Kevin Talbot, ed. - STRICTLY M O B I L E, How
the Largest Man-Made Platform in History Is Changing Our World – COPY R I G H T © 2 0 1 6 K E V I N
TALBOT
This book is a collection of twelve studies (the authors
apart from Kevin Talbot are Gary Clayton, John Couch, Jennifer Haroon, Aditya
Khurjekar, Manish Kothari, Ezra Kucharz, Bill Mark, Bertrand Nepveu, Bob
Richards, Paola Santana, Eric Topol,) on
twelve important developments in the field of mobile technology written by
twelve people who all play a key role in the fields they each cover. The style
is simple and there is no over technical or scientific terms and language. It
is written for the wide public, a public that is educated in computing but not
more than necessary to do just a little bit more than surviving in this
connected world.
A fundamental idea is given right from the start: mobile
technology is transforming the world because of four factors: 1- world wide
Internet usage, 2- global smart phone adoption, 3- the Internet of Things, and 4-
the millennial generation who are mobile natives, in other words they were
connected to a mobile phone from their very birth onward and maybe during the
pregnancy of their mothers. We are becoming unable to survive in our society
without a smart phone or at least a cell phone.
The question of Artificial Intelligence is crucial. Five
domains of research and progress can be listed: 1- visual perception, 2- natural
language understanding, 3- planning, 4- machine learning and 5- knowledge
representation. When the five subfields of AI are put together we have
robotics. Yet we need to cope with the field of emotions and understanding and
interacting with people, and even so it
is not enough and the system has to become autonomous and thus has to be able
to cope with moral dilemmas That will have to be programmed in the machine. And
yet that will not be human because a person does not react the way he/she is
programmed but from what he/she has integrated through his/her specific
experience in life from even before birth, and according to many circumstantial
elements that a machine cannot even know about, let alone have programmed in
its software: things like the mood of the person, the light around him/her, the
weather, the heat and air conditioning, the general atmosphere around him/her,
etc. A machine can learn but a machine will never learn like a human being who
started hearing in the 24th week of his/her mother’s pregnancy. To
paraphrase Shakespeare: “a machine does not bleed when you prick it, etc…” This
author goes as far as saying that “a person reacts on instinct.” This is not
human but animal. Humans have spent years and years to learn things that are
not instincts but integrated knowledge. All houses have roofs not because it is
the human instinct that dictates it but because the house and its roof are
there to protect man against the weather. They are the extension n of our skin
and clothing as Marshall McLuhan would say. That is not instinct, nothing to do
with bees and their beehives, and animals do not wear clothing.
When dealing with medicine, it is quite clear that mobile
technology will be essential, if it is not already, particularly connected
health machines and wearable machines connected to services and people who can
follow the patient and help if there is a problem or if an adjustment in the
treatment is necessary. Yes big hospital are doomed and the main resistance
will come from doctors (who will lose a lot of privileged positions) and
regulatory bodies who will try to impose costly traditions because they are
traditions, in spite of the risk assessment policy of WHO. Some of the new
“micro-or-nano-machines” envisaged here are interesting though they all run into
one problem. The following are suggested: digestable sensors (a chip in a
digestable pill); sensors embeddable in the blood stream; and biodegradable
chips directed glued on the skin. The real question is what will these
connected devices be connected to and who will have access to this central
processing unit (the new connected CPU à la 1984). This question is not even
asked.
As for education, the digital natives all men can be, and
some are such from nearly-birth, are already confronted and will be a lot more
soon to mobile technology within the learning process but the author does not
seem to be aware of some learning styles and strategies when he only lists “visual,
kinetic and combination of different modes.” If it were that simple! Most
people are visual dominant but not limited to the visual competence and some
are not visual dominant but audio dominant. The kinetic element has to be
widened to the tactile, gustative and touch elements, what makes a human
experience uniquely human and any human experience uniquely personal. This has
to do with a myriad of psychological en experiential elements that are
absolutely unique for each learner. Standard school systems have tried to treat
all students alike – in the name of equality – and that was a mistake but here
that mistake is not corrected. MOOC are nothing but standard classes or
lectures, at times visually enhanced (and we do not need to produce a MOOC to
use visual elements in class, broadcast on the Internet.. The medium is
different, the product is the same.
We have to shift from “KNOWLEDGE – TRANSMITTED TO –
LEARNER” to a completely different procedure or algorithm like
“LEARNER/SEARCHER – SEARCHES & ASSIMILATES – KNOWLEDGE HE/SHE FINDS BY HIS/HER
OWN MEANS.” And we have to add this supplementary element that all the
knowledge found by the learner has to be contradictory, to contain opposed
points of view. And even so learners need, require and demand a regular human
contact either by telephone, or by Skype or one-on-one for discussions,
confrontations, suggestions, incitation to go beyond. Knowledge is a construct
and we have to get out of the prefabricated standard scholastic knowledge to
get to a constructive and constructing learner who owes all his knowledge to
his own efforts and searches and even to the struggle to have the necessary
confrontation sessions with other learners and with specialists of what he is
looking for and with teachers who are not giving knowledge any more but only
indicating a road that might be more productive or interesting in that
constructive construction.
When the chapter comes to assessment it is a plain
futuristic illusion. Of course we have to use machines for the assessment that
has to be digital, interactive, tailored to the needs of the student and
integrating feedback in real time. But that is good only for factual knowledge,
Multiple Choice Questionnaire. But that cannot be the case of an essay that is
constructive, creative and contradictory. How can a machine measure the
originality of the architecture of such an essay and the brilliance of its
style? Maybe one day when humans are robots and machines humans. The machines
though can easily point out plagiarism and other evils of essay writing,
including the use of essay-writing software. That’s why such essays should be
contradictory presentations of three or four students in the shape of systematic
debates with an assessing jury that could be composed of both teachers and
learners. And that can or even has to start as soon as possible after birth, or
at least after the child can speak, which is around three years old.
I have little to say about self-driving cars that will be
very useful for blind people, elderly people, people who cannot drive and
people who use chauffeurs all the time, uberized or not. But once again these
cars will be connected and some central unit will build their “experience.” Who
will be behind this central processing unit and what kind of security must we
think of? It will be very useful to the police and other security agencies,
private or public.
Manipulation is banal with modern robots and even better
with tomorrow’s robots. Sensors have become versatile and they will be useful
provided they bring “delight” to the users and they respect or enhance the
users’ sense of dignity (people who cannot do something accept to do it with
the help of a machine they control better than with the help of another human
they do not control).
Autonomous transportation of merchandise with drones is
purely commercial – or military – but it is so far limited by the weight drones
can carry and the distance they can fly autonomously. We are far from personal
drones for individuals, and frankly if that happens one day and everyone goes
to the baker’s, to the post office and all other convenience stores or services
by drone it might be hectic at certain times in the day and no more walking at
all: good morning obesity and heart diseases.
The lunar frontier is being privatized. Good if you want
but the project is greedy: only exploit resources on the moon that do not exist
on the earth or are rare or difficult to reach. But the main question that is
not even considered is that of the occupation of the soil and the property of
the resources extracted from that soil. What would be the criteria for anyone
having the right to do this or that here or there: first arrival, military
means, buying a section of the moon (from whom?), the size of each claim, etc?
Are we going to transform the moon into some western territory in cosmic
dimension? Is the invasion of a territory and claiming that it is mine
acceptable for me or any other person? And what do we do with previous
occupants, if any? Exterminate them like American Indians and First Nations?
The front lines are numerous and those considered here are
only a few. The hardware is not really a problem today, and certainly not
tomorrow. The software is not discussed really and that is bothering because
each producer has his own software and they are not compatible. Are we going to
go on reproducing the absence of open standards that can enable all users to
access all resources without having to buy a special machine and a special
software for each one of them? But what is more important is the content, and
“content is king,” that is going to circulate on these mobile highways. Sure
enough perishable content and commoditized content are not interesting. Content
has to be unique and durable or perennial and of sufficient quality to stand
out if it pretends to be professional or creative. That is to say it has to be
sustainable: it must produce its own audience (due to the quality of its
content); it must produce the means to go on with its own work and broadcasting
(that means money: advertising or premium subscriptions, etc); and what is even
more important it must produce the desire for more in the audience targeted and
reached. The sustainability of sports events cannot be the same as the
sustainability of opera because the audiences are not the same but both
contents have to be sustainable with their audience if they want to simply
survive and go on existing. That question is not considered in enough depth in
the chapter concerned.
Mobile payments is fictitious up to the moment when the
author of the chapter finally suggests an identification of the user of the
mobile phone that is absolutely sure like his/her fingerprint, since smart
phones have tactile screens, but the author only suggests this at the end after
several pages comparing the security of credit cards and smart phones to the
advantage of the latter, though the identification of the user is a number
(card or phone) and a pin code with or without then some kind of back control
to the user who has to get a special code on the telephone (but the person
behind the telephone is not necessarily the real owner). Then the author
suggests “blockchain” as a security measure but for the banks and the merchants,
not for the customer. All these securities are based on automated procedures
and apparently the only security for the customer is to tie the smart phone to
his left or right hand with an un-pickable handcuff and a chain in non-cuttable
metal.
Virtual Reality is a gadget to make ourselves believe we
are in a real conference whereas it is only a video conference, in a real
class, whereas it is only a MOOC, or in a real business meeting whereas it is
only some Skype multi-connection. Maybe simply make you believe you are on Fifth Avenue though
you have never been in New York:
a VR satellite image by Google, in a way. We are far from anything there,
except if we are speaking of games and entertainment: a VR-DVD for an opera at
the MET, why not?
As for Love, the subject has been dealt with by so many
filmmakers that it is funny to oppose artificial intelligence to companionship.
We all have difficulty being understood everyday by people who know us, at
times quite well, because out words and intonations are our own and other
people do not acknowledge them. Imagine a robot then who will have to become an
image of the user to understand and use the same words and intonations with the
same meaning, and also the same functional constructions, etc. But then where
will companionship be if the robot is an image of the user? Narcissistic
companionship. And ethical dilemma and choices, strategic questions and life or
death decisions cannot be considered within a narcissistic relation, but within
a contradictive situation. But the contradiction I expect if we are discussing
abortion is not at all the same as if we were discussing the wall along the
border or Mexico
or Brexit. Will that robot be able to be as many advisors as I need according
to my needs at this or that time? A robot-orchestra for sure. But that is not
feasible. If we speak of companion for a cancer patient in terminal phase, that
sounds easier, but a companion who can be a personal assistant, a friend and
confidant, and a small-talk companion to an advanced researcher in several
fields of competence like ancient languages, anthropology, modern literature
and baroque, classical or modern music, it might be slightly more complicated.
Just delve into the book and keep your imagination wide
open because too often technical people seem to lose their creative imagination
that would tell them they are just forgetting the fundamental fact that nothing
black is black all the time and everywhere. And there are so many shades of
grey!
Dr
Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 1:17 AM