:07:13Z
2016-04-21T10:07:13Z
Alan Turing was one of many persecuted by Whitehall for their sexuality
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119623/original/image-20160421-26988-1tw7faw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Alan Turing is now feted – but what of other gay people in government service?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Gerald Massey</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Computer visionary Alan Turing is rightly feted for his work in World War II which is credited with significantly shortening the conflict. But here’s something else we can thank Turing for – in a recent speech to the LGBT campaign group Stonewall, the director of Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), Robert Hannigan, <a href="http://www.gchq.gov.uk/press_and_media/speeches/Pages/directors-stonewall-speech.aspx">praised the growing diversity of GCHQ</a> as: “a vibrant workplace … welcoming to all”. </p>
<p>The speech followed the announcement that the security service (MI5) had been <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35345515">voted Britain’s most “gay-friendly” employer</a> by Stonewall, something that received much press attention. The speech was also an opportunity to say “sorry” for the victimisation of gay people in the service.</p>
<p>Of course, Turing’s case is well known – his conviction, sentencing and chemical castration for homosexual offences led to his <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092">suspected suicide</a> in 1954 and has been the subject of considerable controversy ever since. In 2009, following a campaign including the gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, the then prime minister, Gordon Brown, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-alan-turing">issued an unequivocal apology</a> for Turning’s treatment, describing it as “horrifying” and “utterly unfair”. </p>
<p>In his statement, Brown wrote: “We are sorry, you deserved so much better”. Turing also received a Royal Prerogative of Mercy – <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25495315">a royal pardon</a> – in December 2013, following a further highly publicised campaign. The justice secretary, Chris Grayling, said it was a “fitting tribute to an exceptional man”.</p>
<h2>They also served</h2>
<p>While certainly welcome, the focus on Turing’s story has overshadowed the plight of other individuals in similar circumstances. In his speech to the Stonewall conference Hannigan referred to the case of “Ian”, a promising member of GCHQ’s staff in the 1960s. Despite his exemplary service and bright prospects, Ian was interviewed as a suspected homosexual, dismissed from his job and was transferred elsewhere in the civil service. Hannigan said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[Ian] got no support from anyone in authority at all, even his union, and no-one ever followed up to check on his well-being or to show any compassion. Not surprisingly, his health suffered and the psychological effects of that humiliation were long-lasting … his prospects were cut short, curtailed because he was subject to what now seem completely archaic rules on sexuality.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Ian’s case is a reflection of just some of the hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals working in Britain’s defence sector who were persecuted for their sexuality in the post-war period. The introduction of “positive vetting” in the 1950s focused attention on so-called “character defects” – including drunkenness, gambling, schizophrenia, among others – but also homosexuality. Despite its decriminalisation under the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/60/pdfs/ukpga_19670060_en.pdf">1967 Sexual Offences Act</a>, homosexuals continued to be viewed as a security and disciplinary issue across <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/whitehall-debate-over-gay-civil-servants-revealed-6474692.html">Whitehall</a>, the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/347156.stm">armed forces</a> and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35360172">intelligence agencies</a>.</p>
<p>In the military, gay men and women continued to be subject to military law and, if guilty, removed from the services. In 1969 the Royal Navy’s director of security circulated the report: “<a href="http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11067476">Homosexuality in the Royal Navy - Security Aspects</a>”, which said the issue was a “matter for concern .. in numerous ways – disciplinary, moral, health and security…” Particular emphasis was placed on “blackmail” by foreign powers.</p>
<p>Yet, despite the one-off case of Admiralty officer <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/obituary-john-vassall-1313796.html">John Vassall</a>, who had been compromised into sharing secrets with the Soviets, the fact remained that the issue of sexuality was often overblown and prone to traditional stereotypes – though, as in the case of “Ian”, it continued to have a significant personal impact on those accused. </p>
<p>By the 1990s, the ban on gay people in the armed forces forced <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/458625.stm">an estimated 60 service personnel to leave each year</a> and was subject to legal action in the European Court of Human Rights, forcing the British government to <a href="http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/2000/jan/12/armed-forces-echr">lift it in January 2000</a>.</p>
<h2>Lives destroyed</h2>
<p>The UK armed forces were not the only body to discriminate on grounds of sexuality. Ironically, in light of its “gay-friendly” award, <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Defence-Realm-Authorized-History/dp/0141023309">MI5’s authorised history</a> reveals that homosexuals were seen by officials as inherently untrustworthy and suggested that homosexuals were socially unstable, likely to stick together – the so-called “<a href="http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1987/eirv14n03-19870116/eirv14n03-19870116_042-on_british_spy_scandals_the_homi.pdf">Homintern</a>” – and at risk of blackmail. By the end of the 1960s, half of all vetting queries from Whitehall departments were homosexual related.</p>
<p>Recently released files to The National Archives detailing the fallout from the defection of diplomats Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean also show the Foreign Office’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/revealed-the-panic-that-followed-the-defection-of-the-cambridge-spies-49623">obsession with sexuality</a>, leading to measures that would blight the careers of many aspiring diplomats. </p>
<p>As in the United States, homosexuals were placed in a <a href="https://theconversation.com/revealed-the-panic-that-followed-the-defection-of-the-cambridge-spies-49623">special category</a>, though – unlike in the US State Department – the number of individuals removed from their posts appears to be much smaller. By the early 1950s, the number of “homosexual separations” in the department had <a href="http://www.thelavenderscare.com/">reached hundreds</a>. By contrast, while no overall figures are available, a memorandum by the head of the Foreign Office’s security department, Arthur de la Mare, <a href="http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C14944183">identified just 26 cases</a> of real or possible homosexual activity by October 1955 with only two cases considered the most serious, having the possibility to bring “discredit upon the Foreign Service”. </p>
<p>In several cases many of the individuals identified enjoyed long careers in the Foreign Service, their homosexuality being suspected but not confirmed, though others were not so lucky. The former diplomat Charles Crawford recalled a friend, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-love-that-dared-not-speak-its-name-in-the-foreign-office-1931127.html">Robert Facey</a>, being driven to suicide because of the ban. Facey had been, recalled Crawford, a “quirky, brilliant diplomat … His life and career dissolved, and he committed suicide in 1989”. </p>
<p>As late as the 1980s, Whitehall was still implementing the recommendations of a Natonal Security Commission which identified homosexual tendencies as “character defects”:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… which may remain latent or manifest themselves in a broader gamut of forms from inconspicuous stable relationships through promiscuity or exhibitionism to paederasty.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But gradually it dawned on the security services that it was these very attitudes that rendered gay people susceptible to pressure. The ban on homosexuals was <a href="http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1991/jul/23/security-vetting">eventually removed in July 1991</a>.</p>
<p>The cases of Ian, Facey – and the hundreds of unnamed individuals blighted across the armed forces, Foreign Office and intelligence community – are a small section of the 49,000 individuals <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/22/family-alan-turing-government-petition-pardons-gross-indecency-homosexuality">prosecuted for gross indecency in post-war Britain</a>. Frustratingly – unlike Turing – we know very little about the experiences of gay men and women forced out of their careers because of their sexuality. While the recognition of past wrongs by GCHQ is certainly welcome, should other government departments be just as forthcoming in saying sorry?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58018/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dan Lomas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Hundreds, if not thousands, of gay people had their careers and lives blighted by official discrimination.
Dan Lomas, Programme Leader - MA Intelligence & Security Studies, University of Salford
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/51316
2016-01-06T19:24:14Z
2016-01-06T19:24:14Z
What does it mean to think and could a machine ever do it?
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105006/original/image-20151209-3276-vemyr8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Can a machine really think, be in awe and wonder?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/Photobymhu</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The idea of a thinking machine is an amazing one. It would be like humans creating artificial life, only more impressive because we would be creating consciousness. Or would we?</p>
<p>It’s tempting to think that a machine that could think <em>would</em> think like us. But a bit of reflection shows that’s not an inevitable conclusion. </p>
<p>To begin with, we’d better be clear about what we mean by “think”. A comparison with human thinking might be intuitive, but what about animal thinking? Does a chimpanzee think? Does a crow? Does an <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-octopuses-smart/">octopus</a>? </p>
<p>There may even be alien intelligences that we might not even recognise as such because they are so radically different from us. Perhaps we could pass each other in close proximity, each unaware that the other existed, having no way to engage. </p>
<p>Certainly animals other than humans have cognitive abilities geared towards understanding tools and causal relationships, communication, and even to recognising directed and purposeful thinking in others. We’d probably consider any or all of that thinking.</p>
<p>And let’s face it, if we built a machine that did all the above, we’d be patting ourselves on the back and saying “mission accomplished”. But could a machine go a step further and be like a human mind? What’s more, how would we know if it did?</p>
<p>Just because a computer acts like it has a mind, it doesn’t mean it must have one. It might be all show and no substance, an instance of a <a href="http://consc.net/zombies.html">philosophical zombie</a>.</p>
<p>It was this notion that motivated British codebreaker and mathematician Alan Turing to come up with his famous <a href="http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/ai/turing.html">“Turing test”</a>, in which a computer would interact with a human through a screen and, more often than not, have the human unsure it was a computer. For Turing, all that mattered was behaviour, there was no computational “inner life” to be concerned about.</p>
<p>But this inner life matters to some of us. The philosopher Thomas Nagel said that there was “<a href="http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf">something that it is like</a>” to have conscious experiences. There’s something that it is like to see the colour red, or to go water skiing. We are more than just our brain states.</p>
<p>Could there ever be “something that it’s like” to be a thinking machine? In an imagined conversation with the first intelligent machine, a human might asked “Are you conscious?”, to which it might reply, “How would I know?”.</p>
<h2>Is thinking just computation?</h2>
<p>Under the hood of computer thinking, as we currently imagine it, is sheer computation. It’s about calculations per second and the number of potential computational pathways. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7tScAyNaRdQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">How can meat think?</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But we are not at all sure that thinking or consciousness is a function of computation, at least the way a binary computer does it. Could thinking be <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/">more than just computation</a>? What else is needed? And if it is all about computation, why is the human brain so bad at it? </p>
<p>Most of us are flat out multiplying a couple of two digit numbers in our heads, let alone performing trillions of calculations a second. Or is there some deep processing of data that goes on below our awareness that ultimately results in our arithmetically impaired consciousness (the argument of so-called <a href="http://www.alanturing.net/turing_archive/pages/reference%20articles/what_is_AI/What%20is%20AI13.html">Strong AI</a>)?</p>
<p>Generally speaking, what computers are good at, like raw data manipulation, humans are quite bad at; and what computers are bad at, such as language, poetry, voice recognition, interpreting complex behaviour and making holistic judgements, humans are quite good at.</p>
<p>If the analogy between human and computer “thinking” is so bad, why expect computers to eventually think like us? Or might computers of the future lose their characteristic arithmetical aptitude as the full weight of consciousness emerges?</p>
<h2>Belief, doubt and values</h2>
<p>Then we have words like “belief” and “doubt” that are characteristic of human thinking. But what could it possibly mean for a computer to believe something, apart from the trivial meaning that it acted in ignorance of the possibility that it could be wrong? In other words, could a computer have genuine doubt, and then go ahead and act anyway? </p>
<p>When it comes to questions of value, questions about what we think is important in life and why, it’s interesting to consider two things. The first is if a thinking computer could be capable of attributing value to anything at all. The second is that if it could attribute value to anything, what would it choose? We’d want to be a bit careful here, it seems, even without getting into the possibility of mechanical free will. </p>
<p>It would be nice to program into computers a human style value system. But, on the one hand, we aren’t quite sure what that is, or how that could be done, and, on the other hand, if computers started programming themselves they may decide otherwise.</p>
<p>While it’s great fun to think about all this, we should spend a bit of time trying to understand what we want thinking computers to be. And maybe a bit more time should be spent trying to understand ourselves before we branch out.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51316/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Ellerton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
As machines get ever more complex as we strive to make them complete more complex tasks, it’s time to ask again: will they ever be able to think? But what is thinking anyway?
Peter Ellerton, Lecturer in Critical Thinking, The University of Queensland
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/46623
2015-08-28T05:30:26Z
2015-08-28T05:30:26Z
What human emotions do we really want of artificial intelligence?
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93267/original/image-20150828-17435-km297o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1412%2C7%2C3743%2C2477&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The challenge in making AI machines appear more human.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/passetti/7157737097/">Flickr/Rene Passet</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Forget the <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/">Turing</a> and <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/#AltTes">Lovelace</a> tests on artificial intelligence: I want to see a robot pass the Frampton Test.</p>
<p>Let me explain why rock legend <a href="http://www.frampton.com/">Peter Frampton</a> enters the debate on AI.</p>
<p>For many centuries, much thought was given to what distinguishes humans from animals. These days thoughts turn to what distinguishes humans from machines.</p>
<p>The British code breaker and computing pioneer, <a href="http://www.turing.org.uk/">Alan Turing</a>, proposed “the imitation game” (also known as <a href="https://theconversation.com/person-or-computer-could-you-pass-the-turing-test-6769">the Turing test</a>) as a way to evaluate whether a machine can do something we humans love to do: have a good conversation.</p>
<p>If a human judge cannot consistently distinguish a machine from another human by conversation alone, the machine is deemed to have passed the Turing Test.</p>
<p>Initially, Turing proposed to consider whether machines can think, but realised that, thoughtful as we may be, humans don’t really have a clear definition of what thinking is.</p>
<h2>Tricking the Turing test</h2>
<p>Maybe it says something of another human quality – deviousness – that the Turing Test came to encourage computer programmers to devise machines to trick the human judges, rather than embody sufficient intelligence to hold a realistic conversation.</p>
<p>This trickery climaxed on June 7, 2014, when <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/article/computer-chatbot-eugene-goostman-passes-the-turing-test/">Eugene Goostman</a> convinced about a third of the judges in the Turing Test competition at the Royal Society that “he” was a 13-year-old Ukrainian schoolboy.</p>
<p>Eugene was a chatbot: a computer program designed to chat with humans. Or, chat with other chatbots, for somewhat surreal effect (see the video, below).</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WnzlbyTZsQY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>And <a href="http://mashable.com/2014/06/12/eugene-goostman-turing-test/">critics were quick to point out</a> the artificial setting in which this deception occurred.</p>
<h2>The creative mind</h2>
<p>Chatbots like Eugene led researchers to throw down a more challenging gauntlet to machines: be creative!</p>
<p>In 2001, researchers Selmer Bringsjord, Paul Bello and David Ferrucci <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1011206622741">proposed the Lovelace Test</a> – named after 19th century mathematician and programmer <a href="http://www.biography.com/people/ada-lovelace-20825323">Ada, Countess of Lovelace</a> – that asked for a computer to create something, such as a story or poem.</p>
<p><a href="http://botpoet.com/what-is-computer-poetry/">Computer generated poems</a> and <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2000/may/28/news/mn-35062">stories</a> have been around for a while, but to pass the Lovelace Test, the person who designed the program must not be able to account for how it produces its creative works. </p>
<p><a href="https://research.cc.gatech.edu/inc/mark-riedl">Mark Riedl</a>, from the School of Interactive Computing at Georgia Tech, has since proposed an upgrade (<a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.6142v3.pdf">Lovelace 2.0</a>) that scores a computer in a series of progressively more demanding creative challenges.</p>
<p>This is how <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2014/12/lovelace_test_of_artificial_intelligence_creativity_better_than_the_turing.html">he describes</a> being creative: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>In my test, we have a human judge sitting at a computer. They know they’re interacting with an AI, and they give it a task with two components. First, they ask for a creative artifact such as a story, poem, or picture. And secondly, they provide a criterion. For example: “Tell me a story about a cat that saves the day,” or “Draw me a picture of a man holding a penguin.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>But what’s so great about creativity?</h2>
<p>Challenging as Lovelace 2.0 may be, it’s argued that we should not place creativity above other human qualities.</p>
<p>This (very creative) insight from Dr <a href="http://staff.qut.edu.au/staff/donovan2/">Jared Donovan</a> arose in a <a href="http://www.robotronica.qut.edu.au/talks/lovelace.php">panel discussion</a> with roboticist Associate Professor <a href="http://staff.qut.edu.au/staff/milfordm/">Michael Milford</a> and choreographer Prof <a href="http://www.deakin.edu.au/profiles/kim-vincs">Kim Vincs</a> at <a href="http://www.robotronica.qut.edu.au/">Robotronica 2015</a> earlier this month.</p>
<p>Amid all the recent warnings that AI could one day <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-stephen-hawking-right-could-ai-lead-to-the-end-of-humankind-34967">lead to the end of humankind</a>, the panel’s aim was to discuss the current state of creativity and robots. Discussion led to questions about the sort of emotions we would want intelligent machines to express.</p>
<p>Empathy – the ability to understand and share feelings of another – was top of the list of desirable human qualities that day, perhaps because it goes beyond mere recognition (“I see you are angry”) and demands a response that demonstrates an appreciation of emotional impact.</p>
<p>Hence, I propose the Frampton Test, after the critical question posed by rock legend Peter Frampton in the 1973 song “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_You_Feel_Like_We_Do">Do you feel like we do?</a>”</p>
<p>True, this is slightly tongue in cheek, but I imagine that to pass the Frampton Test an artificial system would have to give a convincing and emotionally appropriate response to a situation that would arouse feelings in most humans. I say most because our species has a spread of emotional intelligence levels.</p>
<h2>I second that emotion</h2>
<p>Noting that <a href="http://web.media.mit.edu/%7Eminsky/Introduction.html">others have explored this territory</a> and that the field of “<a href="http://affect.media.mit.edu/">affective computing</a>” strives to imbue machines with the ability to simulate empathy, it is still fascinating to contemplate the implications of emotional machines.</p>
<p>This July, AI and robotics researchers released <a href="http://futureoflife.org/AI/open_letter_autonomous_weapons">an open letter on the peril of autonomous weapons</a>. If machines could have even a shred of empathy, would we fear these developments in the same way?</p>
<p>This reminds us, too, that human emotions are not all positive: hate, anger, resentment and so on. Perhaps we should be more grateful that the machines in our lives don’t display these feelings. (Can you imagine a grumpy Siri?)</p>
<p>Still, there are contexts where our nobler emotions would be welcome: sympathy and understanding in health care for instance.</p>
<p>As with all questions worthy of serious consideration, the Robotronica panellists did not resolve whether robots could perhaps one day be creative, or whether indeed we would want that to pass.</p>
<p>As for machine emotion, I think the Frampton Test will be even longer in the passing. At the moment the strongest emotions I see around robots are those of their creators.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8P9geWwi9e0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<hr>
<p><strong>Acknowledgement</strong>: This article were inspired by discussion and debate at the Robotronica 2015 panel session The Lovelace Test: Can Robots be Creative? and I gratefully acknowledge the creative insights of panellists Dr Jared Donovan (QUT), Associate Professor Michael Milford (QUT) and Professor Kim Vincs (Deakin).</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46623/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Lovell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
If we can make artificial intelligent machines that act more human it raises the question of what sort of emotions we’d like them to express.
David Lovell, Head of the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Queensland University of Technology
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/39624
2015-04-01T01:40:19Z
2015-04-01T01:40:19Z
The hazards of presumptive computing
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76696/original/image-20150401-1231-14u555g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Until machines become truly intelligent, they're going to make a lot of mistakes when they try to help us.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/steevithak/8572476357/in/photolist-nXFeuA-aVSZLD-8EWtcC-vJDpB-74eKWA-4xfFZu-5bbD86-6SPbqg-8xJ8zB-nFXAsT-nA1LN2-7zaEb8-8bWxA5-c96y5j-5KCutp-nZGPfr-4Nu7K1-ML8j1-dvuZLU-8enS6K-7eA58u-nG6Squ-cNeP1m-5GXhwR-4BFcQt-dScuSm-2LeNFY-c3SeDW-dsyg1G-b3mvcX-dVDURi-e4ZLB-4EyNdW-75uLdW-dtgib-bX44BV-cQyKA-cQyEK-biJ6Li-4CvDmv-e4wbyv-7S5zEy-4RYKBr-ber6M4-7XwYnu-7Nojcs-7HD3UX-fFh9j-bbwkYD-2eQgjP">Steve Rainwater/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Have you ever texted somebody saying how “ducking annoyed” you are at something? Or asked Siri on your iPhone to call your wife, but somehow managed to be connected to your mother-in-law? </p>
<p>If you have, you may have been a victim of a new challenge in computing: that fine line where we trust a computer to make predictions for us despite the fact that it sometimes gets them wrong. </p>
<p>For one hapless administrator with the Australian Immigration department, this level of trust has almost certainly led to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/30/personal-details-of-world-leaders-accidentally-revealed-by-g20-organisers">major embarrassment</a> (or worse), with it being revealed that during November last year they accidentally sent the personal details of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/g20">G20</a> leaders to the organisers of the Asian Cup Football tournament due to an autofilled e-mail address that went horribly wrong.</p>
<p>We trust the machines, but sometimes the machines let us down. So, what’s happening? Are the machines too dumb to get what we mean? Or are they just getting too smart for their own good?</p>
<h2>The uncanny valley of computing prediction</h2>
<p>It feels like we’re entering an <a href="http://www.strangerdimensions.com/2013/11/25/10-creepy-examples-uncanny-valley/">uncanny valley</a> of computer prediction. This is where computers seem <em>almost</em> human, make us start to trust them, but then suddenly make a mistake so galling that we get uneasy that we’ve trusted a machine so completely.</p>
<p>The problem is that it’s all just so convenient. My typing speed has increased immeasurably since I started to trust my iPhone to autocorrect the vague words I type into it and just went with the flow. And services like Google Now that predict the information you want before you even ask for it are even more useful. </p>
<p>But the trade-off is that sometimes it gets it wrong. And sometimes I find that I’ve inadvertently sent the wrong message to my wife, or had the phone make ridiculous suggestions like suggesting that my office is “home” (that went down well with the aforementioned wife!). </p>
<p>So, why is it so hard for a computer to be human?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76693/original/image-20150401-1253-1a6x2sm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76693/original/image-20150401-1253-1a6x2sm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76693/original/image-20150401-1253-1a6x2sm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76693/original/image-20150401-1253-1a6x2sm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76693/original/image-20150401-1253-1a6x2sm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76693/original/image-20150401-1253-1a6x2sm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=640&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76693/original/image-20150401-1253-1a6x2sm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=640&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/76693/original/image-20150401-1253-1a6x2sm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=640&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What the duck did you just text me?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ed Yourdon/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Fool me once, computer…</h2>
<p>The challenge of making a computer seem human has been with us for quite a while. Ever since Alan Turing invented his computation machine to <a href="https://theconversation.com/codebreaking-has-moved-on-since-turings-day-with-dangerous-implications-34448">break the Enigma code</a> during the second world war, we’ve striven to make a computer that can think like a human and act like a human. </p>
<p>So much so, that we have even derived a test, called the Turing Test, to determine whether a computer can <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-passing-a-turing-test-a-true-measure-of-artificial-intelligence-27801">successfully fool somebody</a> into thinking they are human. </p>
<p>In his paper that proposes the <a href="http://orium.pw/paper/turingai.pdf">Turing Test</a>, Turing suggested that we don’t need to make a computer that can genuinely think – whatever that means – but rather just build a computer simulation for which we can positively answer the question: “can machines do what we (as thinking entities) can do?”, as cognitive scientist Stevan Harnad puts it. </p>
<p>Through a test he called the “imitation game”, a human judge engages in natural language conversations with a human and a machine using a text-only channel. If the judge cannot tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test. </p>
<p>Since Turing’s original paper, <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16461-tests-that-show-machines-closing-in-on-human-abilities.html#.VRsuLBDLeWY">many variations</a> on the test have been proposed, adding perceptual capabilities like vision and audio, as well as extending the test with robotics.</p>
<p>But so far, no computer has definitively passed the original Turing Test. Every time we come close, they stumble into that uncanny valley, fall short in some way that makes us start to feel uneasy, and then the whole tower of cards falls.</p>
<p>This is not surprising. We are trying to make a machine deal with all the complexity of human processing and it’s bound to make mistakes. A classic example of this is the tank parable by <a href="http://www.yudkowsky.net/">Elieler Yudkowsky</a>.</p>
<h2>Tanks, but no tanks</h2>
<p>To demonstrate the problem of teaching a computer to be human, Yudkowsky <a href="https://intelligence.org/files/AIPosNegFactor.pdf">describes a situation</a> where US Army researchers train a computer to recognise whether or not a scene has a tank in it. To teach the computer this, the researchers show it many images, some with tanks in them, some without, and tell the computer whether or not each image contains a tank. </p>
<p>Through their testing, they determine that the computer has learnt to identify each scene correctly so they hand the system to the Pentagon, which then says it’s people couldn’t get it to work. </p>
<p>After some head scratching, the researchers discover that the photos of tanks had been taken on cloudy days and the photos without tanks had been taken on sunny days. So rather than learning to see tanks, the system had learnt to spot cloudy or sunny days! </p>
<p>Such are the hazards of teaching a computer a skill when it doesn’t have sufficient context to understand what you want it to do.</p>
<h2>Teaching a computer to know what we mean, not what we say</h2>
<p>So, after my mobile phone helpfully informed me that my workplace was “home” and I adjusted the address accordingly, I noticed my wife was quite quiet on the way home. I looked over at her and asked what was up and she said “nothing, I’m fine”, at which point I knew I was in trouble!</p>
<p>But of course, that’s not what she said. She said she was “fine”, and a computer, without context, would take her at her word. Context is everything, whether it’s dealing with tanks or especially when dealing with a grumpy spouse.</p>
<p>Sometimes context is easy, such as the system Google implemented a couple of years ago that checks if you say the word “attached” in an email and then whether you’ve actually added an attachment, and <a href="https://support.google.com/mail/answer/143085">warns you if you haven’t done both</a>. </p>
<p>But sometimes context is harder, like when you type “Ian” and let it autocomplete, but end up with the wrong “Ian”. After all, how is Gmail supposed to know which Ian you wanted without a host of other knowledge based on the content of your email and what you know about who you’re emailing? </p>
<p>Nonetheless, computers are getting better at it. The iPhone autocomplete now adds “well” without an apostrophe until it detects a few words later that you meant “we’ll” with an apostrophe, at which point it changes it. So it might not be long before it can tell you that you’re e-mailing the wrong “Ian” too.</p>
<p>But for now we still need to be careful, because until computers can understand all the context of what we mean and what we do as humans – and there is no guarantee they ever will – we are still in that uncanny valley of presumptive computing.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39624/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Cowling does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Computers try to predict our behaviour and anticipate our needs, but sadly they often get things dreadfully wrong.
Michael Cowling, Senior Lecturer & Discipline Leader, Mobile Computing & Applications, CQUniversity Australia
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/36370
2015-01-16T15:26:14Z
2015-01-16T15:26:14Z
The Imitation Game gets gay life in 40s and 50s Britain spot on
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69241/original/image-20150116-5158-1xpc6ij.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In fear of draconian laws.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">STUDIOCANAL</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/imitation-game-will-finally-bring-alan-turing-the-fame-he-so-rightly-deserves-34324">The Imitation Game</a> has scooped up eight <a href="https://theconversation.com/oscar-nominations-2015-its-still-a-mans-world-35941">Oscar nominations</a> this year, including the coveted Best Picture. Since its release in autumn 2014 the film has attracted widespread positive critical appraisal and commercial success.</p>
<p>Its story of British mathematical genius <a href="https://theconversation.com/alan-turings-legacy-is-even-bigger-than-we-realise-34735">Alan Turing</a> who broke the German Enigma codes in World War II is now widely known. Equally well-known, at least in Britain, is the fact that Turing was gay, a homosexual, to use the terminology of the day, and that he reputedly committed suicide in 1954 at the age of 41 after receiving hormone therapy as a result of a conviction in 1952 for gross indecency. He was posthumously pardoned for his “offence” – in 2013.</p>
<p>The film has also attracted <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2346828/Film-WW2-codebreaker-Alan-Turing-attacked-biographer-exaggerating-love-affair-woman-gay-says-Keira-Knightley-glamorous.html">criticism in some quarters</a> for underplaying Turing’s homosexuality, and foregrounding a (non-sexual) relationship with fellow mathematician, Joan Clarke, played by British actress Keira Knightley. But besides such personal details, the film’s more general portrayal of homosexual life in the 1940s and 1950s does stand up to critical scrutiny.</p>
<h2>Wartime liaisons</h2>
<p>Blackout during wartime afforded opportunities for homosexual liaisons that many wouldn’t have experienced before. Men could find each other under the cover of complete darkness and, no doubt, because the authorities had more pressing matters to hand.</p>
<p>However, homosexuality remained illegal under the hated <a href="http://www.lgbthistoryuk.org/wiki/index.php?title=Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act_1885">“Labouchère” amendment to the Criminal Law Amendment Act in 1885</a>, which outlawed “gross indecency” between men. This was the law that sent Oscar Wilde to jail for two years of hard labour – and which was used to prosecute Turing. It was widely regarded as a blackmailer’s charter. And so although the scene in which Turing is blackmailed by the Russian spy John Cairncross may not be historically correct, it is certainly a good reflection on the times. In this sense the film captures the perpetual threat that homosexual men had to live with.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/S5CjKEFb-sM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The war years may have been relatively kind to homosexual men but prosecutions for sexual crimes increased in the period immediately after the war, reaching a peak in 1961. Police tactics were often rebarbative and generated genuine fear. The police pursuit of Turing in The Imitation Game provides an insight into the importance the police gave to prosecuting homosexual “crimes”. </p>
<p>Men often went to great lengths to cover their tracks. A groundbreaking study by <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/apr/27/michael-schofield">Michael Schofield</a>, published in 1960, revealed the diversity of homosexual lives in the period and the myriad ways they negotiated through the undeniable difficulties they often faced. In his <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GRA6AgAAQBAJ">autobiography</a>, London journalist Peter Wildeblood, who was another high profile victim of homophobic laws and police tactics, claimed it was necessary for him to watch every word he spoke, every gesture that he made. Turing’s sexual discreetness in The Imitation Game is an accurate representation of how most homosexual men had to behave.</p>
<h2>Tolerance, conviction</h2>
<p>There has been a growing appreciation <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Queer_1950s.html?id=Xh9lpzUPa9IC&redir_esc=y">in queer academia</a> that there was often tolerance and acceptance of men leading homosexual lives at a domestic level, not just from immediate families and local communities, but also from landlords and landladies. There was widespread public disquiet at these draconian laws. Sympathy for another famous victim caught up in a police sting saw actor <a href="http://www.lgbthistorymonth.org.uk/history/sirjohngielgud.htm">John Gielgud</a> receive a standing ovation when he returned to the stage in Liverpool after his conviction for gross indecency in 1953 secured lurid headlines in the newspapers.</p>
<p>But while there may have been a certain degree of tolerance toward homosexuality, especially for those men who lived “respectable” and quiet lives, criminal proceedings remained a real threat for many. Patrick Higgins’s review of court cases in <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Heterosexual_Dictatorship.html?id=BDcbAAAAYAAJ">Heterosexual Dictatorships</a> (1996) shows that homosexual lives continued to be led across the breadth of the country throughout the 1950s, albeit in the shadow of the law, and involved men from all walks of life. For example, the court records show a case from Rotherham, Yorkshire, where 17 unskilled and semi-skilled men pleaded guilty to 41 charges of homosexual acts. In the same year in Barnsley, 12 men confessed to homosexual acts. Prosecution was widespread. </p>
<p>Despite, or rather because of the occasional high-profile trial and the number of less famous prosecutions, homosexuality was largely pushed into the dark recesses of society. Paradoxically, its very invisibility acted as a cloak for those seeking liaisons with other men. In practice no-one suspected other people of being homosexual. Again, the presumption that Turing could not possibly be gay comes across in the film if only as a minor sub-plot, but it strikes a true chord.</p>
<p>The Imitation Game may play fast and loose with a great deal of historical accuracy, as films are entitled to do. But the artistic portrayal speaks to a greater truth. In the light of what we know about homosexual life at the time, The Imitation Game mostly gets it right.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36370/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andy Harvey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
The Imitation Game has scooped up eight Oscar nominations this year, including the coveted Best Picture. Since its release in autumn 2014 the film has attracted widespread positive critical appraisal and…
Andy Harvey, Researcher, Birkbeck, University of London
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.