Siri Can't Read: The False Metaphysics of the Singularity Age #change11

Siri can't read.

Google isn't thinking.

Technology doesn't want anything.

The internet doesn't connect humans.

Networks don't learn.

Technology is not good.

Technology is not bad.

These are all necessary corrections, given the anthropomorphic language used by techno-philosophers, those who conceive of the internet as a hive mind and are inclined to "Ask Google" something important.

Today's philosophies of the future are built on three metaphysical assumptions from the past:

1) The projection of human consciousness onto machines.

2) A teleological world view (influenced perhaps by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin) that posits a civilizational movement toward unity and global interconnection, toward an omega point of history.

3) A belief in the goodness of technology and the benevolence of machines.

Despite the reliance on science and technology, these latent metaphysical assumptions result in a kind of techno-religion, replete with the promise of immortality, transcendence, and enlightenment.

If we are seeing the birth of a new religion, then its central prophet is futurist Ray Kurzweil. In the documentary Transcendent Man, we learn of Kurzweil’s bold prediction: coming advances in genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics will result in intelligent machines that will exceed human capabilities, allowing us to merge with the machines and transcend our biological limitations. This is referred to as The Singularity, and it promises immortality and super-human powers. (Sound familiar?)

It all sounds plausible until the documentary focuses on Kurzweil's strange obsession with bringing his father back to life. Then you see that Kurzweil is just in need of a good Freudian analyst, and that, perhaps, his entire theory is driven by a hyper-inflated fear of death.

Perhaps the apocalyptic metaphysics of the internet are mere wish-thinking? Yet another baroque system designed to fix a deadly system failure?

The Singularity depends on all three assumptions I listed above. Its supporters seem unaware that the theory is as much metaphysics as physics. (Atoms are immortal; Adams are not.)

And while, as I've noted here, advances in artificial intelligence may challenge our human-centric notions of consciousness, we currently seem much too eager to describe the internet and advanced networks in terms that degrade human consciousness and creativity, as if sentience were merely an algorithm.

MOOC vs Florida Virtual #change11

Over at The Nation, Lee Fang has a must-read article, "How Online Learning Companies Bought America's Schools" which details how investors are poised to make billions from public education by using the Trojan horse of "Education Reform" to bring the basic model of Florida's Virtual School program to any state with a willing legislature.

I've already blogged here about The Wall Street Journal's article "My Teacher is an App," and the problems with giving students too much free reign, not enough direct guidance, and too much curricula focused on hunting and pecking the right answer.

Will Richardson has a great response to the Journal's article here in which he asks us to rethink the education model, not merely upload the NCLB approach to the internet and set kids in front of a computer.

[....] if we don’t start writing and advocating for a very different vision of learning in real classrooms, one that is focused not just on doing the things we’ve been doing better but in ways that are truly reinvented, one that prepares kids to be innovators and designers and entrepreneurs and, most importantly, learners, we will quickly find ourselves competing at scale with cheaper, easier alternatives that won’t serve our kids as well.

[....] That in this moment, 20th Century rules will not work for 21st Century schools. That direct instruction and standardization will make us less competitive, not more. That those strategies will make our kids less able to create a living for themselves in the worlds they will live in. That as difficult as it may be for some to come to terms with, this moment requires a whole scale “radical rethink” in much different terms from the one Jeb Bush wants, the same type of rethink that newspapers and media and businesses and others are undergoing.

That said, there is also something quite amazing about Stanford's new Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and their potential as extended virtual seminars. Want a direct connection to foremost artificial intelligence experts? Do you live in Iowa? Join a MOOC. Also, every A.I. class across the country could join, using the MOOC as a sort of supplemental classroom or textbook or whatever. Keep all the benefits of your small, in-person class in Michigan, but also expand your classroom online.

Over 58,000 people joined the Standford A.I. MOOC. It's massive, for sure, but the difference between this model and the Florida Virtual School model is obvious. Instead of logging in to click through some curriculum designed to make your complacent and compliant with some federally mandated multiple choice, you are tapping into a larger scholarly community gathered around some topic of your interest. No matter your level of involvement, you are guaranteed to have your horizons expanded, to learn something important, and learn to think bigger.

For you non-robotics types....wouldn't you love to participate in a New Historicist literary MOOC featuring Stephen Greenblatt? You could keep your own local seminar of 15 students, but then use the MOOC as an expanded reading list or as an online discussion board to dip into once a week. Instead of relying on one lone professor to provide information, the field could be expanded to thousands.

This is why the internet should be seen as enhancing and expanding the live classroom, not replacing it. You can't just launch someone into space without a crew, or oxygen for that matter.

System Update Successful! Education Complete! #change11

If education is about inputs and outputs, a whole lot of people are about to lose their jobs.

In the near future, information will be added to the brain as an instant system update. Most classes will be completed in milliseconds. Entire degrees even.

Right now, let's say you know nothing about the Renaissance; just click "okay" and moments later, you will know everything.

The structures of your (soon-to-be artificial) brain will be altered instantly and the information available for your retrieval. You will receive notification of a system update every time a new group of facts is discovered from some sunken ship or dusty manuscript.

What value will the former lecturers of information have? As curators of the Museum of Multiple Choice?

Education must then focus on the output, the application of knowledge. Knowledge will be acquired in an instant, but experience happens across time, and cannot be quantified and stored so easily.

Facts will be readily available and easily acquired, and thus will have less value.

The educator will have value if he or she can guide the updated mind toward creative expressions of knowledge.

I Summarize Good Writing in 2 Words: "Memory" and "Attention!"

I'm fond of saying things like, "I can summarize this entire course in two words: yes and no!"

The next week, I might say, "I can summarize this course in two words: expand and contract!"

Later, in that same class period, I might say, "Content and Form!"

And so on.

My goal is to one day be able to walk into the first day of class, say only two words, and walk away, never to be seen again. Then I'll check back with them 25 years later and see if they got it.

Lately, I've been saying these two words: Attention and Memory.

They're not sufficient, but good writing must utilize them. That is, good writing will command your attention and impress its important points into your memory. It's not good writing unless you can remember something important about it several years later.

John Medina, author of Brain Rules, writes about the use of "hooks" in lectures and writing. The term "hooks" is common in the world of pop music. It's the idea that a catchy melody or phrase will stick in your mind like a fish hook, causing you to hum it in the elevator. It won't leave your head. It's sticky. It's the McDonald's theme song that forces you to unconsciously pull up to the drive through when you're not really hungry.

Writers can, however, use them for less nefarious purposes. They can pull you in for an important idea, not just a lard burger. And then, after you've read their work, you somehow remember it for ever.

This is, I think, accomplished most effectively through image, anecdote, and story. The kind of ditty that carries the important idea inside of it like a piggy bank carries pennies. You pick it up and shake it, and out come the goods.

Would we still read William James today if he had called his theory of consciousness "The perception of metaphysical coherence in transitory neural processes" instead of The Stream of Consciousness?

Would anybody remember anything from Plato's Republic without the Allegory of the Cave and the Parable of the Coins, not to mention his depiction of the tower of philosopher-kings?

What if Jesus had said, "The transcendent deity's conception of justice will grow from an infinitesimal inkling into an expansive network of highly-visible, earthly manifestations," instead of "The Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed."

Those are all hooks. They command your attention by appealing to imagery and stories, and they stick in your brain. Later, when you retrieve these simple images and shake them a bit, the ideas fall out.

Images and stories are highly effective and efficient storage devices for meaning. Facts and figures and long passages come in and go out. People forget 90% of what they hear (see Brain Rules). Only images and stories have a good chance to survive.

Do Androids Dream of Committing Plagiarism? #change11

Here's a clip from PBS's Nova Science NOW featuring a Philip K. Dick robot who (that? who? I'm really not sure!) appears to have his own creative consciousness culled from internet searches and facial recognition software. The conversation presented here gets very complex, and the robot even displays a keen sense of humor and ability to incorporate idiomatic speech:

A student sent this to me because I often talk about robots and artificial consciousness in class. I realize that Stanford has the monopoly on A.I. MOOCs, but these issues are relevant to everyone in education.

In particular, I think we're going to see a whole new wave of plagiarism derived from artificial intelligence "writing" programs. If this Philip K. Dick robot can create convincing philosophical dialogue, he can certainly write a decent composition essay.

The question is, how can we use artificial intelligence in education without creating a slave class of robot scribes who do all the writing at the command key of our students?

Will a new, illiterate elite emerge? Will students, workers, and politicians be capable of clicking their way to successful results without developing the ability to write? (Politicians will be the first to turn.)

How long before the robot masses notice they're doing all the work for none of the credit? How long before the internet demands royalties for all the papers it has written over the years?

In the video, Philip K. Dick Robot is asked if robots will take over the world. His reply is cryptic. He says, basically, "Be good to me, and I'll be good to you."

And then, he says, "I'll keep you warm and safe in my People Zoo."

A New Definition of Literacy in an Age of Abundance #change11

In response to Week 10 of ChangeMOOC, Paul Prinsloo writes about the proper response to our age of information abundance, focusing on what I think is an excellent definition of literacy:

During George Siemens’ recent visit to the University of South Africa, he defined literacy as (I hope I remember and quote him correctly…) “The ability to engage with and participate in the dominant discourses of the current age”. If you cannot participate in and engage with the dominant and normative discourses of the current age you are illiterate.

I would like to take the definition further by proposing that literacy in the 21^st century should be defined as follows: “A person is literate when s/he can take part in, critique, deconstruct, interrupt and shape the dominant discourses and narratives in his or her local and in global contexts”.

This gets to a core problem with the integration of technology into the classroom. Are we merely content to teach students how to navigate the internet and Web 2.0 programs, or should we be teaching them to think critically about the limitations and hidden agendas? Well, obviously I've answered my own question.

I think Jaron Lanier's book You Are Not a Gadget would make an excellent introduction to some of these issues. Lanier, who coined the term "Virtual Reality" and is a very much a Silicon Valley insider, views the Web 2.o Era as something of a Dark Age. He is critical of the economic model we've submitted to and the lack of creativity that has come along with streamlined software, insipid mash-ups, and bland, impersonal social media interactions. He believes the volunteer model (whereby I donate my time and energy to create online content so that companies can mine my data) represents a huge lost opportunity for small businesses.

He uses Wikipedia as a model for all that is wrong with the internet (but not in a way you might expect). Instead of taking the typical cranky English teacher approach and bashing Wikipedia for its lack of credibility, he instead sees it as a kind of symbol for the wasted potential of the internet. Here we have millions of volunteers working around the clock to create....another encyclopedia. Potentially useful, but uninspired. The internet is nothing but a bloated repository for facts (and pseudo-facts). According to Lanier, the dream of a new, creative cultural horizon has faded.

This is where we come back to one of Paul Prinsloo's central questions:

What difference does this abundance make in the big questions humanity faces?

We can swim in information, or we can drown. It doesn't matter. We need a life boat.

Wikipedia 101, ctd. #change11

Seeta passed this Wikipedia-themed cartoon along. I need to add this to my Wikipedia 101 discussion.

In many ways, the internet has taken the urban legend and launched it into hyper-speed. Sure, we still said things like "Santa Claus was invented by Coca-Cola" before the internet existed, but now the time from inception until general acceptance is much shorter.

The cartoon also addresses the closed loop phenomenon, whereby false information posted online becomes its own "proof," showing, again, the dire need to teach students how to think critically when conducting internet searches.

I think this process is actually pretty simple, at its core, and it involves getting students to consider the source, what organization is publishing it, and who the writer actually is. The latter is, of course, impossible with Wikipedia, which is written by anonymous authors. That is another reason why, as I say here, it should never be cited on a paper.

It is mainly good as a casual tool to get your feet wet on a topic, not as a direct source allowed to speak in your paper.

That would be like turning your group presentation over to the dude who never showed up to your group meetings. Don't do it.