Final Post: There Is No End

As sad as it is, the end of the school year approaches, and with it, the end of this blog. Although this may be my last blog post, there really is no end to the connection between humans and technology. Innovation is endless, and technology is constantly advancing, whether people are aware of it or not. It's not surprising that some amazing improvements in technology go unnoticed, because there are so many, and we don't tend to pay attention to that which we aren't interested in.

Take, for example, induction cookers. Most of the planet has probably never heard of an induction stoves before. And half of those who have heard of or seen one don't understand the absolute genius behind this technology. They might have seen it at Abt or Best Buy, but the brilliance behind these cookers is lost to them. And that isn't necessarily a bad thing; however, I think knowledge of the intricacies of certain technologies serves to heighten our appreciation for them. 

Induction stoves really exemplify the improvements in technology that are occurring. Only hundreds of years ago, people were still using open fires to cook their food. Then came the wood-burning stoves, followed by gas stoves, followed further by electric stoves. Recently, a new type of stove, which uses both electricity and magnetism has been invented to make stoves not only more energy-efficient, but safer. I won't delve too deeply into the physics behind this stove, but essentially, an alternating current in the stove induces a current in the metal cookware, causing the metal to heat up. Because only the metal will turn hot, heat lost to the air is minimal. Furthermore, because our bodies do not conduct current in the way metal pots do, accidentally touching the stove is safer than before. 

Because we are constantly finding new ways to explain our universe, technology is also constantly changing to improve our lives. I whole-heartedly believe that technology will never stop advancing, especially because there is so much we don't know and so much we want to know. There is a poster in my AP Physics room that reads, "T'si unahm tauenr ot ntaw ot gifeur hngtsi tou."

Finally, I want to conclude this blog post by talking about a pet peeve of mine. It annoys me to no end when people comment something along the lines of "life was better without technology" or "technology is ruining this generation." Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know you were born hundreds (or even thousands, depending on your definition of technology) of years ago. I personally think it's even more hilarious when people express such thoughts online. To hell with technology, right?

"It's human nature to want to figure things out."

Robotic Athletes

The way I see it, there are two major aspects of humans that we try to reproduce through artificial intelligence: our mental capabilities and our physical functions. A computer that can play chess is one example of our attempts to artificially replicate the human brain. As a novice programmer, I can say without hesitation that programming chess is no easy task. Sure, you might be able to copy the code from a site online, but producing the algorithm that allows the robot to "think" ahead ten, twenty moves--it's absolutely insane.

However, as impressive as a chess-playing robot is, there are other uses of artificial intelligence that may excite people. For example, wouldn't it be fascinating if a team of robots could coordinate to play against a human team or another team of robots in a game of soccer? Can you imagine how difficult the task would be? Although we often talk about artificial intelligence, we don't often talk about the absurd amount of detail and effort that goes into making it possible. Allow me to discuss some of the difficulties with this task.

Focusing on the large scale, a team of robots would have to be coordinated. That means that they would have to be able to sense each other, the opposing team members, and the boundaries of the field. Setting the boundaries may be easy, but detecting the opposing team members would not (unless you used some kind of tracking device). With what sensors would they be detected? Light and distance (sound) sensors would be rather difficult given the sheer size of the soccer field.

On top of the physical details that we have to account for in designing a soccer playing robot, there has to be a complex algorithm to teach the robot to actually play soccer. When does the robot know how to shoot? How would it dribble? How can robots predict the motion of other players? Would the team of robots communicate over a wireless network to coordinate, or would they work alone to work together? Out of curiosity, just as sports build bonds between players, could robotic soccer further narrow the gap between humans and technology?

In some ways, a team of robots playing soccer is even more impressive than a chess-playing robot. But there are advances in technology toward making such a feat possible. In his TED Talk, Raffaello D'Andrea reminds all of us about the astounding potential of robots. I strongly suggest watching the video. Some of the actions that he has the quadcopters perform are absolutely insane, and he provides strong evidence that robots can replicate human behavior.

You can watch D'Andrea's TED Talk here.

Inside the Veldt

Written by Ray Bradbury, "The Veldt" (also known as "The World the Children Made") is a story about an automated house and its inhabitants, a family of four. The house does all the work; there is nothing for the parents and children to do except enjoy themselves. Except the parents aren't enjoying themselves. The nursery, a virtual reality room that changes according to the children's imaginations, is stuck on an African veldt setting, which worries the parents. In the end, the parents decide to shut down the house and go on vacation, but the children protest, asking to see the nursery one last time. The kids then trap their parents in the nursery, leaving the veldt's lions to devour the parents.



The general consensus on the story's message is that when technology replaces family bonds, things go awry. Because the children are closer to the nursery than they are to their actual parents, the house becomes the children's parents. As a result, when the actual parents try to shut down the nursery, the kids feel no remorse in eliminating them. Most readers view the story as a warning against advanced technology that has the potential to replace humans.

However, there is another way to read this story. What if the parents were actually the antagonists, and the children and the nursery, which I will interpret as representative of the environment (albeit virtual), prevail as a force of good? It seems highly implausible, but some of the details support this theory. On the very first page, it is written, "This house which clothed and fed and rocked them to sleep and played and sang and was good to them." Already we get the impression that the house (and the nursery) is perfect and good. It provides everything for the family, yet the parents fail to appreciate its benevolent deeds.

The parents disapprove of the house's most special feature, the nursery. Lydia Hadley, the mother, calls the animals inside "filthy creatures." Furthermore, the parents fear the nursery simply because they do not understand it. They do not know why the environment is stuck on the African setting, nor do they see what the lions are eating. This fear drives the parents to attempt to control this virtual ecosystem, as evidenced by George's words, "Come on, room! I demand Aladdin!" When this environment refuses to bend to his will, George decides to shut the nursery down.

At this point in time, unfortunately, the nursery has already supplanted the parents as the children's mother and father. In an attempt to pry them from "nature's" grasp, the parents hurriedly plan a vacation to "civilize" the kids. The irony is evident; the technology-worshipping children are in this case uncivilized, and the old-fashioned parents are the civilized ones. The kids, being young and close to nature, recognize their parents' plan and oppose its realization. The nursery and its children ultimately prevail and prevent the Hadleys from controlling the environment.

In this interpretation, because the nursery is a symbol for nature and the environment, "The Veldt" takes on a completely new meaning. Rather than a warning against technology, this becomes a story about human exploitation of nature.

Click here to read "The Veldt"

The Impact of Games: Part Three

You can find part two of this series of posts here.

For those that do not remember, part one of this series was about the positive impacts of gaming. These included improving social skills through the interaction in multi-player games, as well as practical skills through the mechanics required in games of certain genres. In part two, I discussed the negative health impacts of gaming and game addiction--problems that probably affect a majority of gamers. In this final post, I will address violence and its correlation with video games.

Those against video games often cite violence as a primary focus of their argument. According to this article, the way that the media covers video game violence changed in around 2000. There has been a shift from sensationalizing the studies to adopting a more neutral tone that leaves room for the uncertainty of studies. After all, there are many lurking and confounding variables that lie within these studies of video game violence. For example, does the game focus on killing for a just or noble cause? Who or what are the gamers supposed to target (that is, are they killing humans in these games)?

A variable that was studied at the University of Arizona was the number of players. To be more specific, does it matter if the game is single-player or multi-player? What changes in the social interaction and violence occur if the game is multi-player? Working off the basis that most studies on video game violence deal with single-player games, the researchers tested and concluded that multi-player game modes can actually lead to increased cooperation in the long term. 

There are a number of ways to interpret these results. Increased cooperation does not necessarily mean that the players are not being influenced by the violence, nor does it rule out the possibility that the players might cooperate in their violence. Taking a more positive approach, however, perhaps the increase in cooperation would lead to a friendship that lasts in games other than first person shooters. It is also possible that the positive effects of cooperation simply outweigh the violent effects of first person shooters. Regardless, nothing can be proven to cause another; correlation does not imply causation. 

Finally, let us all remember that not all video games are not first person shooters that involve killing other people. Nor is there a reason to analyze every single game that we play--I certainly don't. As I'm farming (killing) "creeps" or "minions" in League of Legends, I am not thinking to myself, "Am I 'otherizing' the enemy team by working together with my team to beat them? Are these minions a metaphor for how the strong (champions) trample on the weak (minions)?" No, I am enjoying the game in itself, as the developers intended.

Minions are arriving from the bottom left and top right corners.
More importantly, there is a team fight between champions.

Shakespeare in the Digital Age

Simply considering how scientifically and technologically advanced our society is, I (and many others) would have expected works like Shakespeare to become obsolete. With books becoming digitalized, who knows how long it'll be before even E-books are old news? Maybe we'll implant microchips inside our brain that allow us to instantly absorb knowledge. For now, however, Shakespeare has persevered and made it all the way to my English class.

What kind of effects has technology had on Shakespeare (that's the question)? And following that question, why is Shakespeare still such a big presence in English classes? The latter is easier to answer, however, so we'll start with that one. The world is run by demand. That is, if people like and can relate to something, it'll be popular. Because of how timeless and easily relatable Shakespeare's works are, they have lasted and will last for ages.

When I say relatable, I don't mean that everyone has been through the tragedies of Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet. Rather, I am referring to the subtle themes that are almost exaggerated in Shakespeare's works: betrayal, greed, forbidden love, and so on. Everyone can empathize, or at least sympathize, with Shakespeare's characters, thus making the play itself more accessible (more on that here).

Speaking of access, the most important and noticeable effect of technology on Shakespeare has been to make it more accessible. Although we can still go and watch actors perform Shakespeare, we can also easily find it in print, or even online. Not only can more people access Shakespeare's works, they can also use them more easily as well. Without technology, doing my English project on a word from Shakespeare would be difficult, as I would have to go through the entire book all over again looking for the word "dream."

In essence, technology has not harmed Shakespeare's works; rather, it has helped them by exposing more and more people to the works.

The Infinite Monkey Theorem

The Age of Artificial Intelligence

As long as I can remember, artificial intelligence has fascinated me. It is a strange idea, that we, who had no control over our own creation, can replicate the beauty of life (or at least, parts of it) in machines. What really got interested in AI is how similar computers are to us. Many of the chips in our computers are made of silicon, which is right below carbon on the periodic table. And of course, carbon is the magical element that makes life for us and countless other organisms possible. Hard drives store memory, and the central processing unit (CPU), well, processes. That seems awfully reminiscent of the human brain. As much as we know about the brain, however, I would dare to say that there is even more that we don't know.

It is undeniable how far technology has come. Communication across the globe takes seconds. We have supercomputers that can beat masters at chess. Wolfram Alpha, Siri, and Google Translate are simply mind-blowing. We've come a long way since the wheel, but just how much farther can we go? In more recent times, more and more people are debating the issue of whether artificial intelligence is possible. It is a question that only the future can tell, but it seems to me that we shouldn't rule out the possibility quite yet. After all, no one in the Middle Ages would've believed that humans would invent something that could fly.

But before I get into the arguments for the possibility of artificial intelligence, let's define this term. Interestingly enough, much of the debate of AI deals with what we define AI to be. Merriam-webster defines AI as "the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior." The definition leaves room for a great deal of interpretation. For example, there is no mention as to whether the machine would be autonomous or not. Could it survive by itself, obtaining the resources it requires to survive? Could it reproduce, which would ultimately make it an actual living organism?

Unfortunately, those questions require much more probing (more than we can do on this post), so we'll return to those questions possibly in a later post. For now, we will focus on the central argument of AI, which has always been, "Can computers think?" In other words, can we artificially create intelligence? There are many who believe that such a feat is impossible, that humans are unique because of their intelligene and reason. A book I once read, Ishmael, spoke of how humans perceive themselves as the superior species, similar to how we see ourselves as more beautiful than we actually are.

We tout the human species for having the "reason" that is lacking in other animals. Yet computers have a logic superior to our own. Their only flaw is that they lack the emotions, feelings, or intuition that we supposedly have. But what are these emotions that we feel except a bunch of nerves sending signals to each other in our brain? And as for any arguments for intuition, rather than "feeling," intuition is more like utilizing what we know as data to (perhaps unconsciously) arrive to a reasonable conclusion.

In an attempt to avoid controversy, I will leave this final question unanswered: do humans have souls? If not, what is it about computers that makes them so different from humans? Atoms are atoms, and they compose you, me, and computers.

Why Flappy Bird?

Everyone has heard about the game that has swept through the App Store and Google Play: Flappy Bird. But why was it so popular? And if it was so popular, why did the creator choose to remove it from the store today? 

First, let's consider the aspects of Flappy Bird. There aren't many. You tap on a screen, and the bird jumps up. You try to make it between two pipes. If you make it through, you continue "flapping." If you don't, you lose. How did such a simple game gain so much popularity that it rivaled more complex games like Angry Birds and Candy Crush?

Dong Nguyen, creator of this frustrating and popular game, claims that "people prefer imperfect things." Flappy Bird, in all its popularity, has been the subject of criticisms (and much more). I am inclined to agree with Nguyen, for imperfection is a reality we can all relate to. A perfect game is never as exciting as one with a few flaws, because with an imperfect game, the players can feel as though they are contributing to the game.

Another factor that led to Flappy Bird's success is its simplicity. As fun as intricate games like League of Legends are, on a smartphone, simple games tend to be more popular. That way, the average person doesn't have to invest countless hours understanding and honing their skills. Its simplicity, combined with how quick each "round" is, makes it a great game to play on the go when there's nothing to do for a few minutes.

Finally, there is the challenge. It seems to me that the difficulty of the game is the main reason why it is so popular. There's a theory in game developing that goes like this: when a novice (or as gamers have affectionately termed it, noob) plays a game for the first time, they should be rewarded for picking up the game. This can and has been done in many ways. Whether it's Modern Warfare and the "noob tube" (a powerful weapon that requires little skill) or League of Legends and Lux (an overpowered champion that again requires little skill), there are incentives to continue playing.

In Flappy Bird, the "reward" is different. During the first few tries, the game can seem impossible. Gradually, however, the game makes more sense, and a pattern appears. The people who don't give up eventually hit scores of 100 or 200, while those that do not invest the time get lower scores. Doesn't seem like much of a reward? That's because the real reward is the competition. It doesn't matter if you get to level 1000 on Candy Crush if no one else plays it. Because the game is so popular and easy to learn (albeit being insanely hard to master), friends are motivated to continue playing. 

We have established the fact that Flappy Bird is a cleverly made game with multiple factors that led to its success. Ironically, those very factors have led to its downfall. Many players have become disillusioned by the simple but difficult game, leading to widespread criticism. "Haters" sent him angry tweets and even death threats. Despite this, Nguyen held steady. He responded to countless of the tweets of his players, making his case that this game was created to make players laugh, not cry in distress. 

On February 9, 2013, Nguyen announced that in 22 hours' time, he would be pulling the plug on Flappy Bird. As of now, it is no longer available for download. 

With this blog post, I would like to pay my respects to a person I can understand well. As a programmer, I can say with certainty that there is no developer in the world who wishes his or her games to cause players to cry. This is a sad tale of a developer, whose game, by chance, became so popular it attracted the worst kind of crowd. Whether it was out of jealousy (complaining that the pipe sprites were stolen from Mario and the like) or outright anger due to their own inadequacy, players have destroyed the very object meant to make them laugh and enjoy themselves.

You can read more on this story here and find fascinating Flappy Bird statistics here.