adactio / tags / technology

Tagged with “technology” (381)

  1. BBC Radio 4 - Seriously…, The Force of Google

    Google dominates internet searching. Rory Cellan-Jones asks if it is too powerful.

    Google dominates internet searching across most parts of the globe. The algorithm which produces its search results is highly secret and always changing, but is crucial in influencing the information we all obtain, the viewpoints we read, the people we find out about, and the products we buy.

    It dominates the market because it’s so effective. Rivals find it difficult to compete. But however good the algorithm, however carefully crafted to give us what Google thinks we actually want, is it really healthy for one search engine, and one company, to have so much impact?

    Rory Cellan-Jones explores Google’s uniquely powerful role at the centre of today’s information society.

    —Huffduffed by adactio

  2. BBC World Service - The Forum, Do we Need Artificial Intelligence?

    Listen in pop-out player

    Look out of the window and you won’t see many robots – but the AI revolution is here. The relentless encroachment of machine-thinking into every aspect of our lives is transforming the way we think and act. Machine-learning algorithms drive our smartphones and social media - and they are increasingly present in our homes, offices, schools and hospitals. Whether driving cars, diagnosing disease or marking essays, artificial intelligence is everywhere. But how does machine-thinking compare to human thought and what are the limitations of AI? From biased training data to impenetrable black-box algorithms, Quentin Cooper and guests explore the strengths and limitations of AI.

    To discuss whether we need AI are - Zoubin Ghahramani, professor of Information Engineering at the University of Cambridge and deputy director of the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence; Lydia Nicholas, senior researcher at the British innovation foundation Nesta; Professor Kentaro Toyama of the University of Michigan, co-founder of Microsoft Research India and author of Geek Heresy: Rescuing Social Change from the Cult of Technology.

    —Huffduffed by adactio

  3. 332: Design for the good, the bad and everything in between - Home | Spark with Nora Young | CBC Radio

    A Spark special look at how design can have an impact on our daily, messy lives.

    Designing tech for happiness and for stress. How to design your life. And, designing solutions for storing books.

    —Huffduffed by adactio

  4. Margaret Atwood Takes a Phone Call From Paul

    Margaret Atwood talks to Paul Holdengraber and it is wonderful.

    Original video:
    Downloaded by on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:31:23 GMT Available for 30 days after download

    —Huffduffed by adactio

  5. Secret Histories of Podcasting | Benjamen Walker’s Theory of Everything

    It turns out there are (at least) three ways to tell the secret history of podcasting: it is a story about technology, it is a story about a business model for audio, and it is also a story about the birth of a new art form. What’s really cool is that the whole thing is sort of a Rashomon narrative – in this special edition to mark the radiotopiaforever campaign your host attempts to tell all three versions using the same people.

    —Huffduffed by adactio

  6. Enchanting By Numbers (2015 version) | Benjamen Walker’s Theory of Everything

    We take another look at algorithms. Tim Hwang explains how Uber’s algorithms generate phantom cars and marketplace mirages. And we revisit our conversation with Christian Sandvig who, last year asked Facebook users to explain how they imagine the Edgerank algorithm works (this is the algorithm that powers Facebook’s news feed). Sandvig discovered that most of his subjects had no idea there even was an algorithm at work. Plus  James Essinger and Suw Charman-Anderson, tell us about Ada Lovelace, the woman who wrote the first computer program (or as James puts it – Algorithm)  in 1843.

    —Huffduffed by adactio

  7. Kevin Kelly on Tech: the Unabomber was Right; the Amish, too. - Open Source with Christopher Lydon

    In considering how to address the issue of theology, specifically the “third grade god,” it occurred to me to share an excerpt from William of Rubruck’s account of a religious debate he participated in between Christians, Muslims (referred to in this translation as “Saracens”), and Buddhists (referred to as “Tuins”) held in the court of Mongke Khan (referred to as “Mangu Chan”), brother and predecessor of Kublai Khan:

    So I said to the Tuin: “We believe firmly in our hearts and we confess with our mouths that God is, and that there is only one God, one in perfect unity. What do you believe?” He said : “Fools say that there is only one God, but the wise say that there are many. Are there not great lords in your country, and is not this Mangu Chan a greater lord? So it is of them, for they are different in different regions.”

    I said to him: “You choose a poor example, in which there is no comparison between man and God; according to that, every mighty man can call himself god in his own country.” And as I was about to destroy the comparison, he interrupted me, asking: “Of what nature is your God, of whom you say that there is none other?” I replied: “Our God, besides whom there is none other, is omnipotent, and therefore requires the aid of none other, while all of us require His aid. It is not thus with man. No man can do everything, and so there must be several lords in the world, for no one can do all things. So likewise He knows all things, and therefore requires no councilor, for all wisdom comes of Him. Likewise, He is the supreme good, and wants not of our goods. But we live, move, and are in Him. Such is our God, and one must not consider Him otherwise.”

    “It is not so,” he replied. “Though there is one (God) in the sky who is above all others, and of whose origin we are still ignorant, there are ten others under him, and under these latter is another lower one. On the earth they are in infinite number.” And as he wanted to spin (texere) some other yarns, I asked him of this highest god, whether he believed he was omnipotent, or whether (he believed this) of some other god. Fearing to answer, he asked: “If your God is as you say, why does he make the half of things evil?” “That is not true,” I said. ” He who makes evil is not God. All things that are, are good.”

    At this all the Tuins were astonished, and they wrote it down as false or impossible. Then he asked: “Whence then comes evil?” “You put your question badly,” I said. “You should in the first place inquire what is evil, before you ask whence it comes. But let us go back to the first question, whether you believe that any god is omnipotent; after that I will answer all you may wish to ask me.”

    He sat for a long time without replying, so that it became necessary for the secretaries who were listening on the part of the Chan to tell him to reply. Finally he answered that no god was omnipotent. With that the Saracens burst out into a loud laugh. When silence was restored, I said: “Then no one of your gods can save you from every peril, for occasions may arise in which he has no power. Furthermore, no one can serve two masters: how can you serve so many gods in heaven and earth?” The audience told him to answer, but he remained speechless. And as I wanted to explain the unity of the divine essence and the Trinity to the whole audience, the Nestorians of the country said to me that it sufficed, for they wanted to talk. I gave in to them, but when they wanted to argue with the Saracens, they [the Saracens] answered them: “We concede your religion is true, and that everything is true that is in the Gospel: so we do not want to argue any point with you.” And they confessed that in all their prayers they besought God to grant them to die as Christians die.

    There was present there an old priest of the Iugurs, who say there is one god, though they make idols; they (i.e., the Nestorians) spoke at great length with him, telling him of all things down to the coming of the Antichrist into the world [J: the coming of Christ in judgement], and by comparisons demonstrating the Trinity to him and the Saracens. They all listened without making any contradiction, but no one said: “I believe; I want to become a Christian.” When this was over, the Nestorians as well as the Saracens sang with a loud voice; while the Tuins kept silence, and after that they all [J: everyone] drank deeply.

    I hope my saying this isn’t too mean or too presumptive, I have not read the man’s book, but as presented in the show, many of Mr. Kelly’s ideas should have the limits of their use stated clearly, or else the conclusions reached begin sounding silly.

    I hope I don’t in turn sound too silly explaining myself, although I know my opening sentence will sound very new age: The universe can be understood to be a seamless whole, from beginning to end, in every dimension including time. I am not saying reality is in some abstract way uniform, all I intend to say is one can see that seeing something as a distinct, whether it be what would be understood of as an object or a concept, could be seen as ‘dividing’ it from the rest of reality. (I use the word “can” and “could” with intention, not doubt.)

    A different way of illustrating the same idea is to use the concept of grouping basic units. Category is just division from a different perspective, and I use the words interchangeably. The reason I tend use the explanation I use, even though this bottom-up approach seems more intuitive to the people I talk to is because there is a limit on how inclusive a category can be, but one can always further divide. Greek atomists contended that atoms were indivisible, their critics answered you could divide into left and right. Atomists responded by claiming atoms were dimensionless, their critics questioned how something with dimensions could be made of something without.

    The divisions we make are usually based on their usefulness. We do not have a word for the left half of a potato plus whatever is an inch above it* because, honestly, when would we would ever have the opportunity to use it? But it’s, and here is where I connect this back to the original topic, is important to recognize that that is all that is happening, it’s important not to attribute more qualities to concepts than they actually have. And my feeling is this is what is being done.

    We can refer to a more abstract continuum of organic life, information, and artificial material technology as technology or the technium, we can refer to the contents of our genetic code as information, it can at times be useful to do so. But if what is being said is “this is what technology is,” “this is what information is,” as if there is a correct scope to one’s category, then there is a misunderstanding of the relationship between signifier and signified; no category is necessary, only useful. The technium isn’t a whole so much as it has been made a whole (this is true of every concept, it isn’t a slight against Mr. Kelly).

    I do think there is use in the idea that technologies have bias, both specific technologies and a larger conception of technology no matter the scope of the definition of that conception, but is it right to call it inherent in the technology itself, instead of our relationship with it? I will say it’s useful as a kind of shorthand to say technology has an agenda, but I can’t agree if what is being said is literally true. (I also will say I disagree with those who say “the only goal of life, in evolutionary terms, is reproduction.” The word “goal” in this case seems to be a metaphor that is forgotten to be a metaphor.)

    I will look into this more, I know I have been dismissive without even hearing the argument out. I am always looking to learn to utilize new perspectives, and this one could prove to be useful if I actually look into it and try to understand in detail.

    *Were we to, it would be called a portato.

    —Huffduffed by adactio

  8. Non Breaking Space Show #94: Q&A Panel from the World Movie Premiere of “What Comes Next is the Future” - Goodstuff FM

    For this episode, we have the Q&A panel after the world premiere of Matt Griffin’s documentary, "What Comes Next is the Future."

    The premiere took place at Code & Supply’s Abstraction conference in Pittsburgh, PA on August 18th.

    —Huffduffed by adactio

  9. 32 Dots Per Spaceship (Or, the Videogame That Changed Tech History)

    A look back at the origins of Spacewar!, the first original video game and one of the most influential pieces of software ever written. With special guests Stewart Brand and Spacewar! creator Steve Russell.

    Original video:
    Downloaded by on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 21:51:54 GMT Available for 30 days after download

    —Huffduffed by adactio

  10. Virtual Memories Show #182: Virginia Heffernan

    Cultural critic Virginia Heffernan joins the show to talk about her new book, Magic and Loss: The Internet as Art (Simon & Schuster)! We talk about what’s behind the screen, why the internet is bigger than the Industrial Revolution, her first experience online in 1979, what it’s like to be in a piece of performance art with half the world’s population, her crushing defeat at meeting Joan Didion, why she’s nostalgic for landline phones, the motive motive of Pokemon Go, asking The New York Times to host a shred-guitar competition, and why there’s value in Reading The Comments!

    —Huffduffed by adactio

Page 1 of 39Older