Making the Jocks be Nerds

I believe that coding or at least a technical vocabulary will be the new literacy, or at very least a base skill needed for a wide range of modern jobs. There is so much to say around the subject, but let me first lay out where I stand. I think teaching kids to only code in a single language is short sighted and somewhat useless. I liken this to teaching a kid Spanish where he really needs to know Latin; teaching a kid one specific language when they would use many different languages and concepts through their jobs is not a good use of their time. This is Jeff Atwood’s basic principle in his blog post “Please don’t learn to code”. As a software engineer, he’s not against the subject as much as he’s pro teaching it correctly by emphasizing problem solving and computational thinking.

In addition to this, many people may believe coding is too niche to be taught in schools. To this I would point to any number of required high school course. In my high school, physics, chemistry, and biology were all required. They’re not required because every student will use them in their future career ( and many haven’t). They’re required because they provide a  scientific literacy and knowledge base for a wide range of STEM careers/majors. When I talk about adding coding to a curriculum, it is in this capacity: to provide the wide technological literacy and knowledge base for the ever expanding number of careers that are based on them ( some 1.2 million new jobs by 2022).

From that background I whole heartedly believe in making it required learning in high school. While I believe the subject matter is simple enough to be taught at the middle school level, the scope/theme of high school classes is more in lined with what I believe should be in computer science classes.

The curriculum for these classes should involve: Basic pogroming (writing of code) for the purpose of solving problems and completing procedures. The class should also cover how the computer handles the information and how that affects the solving of problems. Theses two main concepts could be split into two semesters or crammed into one. I believe the computational problem solving section is the most important, and the details of the tech are secondary.

At the end of the day not everyone is going to like computers/tech, nor is everyone going to want to code. The computational thinking appeals to the largest number of people and should be targeted first; however, I would love to see an expansion of technology electives. My school is the best in my home state, yet we didn’t offer AP computer science, nor did we offer more than 4 technology related course. The teacher of these courses was trained specifically for those curriculum. Which brings me to the last and maybe more obvious bit: we need more computer science teachers for highschools. Anyone with a bachelors is unlikely to teach, and there are few to none integrated teaching/computer science programs. Before anything else is possible, the teacher problem must be solved.

Overall I believe this to be a currently relevant and important thing that must be handled, if not by our government but by ourselves. It seems that congress didn’t listen to Obama when he called for 4 billion in federal funding for coding but it has created a national conversation that has caused localities to act. This may have created a patchwork of eduction areas, which is better than nothing. Still, we have a long way to code.

Libertarian-ish Rant on Self Driving Cars

The universal truth: “To err is Human” is the exact reason that self driving cars should, and will be, the new universal standard. Many people believe that self driving cars cannot ever compare to humans in the driving of a vehicle, and I believe on a certain level they may be right. A computer may never able to beat the best formula one drivers, or react perfectly in a multi car crashing situation, but neither can most humans. AI technology has been expanding in recents years, and computers are able to complete certain tasks better than any humans. Surely, we can create a technology that can complete a task that we do while eating a cheeseburger and listening to music. Of course we cannot role out technology that is substandard, but companies have already rolled out technology that is statistically better than humans. There may be situations that a human would preform better than the technology, but the technology has already proven itself better is most situations where humans fail. For example, Tesla’s autopilot has preformed well in many everyday crashing situations, but failed for the rare case of a truck blending into the sky. The driver, if looking, would have been able to handle this one edge case.

The social dilemma, then becomes, in a world where the car’s systems are good enough to fully understand the situation, and it knows that it must choose between hurting many people out of the car or one in the car, what does it do? Right now, utilitarian principles rule the day and the minimum number of people are hurt. I personally believe that fault should be factored into the thinking. Now that may be as heartless as it sounds, but if 5 people jump in front of my car on the highway, I want my car to head for the skinny one and not run me into the wall. The issue in a purely utilitarian metric is that it may kill someone who was just living their life because other people decided to be dumb. I am okay with this being how the cars are programmed as long as you can always take over the driving, if not, I don’t know if I would put myself there. I also believe that while there is a physical wheel override, the driver should always have some sort of end responsibility. When steering wheels are done away with, the driver stops being liable unless they specifically sign on to it. The free market will weed out bad auto pilot because no one will want a car that makes them liable for crashes.

This leads me into my next point, the government should play very little role in regulating cars. The benchmarks the government put forward to regulate self driving cars are a first step toward over regulating what could be a huge game changing technology. If we narrow the scope of what type of autonomous driving technology we have then we limit our future. While I’m not for using human being as guinea pigs, we also know making the safest driving system is in the best interest for all of these companies. This is also why I believe in the personal responsibility of the human driver for many of these systems. It means that both the driver and the company are working together to both make and operate the system in the best manner.

Overall I do want a self driving car and plan on making my first classic mid life crisis purchase of a Tesla at some point. I’d much rather browse reddit than be in bumper to bumper traffic, even if that means I die to a sky colored truck who doesn’t see me. Im just hoping my car aims for the skinny part of the truck.

Are we humans or are we d̶a̶n̶c̶e̶r̶s̶ Computers

“Everybody is a Genius. But If You Judge a Fish by Its Ability to Climb a Tree, It Will Live Its Whole Life Believing that It is Stupid” —Albert Einstein, maybe

This quote, while a great reminder for all of us humans prone to self doubt, is how I think about most AI systems. Computers have always been faster at doing many specific computational/repetitive tasks, but now that we are using AI to expand the types of tasks the computer can do, it does not mean that these tasks are any less specialized. After all, the fish that swims the fastest still can’t climb a tree.

That doesn’t make the things that are happening now with AI any less cool. After reading about AlphaGo and the game in general I realized just how cool it was. AlphaGo was programmed to have intuition which is an incredible step. While this intuition is highly specialized, it is amazing to see a computer remember from experiences and intuit the right answer. But can AlphaGo watch a movies and give a concise plot synopsis, can it direct hands to sew, can it persuade someone using complex emotional reasonings? No, because it is highly specialized. When each new sufficiently advance AI comes out, it may be able to preform complex tasks better than humans (Jeopardy, Chess, AlphaGo, etc), but it is not fully generalized.

I do however believe that these amazing feats prove the viability of AI. If we can devise systems and algorithms that can do an increasing amount of human tasks, then we are closing the gap to Strong AI each time. Reading the articles it sounds like people are making their own Turing tests for specific tasks with music, touch, and others, and each of these is a piece in making a system that can truly pass the Turing test. By that I mean, a computer system that can also imitate the universality of the human mind in things beyond just playing games and conversation.

I believe that Searle is right with his Chinese room thought experiment in that a computer running a program that simulates conversation is not really a human and doesn’t really understand. But if there is a creation of a machine (hypothetically) that mimics the universality of the human mind, then how is that fundamentally different from a person in how we perceive them? Each person only knows one thing, “I think therefore I am”, but they have no way of proving anyone else thinks like them. And if humans can make something that acts like a human, then there is no difference between how we perceive it and other humans. Which is the Turing test.

But making this AI mind is so far off that we do not need to worry about AI in our lives just yet. Each new AI system will help make things more efficient. While I believe it will cause huge economic ripples that need to be addressed, resisting technological advances rarely ever works. Yet I don’t believe it will be any problem from an AI takeover point of view till technology increases greatly.

Humans are just biological computers, but we’re so complex that developing AI to mimic it is far off. AI as it exists for now is an amazing expansion of the tasks computers can do, and each AI will help move technology forward. It may cause economic stress, but ultimately I believe it will move the world forward.

Project 3: Privacy Paradox:

After doing the Privacy Paradox challenges, I haven’t decided to change any of my behaviors but I do plan to try and get more transparency with my data and where I am being tracked. I downloaded and use the privacy badger extension to see when I am getting tracked. I also plan on supporting more data transparency laws. I believe that we own our data and that it is our property. Companies can deny us their services if we don’t want to let them have out data, but we should have the option to take back our data.

In choosing between the privacy and tech convenience I side with the tech convenience personally, but I believe that privacy should be the default. It is easy for me to trust some companies with information because I know what they do with it and I generally thing that it makes the ad experience better or the tech cooler and more useful. However, the level to which the data collection is not explicitly laid out for the public is not okay and cause the fear of it.

Privacy is absolutely important and we should fight for solutions that give us the best of both convince and privacy. I like that Google hired a philosopher because I believe that this issue comes down to fundamental beliefs about human nature and human rights. Sir Tim Burners-Lee’s idea of a personal trove of data that is lent to companies because it aligns with my belief that our human data is our property and currency. We should be able to let companies use it in exchange of services, but no company should have unfettered access to it.

Overall, I believe it will be a long discussion and it is important that the people’s rights are remembered.

Why make the most hated companies the most powerful?

Net Neutrality is the idea that all data from all sources and of all types should be treated equally by Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Pretty simple problem surrounded by complicated debate. People who are in favor of Net Neutrality believe that giving the power to discriminate between data on the internet gives ISPs power that they will in turn abuse to maximize profit, and they believe that it will end the internet as we know it: free open, and accessible to all. The people who are against Net Neutrality see it as a regulation on the ISPs that is both unnecessary and a burden on them. They believe that charging more to those who use more bandwidth will allow them to invest more in infrastructure as well as improve the speed for those whose networks are being clogged with all different kinds of data.

As for me, I side complete with Net Neutrality. The arguments against NN completely ignore reality for promises that ISPs have never shown any signs of fulfilling. Waste and inefficiencies due to regulation are real concerns, but the internet is an integral part of the day to day life of nearly every American. Turning it into a pay to play playground for those who can afford creates in an environment similar to the one we have in congress where powerfully lobbyists and super PACs have a disproportional amount of influence. In addition, giving the keys to the owners closer of the internet to ISPs gives them power over business that rely on the internet. With the amount of control that the corporations want, they would be able to sell our information, insert ads into all of our internet content, shut down competition to their services, etc. All of which they will do because they will maximize profits, which is the end goal of any corporation. They have no desire to play fair. The most common argument against this power grab is that you can always change ISPs to someone who doesn’t do those tings. This is what completely ignores reality. In most areas there are barely two different ISPs available. This is not enough competition to ensure that ISPs will not abuse their customer. Because of the high infrastructure costs associated with the internet, and the need to coordinate with local municipalities, it is hard to break the monopoly in many areas of the country. This has led to Comcast being known as the most hated company in the country for many years running. Why would giving Comcast more power help stop the abuse they’re already doing?

As much as I hate government regulation and administration, I would say the best current plan is to have the government provided the backbone structure and allow the ISPs do the last mile delivery. Then force each ISP to rent out their own infrastructure to whomever the customer picks to be their ISP (idea via Sam Altman). Its not a great solution, but it’s much better than a world where the internet becomes for the elites only and ISPs disproportionally profit from owning digital pipes.

Who is a corporation?

Corporate personage is a complicated idea, philosophically. How can a corporation be a person? People have thoughts, emotions, and feelings, but corporations are a group. By giving them a personage, then they’re receiving their own identity which has multiple implications. Legally, the corporation can be culpable for crimes without the whole group being indicted. In essence, the corporation is that way for the group of individuals in the corporation to separate themselves from the identity of the whole, which may have an entirely independent goal. This separate identity is what is then given rights, and the degree to which it is given rights is the topic of debate. The social implications of corporate personage is what does the identity of the separate personage of the corp. have in relation to those who make it. Also, how does the corporation then act socially. Ethically, what standards does the corporation need to be held to? Is it as ethical as a person or does its different goals and aims mean that it can be held to different standards? These are some of the many topics that surround corporate personage. The idea that a corporation has rights deals with the rights of this separate identity, and there are many who argue on both sides of its existence.

One case where this comes into play is the tech corporations openly refusing to be a part of the creation of any muslim registry. The workers of these companies are completely in the right of saying that they will not be a part of it, after all, unless they are shareholders, they are not technically a part of the corporation, and can refuse to work for them at any point. This would then make it difficult for a corporation to make any sort of muslim registry, but not necessarily impossible. This then brings the next item to consider, should the corporation be going through with it. Well, lets look at the rights that corporations currently have. They have a right to free speech, a right against unwarranted search and seizure, and a right against using of the corporations assets. Ethically, the corporation can refuse to be a part of any registry, but they most they can do legally is refuse to process their data in any way for the government. This is of course if the government can get a warrant for all the user data owned by many of these corps. To get that warrant many laws would have to change but in the political climate anything is possible. Then the question becomes, if the government comes with a warrant, should this separate personage then still refuse on moral grounds. My answer is no, but hear me out. I do not believe that corporations should have morals, because I do not believe that they share the same things that make people have morals. Morals are related to ones conscience  and feelings, but a corporation has neither of those things. Also, I believe if we allow the corporations to act in the way people do then we have to give them same rights, and I do not believe that corporations have the same rights. The right against self incrimination does not apply to corporations and that is widely accepted as a good thing for many reasons. But you cannot say a corporation can act as a moral being without giving it all it’s rights. There is also the question of who would choose the moral thing to do. When corporations form for profit, their shareholders are there for that one sole purpose, and there is no guarantee that they all share opinions on moral matters. Then it becomes an issues of whether a majority rules a minority of stockholders in using the groups assets to advance one cause, which I believe is ludicrous. Corporations should have certain rights as to let them operate and succeed in this country without the government impeding their affairs, but corporations are not moral beings. This is what allows us to limit their rights within reason.

If corporations have the same rights as humans then should they have moral obligations? Yes, but I also believe that they should not have the same rights as humans, for various reasons, and thus do not have moral obligations. I believe tech companies do not have the right to unilaterally say that they will not help with a registry. They can refuse to build any sort of structure for it, but cannot refuse to give the data, without penalty, should the government come with a warrant. The corporations have the free speech to say what they want, but that is still murky because it might not be shared by every member of the group, even if it speaks to the workers sentiments. Corporations should have the rights it needs to stop government interference, but not enough such that it can hurt the American people. I also believe that corporations should not act as moral agents unless it is the express written purpose of the organization. Morality is for people, and corporations have no feelings, thoughts, or opinions.

Privacy in our World

Full Disclosure/ Background:

This past summer I was an intern at Apple Inc. and will be joining them full time in the coming year. When this story first broke I had been hired for the internship but had yet to work there. I liked to believe my principals are strong enough that even if it that wasn’t the case I would still hold the same opinion; however, I cannot know for certain.

Opinion on Encryption Backdoors and Government Surveillance:

The issue around encryption is a complicated one, especially when you have two competing values that both seem to be so American: the value and safety of our citizens, and their personal liberties and safety. At first glance, this is such a hard thing for politicians to not opt for back doors and surveillance. Any public ailment is automatically seen as their fault, and if something were to happen it would reflect poorly on them. Their method to accomplish this is through evasive surveillance programs. This is a bipartisan sentiment, and something that has gained a lot of support in the post-9/11 age of terror. By why survey so many innocent civilians? Well, “if you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about”. By both legal and ethical terms I believe this position is completely unsustainable.

The 5th amendment to the Constitution states, among other things “private property [will not] be taken for public use, without just compensation”. Increasingly, our online data is seen as an asset and treated as such. The nude leaks, was treated as stolen property. Companies pay a lot of money to Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and others just to store their data and keep it safe. In fact your data is seen as the payment for many ‘services’ (more on that in later posts) like Facebook and Twitter. That data is valuable. Now, from this frame, the government taking the data of it’s citizens for the public use of safety, could be legally defendable if there was any form of compensation, but there is and has not been. The government sniffs the wires, and gets the calls and texts from man ISP’s already, all without compensation. Now, eminent domain is a powerful thing that has allowed for many generally accepted things like highways, and other infrastructure, but I believe that even if compensation was added, ethical dilemmas still stand in the way.

The question of how much power is too much, is something that has been around for pretty much forever, and America was founded on the principle that people, and by extension governments, are corruptible. The system of checks and balances exists to attempt to stop each part of government from overreaching, but where is the warrant for each bit of personal property that the government is taking. Whether there are explicit laws written or not, this practice goes against the principal on which America was founded.

There are many implications of this power, but grabbing for it in the first place is part of what makes it unethical, as well as against the constitution. So in conclusion: should Apple build a back door to allow the government to take data from anyone: no. Same way you can’t build a tool used specifically to rob someone. Other companies should take a stand and resist the governments overreach and the balance of power should back them up.

Project 2 Reflection: Hidden Figures

The challenge for woman and minorities to break into STEM fields, as exemplified by this move was a lack of resources and a lock of proper paths to success. To start the movie, Katherine has to leave her own school to go to a school that has the proper level of math instruction that she needs. The resources are just not there in her community. In fact, for the time, she was lucky to be able to fully capitalize on her brilliant math mind. This can be shown with Mary, who had to go to court to be able to attend classes. Mary wanted to become an engineer at NASA but needed extra classes, which she could only get from an all white school. She didn’t have the resources to reach her potential, and going to court was the only way. Dorthy faced a similar lack or resources at the colored library, so she had to go to the white library to get the book she needed.

In addition to this, there was no path for Dorthy to become the first female black manager, it just wasn’t done. Mrs. Spencer constantly deflected Dorthy’s appeals to become a supervisor, until she became indispensable, same with Mary and Katherine. Katherine after all the math that she did was sent back to her original job(at first), because they made no spot for her. Mary was told that there was never a female engineer, it was unheard of.

These examples translate very well to today. The societal pressures remove the path from many, while the economic barriers stop adequate education for those who need it.

Role models are important because they show what is possible for those who don’t believe in themselves. They are important to show that barriers can be broken. As a white male, I’ve never really had a role model, but I come from a point of privilege, and have had the blessing of believing in myself because nothing in society is stopping me.

When stopping a launch is as hard as starting it

In organizations like NASA and Morton Thiokol, it is hard to pin down one single reason for failure, much for the same reason that it is hard to stop the launch of the Challenger from within them: Bureaucracy. Is there a root cause people like to point to when looking at this disaster, sure, the ring failed to do its job at the operating temperature. But let’s break down the sentiment. The ring has neither consciousness or a day job, and cannot fail to work. It was acting according to its chemical properties and the laws of physics, and that is it.

Part of what makes this event so tragic is how preventable it looks from the outside. “They KNEW the ring was suspect at low temperatures”. “They were told the PREVIOUS year!”. It’s always easier in hindsight. But when there are many reports, all funneling into one person in the structure, failure is sure to happen the same way too much pressure input to one joint will fail in a structure.

What I believe Roger Boisjoly was doing when he reviled his information to the public was shedding a light on the flawed system. Part of what he saved and kept with him while he fled to the investigators were memos showing that even though he raised all the warnings he could within the system, it still failed. I believe that it was important for that to get out, as well as the actual cause of the accident. Knowing the cause may give families closure, and the organization that allowed this failure to happen needed to be exposed to change. These two things are much more important that the company desired secrecy.

The company had every right to retaliating. They are a free company and can act in whatever legal way they want. However, driving away an engineer who was able to spot a critical failure long before anyone else is not a smart move. Worrying about your reputation is one thing, but the firing the guy who may be able to help your company save at least a little face is not smart in my book. He acted first within all the company’s parameters, and only when the company fail did he bring what he knew to light.

The fact that this ruined his career is sad, and illogical given that he is now a proven asset. But it was still the right thing to do. He was working in a system that could easily fail again, and when lives are on the line, change must be made. He tried going through official channels to stop the failure, but when the system fails you must go outside of it. The preservation of the company’s secrecy is not worth the lives that could be lost. It is hard, but ethical thing that he did, and he should be commended for it.

Tech-versity

I’m a straight white male. No one really wants to hear what I have to say on diversity. Even if I am metered and statistical, I am worried that what I say will come off as out of touch, or entitled or dumb. This fear was magnified after I read the articles for this week, and two of the three articles that claimed that the STEM wage gap was not completely explainable by social conditioning had to be prefaced by a short synapse that established the ethos/education of the writer. The third article was from Brietbart and they’re pretty shameless. So how can I sit here and write about this subject with little more than these articles as my background? But this class is all about opinions so here I go.

So to address the first part of the questions: does the gender gap need to be addressed? Yes, absolutely, 100% yes. One only needs to look at a very few examples of how products are marketed to women to see how differently society treats women. The longer you look and the more you think about it the more you realize just how deep the views of women go into the core of our culture. In my Theo class we had a reading on how porn is the basis for a lot of what we see in rape culture today. So there is no doubt in my mind that there are cultural effects in place that are causing the gap. Any number of things from the bro culture to the cultivation of computer science as a guy subject, could be a part of what we see.

For minorities, the under-representation, while also being a largely a cultural thing, I believe can be heavily linked back to privilege. There are so many different types, but to name two I believe are at play: social and economic. Skin color and economic prosperity have been linked in this country since the conception, and that is no different here. Computer Science is by necessity, a resource heavy major. So for schools struggling to keep books on the shelves, computers for their kids to code on are hardly a priority. Also, in addition, the same social circles that perpetuate privilege in other industries exist in tech, especially when no one who owns a house in the valley isn’t a millionaire. Even I got my job through a personal connection.

In terms of solutions, I believe for a long term solution, tech companies are required to do very little. Society has two tasks: remove all cultural barriers and invest in education. Firstly, all instances of people being treated  or talked to differently based on who they are should be eradicated; however, we cannot be surprised if the numbers don’t fall out exactly equal. That is always going to be a measure of preference and not ability. Second, in this country, privilege and education have always been closely linked. We need to break that. If each kid born in this country gets the same GOOD education, then diversity issues in all sorts of industries will start to balance out. This will take time, and is not the fast easy solution. But companies won’t need to expand their recruiting beyond the schools they like because minorities will be represented there as well.

To address the last bit I believe I missed, the idea of the white bias culture having a huge effect, I believe equal access to education opportunities will help change this in the long run. I believe humans form biases loosely based on their own experiences, and when you have minorities not getting the same opportunities and as a result getting non-skilled jobs or manual labor, this association becomes natural. This is the root of racism, this association. Forgetting the long tradition of advantages of one race over another and then using this association to justify opinions of races is racism. I don’t believe the tech industry is that bad. I believe the meritocracy naturally favors the privileged, and I also believe if there is a serious reinvestment in education then the best and the brightest available will be from all races. The associations will then disappear. What tech companies can do is simple: provide expertise and funding when the government won’t.