So, let’s get this straight: Colin Kaepernick is 27-years-old, has led the San Francisco 49ers to within one play of advancing to the Super Bowl, has his team in contention again this season, and a group of NFL executives/coaches say they would take Derek Carr over Kaepernick.I know what you’re saying: “Who’s Derek Carr?”Fair question. He’s the rookie quarterback of the Oakland Raiders. The same Oakland Raiders that have won just one of 11 games this season. The same Oakland Raiders Carr led last week in their 52-0 humiliating loss to the St. Louis Rams, who are not exactly the ’85 Bears on defense.But according to cbssports.com, former NFL scout John Middlekauff polled several league personnel and QB coaches about the two quarterbacks who were, as fate would have it, both taken No. 36 in the draft, only three years apart.How could Carr go from a nondescript young quarterback to the subject of such an inquiry? Well, here is Middlekauff’s assessment of Kaepernick via the anonymous execs:“The consistent sentiment is [Kaepernick] may just be what he is and some of his fundamental flaws will not change (accuracy/touch) over time. Kap’s frenetic play is just something his coach and skill guys will have to learn to live with, it may not be something that changed. He will always be a guy that forces you to live with the bad because the good is so special.”Translation: That was a bunch of double talk. Fundamental flaws will not change? Why not? Why can’t he improve? Frenetic play? What’s that? And here’s the real kicker: “. . . live with the bad because the good is so special.”When are “special” talents that have produced on the field rated lower than a quarterback most did not know was in the league? Carr, who looks to be a nice player, has not distinguished himself in any way, yet NFL talent evaluators would take him over Kaepernick? Here is Middlekauff’s word on Carr:“Carr’s pocket presence and natural development over the ‘14 season has caught the eye of many around the NFL. His arm strength was never the question and he has quieted the ‘he may not be tough enough’ crowd quickly. Everyone I spoke with was very bullish on his potential and what he will become once Oakland surrounds him with talent.”What he really said was Carr, a 23-year-old rookie out of Fresno State, has not done much, but could do a lot. Maybe. They cannot be certain. And he’s rated ahead of Kaepernick? Does that ring reasonable?Granted, Kaepernick has been less the player expected of him after a 2013 season that landed him a $126 million contract. But even as he searches for a rhythm, the 49ers are 7-5 and fighting for a post-season position.He has completed 61.2 percent of his passes for 2,736 yards with 15 touchdowns against 8 interceptions. Carr has completed 59.3 percent of his passes for 2,422 yards with 14 TDs and 11 interceptions.So, what’s really going on here? We have seen with Robert Griffin III and many other quarterbacks that one season does not make them an NFL star QB. It’s one thing to say Carr has a chance to be a solid or even a star quarterback if he continues to develop. To say he’s the choice over a battle-tested Kaepernick who has flourished against some of the more physical and sound defenses in the league, well, it’s a stretch at best, curious at worst.If Kaepernick’s last-second pass to Michael Crabtree in the NFC Championship game in January was not broken up by Richard Sherman, he could have been the second Black quarterback to win a Super Bowl, not Seattle’s Russell Wilson. What then?Of course, playing the “if” game could go on for a while and gets us nowhere. The reality is Kaepernick, for reasons unknown (wink, wink), is being judged quickly and harshly. Perhaps the significant contract contributes to the skepticism. Perhaps he’s been looked at through the lens that measures performance alongside salary.If that’s the case, Carr should be judged from the standpoint that his body of work is hardly enough to stack up against a playoff-winning quarterback who just turned 27 and has the capacity to grow. Why would Carr’s potential be greater than Kaepernick’s, especially when “Kap” has already won in the NFL?Why would they compare him to Kaepernick anyway? Why not Cleveland’s Brian Hoyer? Or Arizona’s Drew Stanton? Maybe it’s because Kaepernick and Carr face off on Sunday. Or maybe it’s something deeper. Could it be that Carr is white? Maybe not. But all of it is curious.
KUSI Newsroom March 12, 2019 00:00 00:00 spaceplay / pause qunload | stop ffullscreenshift + ←→slower / faster ↑↓volume mmute ←→seek . seek to previous 12… 6 seek to 10%, 20% … 60% XColor SettingsAaAaAaAaTextBackgroundOpacity SettingsTextOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundSemi-TransparentOpaqueTransparentFont SettingsSize||TypeSerif MonospaceSerifSans Serif MonospaceSans SerifCasualCursiveSmallCapsResetSave SettingsSAN DIEGO (KUSI) – You can get a free breakfast and do a good deed at the same time.Tuesday is IHOP free pancake day!Customers can get a short stack of original buttermilk pancakes for free.While you don’t have to pay, IHOP is collecting donations.The event runs from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., at all IHOP restaurants. During your visit,you can get free pancakes and make a donation Children’s Miracle Network which benefits Rady Children’s.The free pancake deal is dine-in only. You can’t take it to go. Posted: March 12, 2019 Updated: 12:56 PM Categories: Good Morning San Diego, Local San Diego News FacebookTwitter It’s National Pancake Day at IHOP KUSI Newsroom,
Dan Cohen AUTHOR On Base wishes all of its readers a happy Thanksgiving holiday! Look for the next issue on Monday, Nov. 26.
An animation released by Nasa on social media on 8 March showcases a new piece of technology which could give hope to people born with a missing ventricle. The video shows a heart motor pump that uses flywheel technology produced by Doctor Mark Rodefeld at Nasas Glenn Research Center.Flywheel technology is a type of technology that features a motor gaining incredible speed and then maintaining the energy produced as rotational or kinetic energy. Rhodes states on Nasas website that the idea behind the pump is to help those, particularly children, who are born with half a heart and therefore lack the full system to pump blood round their bodies.The current method of dealing with this problem is to have a heart transplant or the Fontan procedure, which is a set of surgeries that creates a passive version of the blood pumping system within the heart. Rodefelds solution was to create a small conical pump, driven by an electrical motor to be placed into an existing heart network. This would reproduce the pressures and flow coming from the body and head, reducing the wear and tear on the single remaining ventricle and extend the life of the patient.A team of scientists and researchers spent two years designing and creating prototypes based on Rodefelds idea and their initial tests have been successful. But Nasa states on its website that further development is needed as the pump will need to be the size of a nickel in order to work. Rodefeld hopes that he will be able to engage more engineers at Glenn in the development of the project, with the goal of advancing this life-saving technology in young patients.
Facebook has recently been granted a patent titled “Selection and Presentation of News Stories Identifying External Content to Social Networking System Users” on July 31st, 2018. It aims to analyze the user data to curate a personalized news feed for the users. This will also include providing users with control over the kind of news they want to see. Facebook wants to add a Filter option in its news feed. This will make it easier for the users to find relevant news items. As per the patent application, “the news stories may be filtered based on filter criteria allowing a viewing user to more easily identify new stories of interest”. For instance, the filter can be added to view stories associated with either some other user or some news source. You can also add a keyword filter to get all the stories related to that specific keyword. Facebook news feed filter tool There are a lot of groups and pages on Facebook which helps reflect the user’s interests. The kind of content that the user posts also says a lot about his/her preferences. As there is a lot of user data present, Facebook automatically analyzes the user’s profile to optimize the news feed as per the choice of the user. There is also a ranking criterion involved when it comes to filtering news feed. The patent reads “news stories are scored and ranked based on their scores. News stories may be ranked based on the popularity of the news story among users of the social networking system. Popularity may be based on the number of views, likes, comments, shares or individual posts of the news story in the social networking system.” News stories can also be ranked based on the chronological order. Facebook news feed filter tool patent Once Facebook is done analyzing the user profile, filtering the feed based on filter criteria, and ranking the stories based on the ranking criteria, a newly customized news feed will be generated and presented to the user. Facebook has been taking measures to curb fake news from its feed. The news filter tool is expected to help further. It will prevent irrelevant and fake news from occurring on users’ news feed as the users can choose to see news only from trusted resources. In fact, Facebook recently acquired Bloomsbury AI to fight fake news. Additionally, the latest news sources, accounts, groups, and pages will also be recommended to users based on data analyzed. With so much data floating around on Facebook feeds, this patent idea seems like a much-needed one. There are no details currently on when or if this feature will hit the Facebook feed. What do you think about Facebook’s news feed filter tool patent? Let us know in the comments below. Read Next Facebook launched new multiplayer AR games in Messenger Facebook launches a 6-part Machine Learning video series Facebook open sources Fizz, the new generation TLS 1.3 Library
The ethics of artificial intelligence seems to have found its way into just about every corner of public life. From law enforcement to justice, through to recruitment, artificial intelligence is both impacting both the work we do and the way we think. But if you really want to get into the ethics of artificial intelligence you need to go further than the public realm and move into the bedroom. Sex robots have quietly been a topic of conversation for a number of years, but with the rise of artificial intelligence they appear to have found their way into the mainstream – or at least the edges of the mainstream. There’s potentially some squeamishness when thinking about sex robots, but, in fact, if we want to think seriously about the consequences of artificial intelligence – from how it is built to how it impacts the way we interact with each other and other things – sex robots are a great place to begin. Read next: Introducing Deon, a tool for data scientists to add an ethics checklist Sexualizing artificial intelligence It’s easy to get caught up in the image of a sex doll, plastic skinned, impossible breasts and empty eyes, sad and uncanny, but sexualized artificial intelligence can come in many other forms too. Let’s start with sex chatbots. These are, fundamentally, a robotic intelligence that is able to respond to and stimulate a human’s desires. But what’s significant is that they treat the data of sex and sexuality as primarily linguistic – the language people use to describe themselves, their wants, their needs their feelings. The movie Her is a great example of a sexualised chatbot. Of course, the digital assistant doesn’t begin sexualised, but Joaquin Phoenix ends up falling in love with his female-voiced digital assistant through conversation and intimate interaction. The physical aspect of sex is something that only comes later. Ai Furuse – the Japanese sex chatbot But they exist in real life too. The best example out these is Ai Furuse, a virtual girlfriend that interacts with you in an almost human-like manner. Ai Furuse is programmed with a dictionary of more than 30,000 words, and is able to respond to conversational cues. But more importantly, AI Furuse is able to learn from conversations. She can gather information about her interlocutor and, apparently, even identify changes in their mood. The more you converse with the chatbot, the more intimate and closer your relationship should be (in theory). Immediately, we can begin to see some big engineering questions. These are primarily about design, but remember – wherever you begin to think about design we’re starting to move towards the domain of ethics as well. The very process of learning through interaction requires the AI to be programmed in certain ways. It’s a big challenge for engineers to determine what’s really important in these interactions. The need to make judgements on how users behave. The information that’s passed to the chatbot needs to be codified and presented in a way that can be understood and processed. That requires some work in itself. The models of desire on which Ai Furuse are necessarily limited. They bear the marks of the engineers that helped to create ‘her’. It becomes a question of ethics once we start to ask if these models might be normative in some way. Do they limit or encourage certain ways of interacting? Desire algorithms In the context of one chatbot that might not seem like a big deal. But if (or as) the trend moves into the mainstream, we start to enter a world where the very fact of engineering chatbots inadvertently engineers the desires and sexualities that are expressed towards them. In this instance, not only do we shape the algorithms (which is what’s meant to happen), we also allow these ‘desire algorithms’ to shape our desires and wants too. Storing sexuality on the cloud But there’s another more practical issue as well. If the data on which sex chatbots or virtual lovers runs on the cloud, we’re in a situation where the most private aspects of our lives are stored somewhere that could easily be accessed by malicious actors. This a real risk of Ai Furuse, where cloud space is required for your ‘virtual girlfriend’ to ‘evolve’ further. You pay for additional cloud space. It’s not hard to see how this could become a problem in the future. Thousands of sexual and romantic conversations could be easily harvested for nefarious purposes. Sex robots, artificial intelligence and the problem of consent Language, then, is the kernel of sexualised artificial intelligence. Algorithms, when made well, should respond, process, adapt to and then stimulate further desire. But that’s only half the picture. The physical reality of sex robots – both as literal objects, but also the physical effects of what they do – only adds a further complication into the mix. Questions about what desire is – why we have it, what we should do with it – are at the forefront of this debate. If, for example, a paedophile can use a child-like sex robot as a surrogate object of his desires, is that, in fact, an ethical use of artificial intelligence? Here the debate isn’t just about the algorithm, but how it should be deployed. Is the algorithm performing a therapeutic purpose, or is it actually encouraging a form of sexuality that fails to understand the concept of harm and consent? This is an important question in the context of sex robots, but it’s also an important question for the broader ethics of AI. If we can build an AI that is able to do something (ie. automate billions of jobs) should we do it? Who’s responsibility is it to deal with the consequences? The campaign against sex robots These are some of the considerations that inform the perspective of the Campaign Against Sex Robots. On their website, they write: “Over the last decades, an increasing effort from both academia and industry has gone into the development of sex robots – that is, machines in the form of women or children for use as sex objects, substitutes for human partners or prostituted persons. The Campaign Against Sex Robots highlights that these kinds of robots are potentially harmful and will contribute to inequalities in society. We believe that an organized approach against the development of sex robots is necessary in response the numerous articles and campaigns that now promote their development without critically examining their potentially detrimental effect on society.” For the campaign, sex robots pose a risk in that they perpetuate already existing inequalities and forms of exploitation in society. They prevent us from facing up to these inequalities. They argue that it will “reduce human empathy that can only be developed by an experience of mutual relationship.” Consent and context Consent is the crucial problem when it comes to artificial intelligence. And you could say that it points to one of the limitations of artificial intelligence that we often miss – context. Algorithms can’t ever properly understand context. There will, undoubtedly be people who disagree with this. Algorithms can, for example, understand the context of certain words and sentences, right? Well yes, that may be true, but that’s not strictly understanding context. Artificial intelligence algorithms are set a context, one from which they cannot deviate. They can’t, for example, decide that actually encouraging a pedophile to act out their fantasies is wrong. It is programmed to do just that. But the problem isn’t simply with robot consent. There’s also an issue with how we consent to an algorithm in this scenario. As journalist Adam Rogers writes in this article for Wired, published at the start of 2018: “It’s hard to consent if you don’t know to whom or what you’re consenting. The corporation? The other people on the network? The programmer?” Rogers doesn’t go into detail on this insight, but it gets to the crux of the matter when discussing artificial intelligence and sex robots. If sex is typically built on a relationship between people, with established forms of communication that establish both consent and desire, what happens when this becomes literally codified? What happens when these additional layers of engineering and commerce get added on top of basic sexual interaction? Is the problem that we want artificial intelligence to be human? Towards the end of the same piece, Rogers finds a possible solutions from privacy researcher Sarah Jamie Lewis. Lewis wonders whether one of the main problems with sex robots is this need to think in humanoid terms. “We’re already in the realm of devices that look like alien tech. I looked at all the vibrators I own. They’re bright colors. None of them look like a penis that you’d associate with a human. They’re curves and soft shapes.” Of course, this isn’t an immediate solution – sex robots are meant to stimulate sex in its traditional (arguably heteronormative) sense. What Lewis suggests, and Rogers seems to agree with, is really just AI-assisted masturbation. But their insight is still useful. On reflection, there is a very real and urgent question about the way in which we deploy artificial intelligence. We need to think carefully about what we want it to replicate and what we want it to encourage. Sex robots are the starting point for thinking seriously about artificial intelligence It’s worth noting that when discussing algorithms we end up looping back onto ourselves. Sex robots, algorithms, artificial intelligence – they’re a problem insofar as they pose questions about what we really value as humans. They make us ask what we want to do with our time, and how we want to interact with other people. This is perhaps a way forward for anyone that builds or interacts with algorithms. Whether they help you get off, or find your next purchase. Consider what you’re algorithm is doing – what’s it encouraging, storing , processing, substituting. We can’t prepare for a future with artificial intelligence without seriously considering these things.
The Electronic frontier foundation is taking part in copyright week. Their motto, “Copyright should encourage more speech, not act as a legal cudgel to silence it.” According to EFF, copyright law often belongs in a majority to the media and entertainment industries, with little to no effect on other domains. Following this, EFF has teamed with other organizations to participate in Copyright Week. They talk about five copyright issues which can help build a set of principles for the copyright law. Participating organizations for this year include Association of research libraries, Authors Alliance, Copyright for creativity, Disco, Ifixit, Rstreet, Techdirt, and Wikimedia. For the year 2019, they have highlighted five issues and the whole week they will be releasing blog posts and actions on these issues on their blog and on Twitter. EFF’s copyright issues for this year: Copyright as a Tool of Censorship Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right essential to a functioning democracy. Copyright should encourage more speech, not act as a legal cudgel to silence it. Device and Digital Ownership As the things we buy increasingly exist either in digital form or as devices with software, we also find ourselves subject to onerous licensing agreements and technological restrictions. If you buy something, you should be able to truly own it–meaning you can learn how it works, repair it, remove unwanted features, or tinker with it to make it work in a new way. Public Domain and Creativity Copyright policy should encourage creativity, not hamper it. Excessive copyright terms inhibit our ability to comment, criticize, and rework our common culture. Safe Harbors Safe harbor protections allow online intermediaries to foster public discourse and creativity. Safe harbor status should be easy for intermediaries of all sizes to attain and maintain. Filters Whether as a result of corporate pressure or regulation, over-reliance on automated filters to patrol copyright infringement presents a danger to free expression on the Internet. This month EU is all set to vote on new copyright rules. These new copyright laws have received major opposition from Europeans. Per EFF, the Articles 11 and 13, also known as the “censorship machines” rule and the “link tax” rule, have the power to crush small European tech startups and expose half a billion Europeans to mass, unaccountable algorithmic censorship. Per the Article 13 of the law, online platforms would be required to use algorithmic filters to unilaterally determine whether content anyone uploads, from social media posts to videos, infringes copyright, and would penalize companies that allow a user to infringe copyright, but not companies that overblock and censor their users. The outcome will be censorship of massive proportions. The Directive is now in the hands of the European member-states. EFF urges people from Sweden, Germany, Luxembourg, and Poland to contact their ministers to convey their concern about Article 13 and 11. Read Next Reddit takes stands against the EU copyright directives; greets EU redditors with ‘warning box’ GitHub updates developers and policymakers on EU copyright Directive at Brussels What the EU Copyright Directive means for developers – and what you can do