Imagine being able to pick up an ordinary banana and use it as a phone. That’s part of the vision of ‘invoked computing’, which is being developed by Japanese researchers. A lot of the computers in our lives are camouflaged – smartphones are more like computers than phones, after all – but invoked computing would mean that computers would be everywhere and nowhere at the same time.
The idea is that in the future, computer systems could monitor an entire environment, watching your movements. Whenever you wanted to interact with a computer, you would just need to make a gesture. For example, if you picked up a banana and held one end to your ear and the other to your mouth, the computer would guess that you wanted to use the phone. It would then use a fancy speaker system to direct the sound, so you would even hear the phone call as though it were coming from the banana.
Sometimes you might find yourself needing a bit more computing power, though, right? Not to worry. You can make yourself a laptop if you just find an old pizza box. Lift the lid and the system will project the video and sound straight on to the box.
At the moment the banana phone and pizza box laptop are the only ways that you can use invoked computing in the researchers’ system, but they hope to expand it so that you can use other objects. Then, rather than having to learn how to use your computers, your computers will have to learn how you would like to use them. And when you are finished using your phone, you could eat it.
Computer Science isn’t just about using language, sometimes it’s about losing it. Sometimes people want to send messages so no one even knows they exist and a great place to lose language is inside a conversation.
Cryptography is the science of making messages unreadable. Spymasters have used it for a thousand years or more. Now it’s a part of everyday life. It’s used by the banks every time you use a cash point and by online shops when you buy something over the Internet. It’s used by businesses that don’t want their industrial secrets revealed and by celebrities who want to be sure that tabloid hackers can’t read their texts.
Cryptography stops messages being read, but sometimes just knowing that people are having a conversation can reveal more than they want even if you don’t know what was said. Knowing a football star is exchanging hundreds of texts with his team mate’s girlfriend suggests something is going on, for example. Similarly, CIA chief David Petraeus whose downfall made international news, might have kept his secret and his job if the emails from his lover had been hidden. David Bowie kept his 2013 comeback single ‘Where are we now?’ a surprise until the moment it was released. It might not have made him the front page news it did if a music journalist had just tracked who had been talking to who amongst the musicians involved in the months before.
That’s where steganography comes in – the science of hiding messages so no one even knows they exist. Invisible ink is one form of steganography used, for example, by the French resistance in World War II. More bizarre forms have been used over the years though – an Ancient Greek slave had a message tattooed on his shaven head warning of Persian invasion plans. Once his hair had grown back he delivered it with no one on the way the wiser.
Digital communication opens up new ways to hide messages. Computers store information using a code of 0s and 1s: bits. Steganography is then about finding places to hide those bits. A team of Polish researchers led by Wojciech Mazurczyk have now found a way to hide them in a Skype conversation.
When you use Skype to make a phone call, the program converts the sounds you make to a long series of bits. They are sent over the Internet and converted back to sound at the other end. At the same time more sounds as bits stream back from the person you are talking to. Data transmitted over the Internet isn’t sent all in one go, though. It’s broken into packets: a bit like taking your conversation and tweeting it one line at a time.
Why? Imagine you run a crack team of commandos who have to reach a target in enemy territory to blow it up – a stately home where all the enemy’s Generals are having a party perhaps. If all the commandos travel together in one army truck and something goes wrong along the way probably no one will make it – a disaster. If on the other hand they each travel separately, rendezvousing once there, the mission is much more likely to be successful. If a few are killed on the way it doesn’t matter as the rest can still complete the mission.
The same applies to a Skype call. Each packet contains a little bit of the full conversation and each makes its own way to the destination across the Internet. On arriving there, they reform into the full message. To allow this to happen, each packet includes some extra data that says, for example, what conversation it is part of, how big it is and also where it fits in the sequence. If some don’t make it then the rest of the conversation can still be put back together without them. As long as too much isn’t missing, no one will notice.
Skype does something special with its packets. The size of the packets changes depending on how much data needs to be transmitted. If the person is talking each packet carries a lot of information. If the person is listening then what is being transmitted is mainly silence. Skype then sends shorter packets. The Polish team realised they could exploit this for steganography. Their program, SkyDe, intercepts Skype packets looking for short ones. Any found are replaced with packets holding the data from the covert message. At the destination another copy of SkyDe intercepts them and extracts the hidden message and passes it on to the intended recipient. As far as Skype is concerned some packets just never arrive.
There are several properties that matter for a good steganographic technique. One is its bandwidth: how much data can be sent using the method. Because Skype calls contain a lot of silence SkyDe has a high bandwidth: there are lots of opportunities to hide messages. A second important property is obviously undetectability. The Polish team’s experiments have shown that SkyDe messages are very hard to detect. As only packets that contain silence are used and so lost, the people having the conversation won’t notice and the Skype receiver itself can’t easily tell because what is happening is no different to a typical unreliable network. Packets go missing all the time. Because both the Skype data and the hidden messages are encrypted, someone observing the packets travelling over the network won’t see a difference – they are all just random patterns of bits. Skype calls are now common so there are also lots of natural opportunities for sending messages this way – no one is going to get suspicious that lots of calls are suddenly being made.
All in all SkyDe provides an elegant new form of steganography. Invisible ink is so last century (and tattooing messages on your head so very last millennium). Now the sound of silence is all you need to have a hidden conversation.
Where does a naked mole-rat wear its computing gadgetry? Under its skin….
Naked mole-rats are fascinating creatures. They are highly social, living in colonies. They spend their lives permanently underground in burrows, and that’s why they have no fur just whiskers. They don’t need it. Living underground means they are difficult to study. Normally researchers simply watch animals to study their behaviour, but that’s not possible for naked mole-rats.
To allow them to be observed, one colony of 28 animals, called Colony Omega, went digital. They all have an implant under their skin. These tags are just smaller versions of ones used by vets to tag pets. Sensors around their burrow detect when the tags are close. This means the naked mole-rats can be watched in real-time as they move around the burrow. It’s allowing the biologists to study patterns in their behaviour such as how different animals take on different roles in the colony.
Interactive rat art
Julie Freeman, an artist and computer scientist at QMUL, used the same data in a different way. She leads a team creating interactive art based on the naked mole-rat data. ‘A Selfless Society‘, for example, is an abstract animation that changes as a result of the live data from the colony. The sculpture ‘This is Nature Now‘ also represents the live data from the colony but using soft robotic techniques (see page 13 of the magazine linked below). It moves based on the movements of the naked mole-rats. We often experience nature through technology, watching it on screens rather than in real-life. ‘This is Nature Now’ explores how physical, non-living objects can convey a sense of life.
Colony Omega also has its own gallery of portrait photos, taken by Lorna Ellen Faulkes. The eyes of the naked mole-rats are blocked out (to protect their identity!) The idea is to make people think about data privacy. Technology raises big issues over our own privacy. We now give away vasts amount of personal information without realising. What about the data privacy of animals?
This may seem silly, but is a very real problem. Tourists posting images of endangered animals and plants on social media from safaris has caused problems. It has led poachers to the animals and plants photographed, putting them in serious danger. The problem arises because modern digital cameras log the place a photo is taken, and this ‘metadata’ is included with the photograph posted for anyone to see who knows where to look.
So far almost all computer languages have been written in English, but that doesn’t need to be the case. Computers don’t care. Computer scientist Ramsey Nasser developed the first programming language that uses Arabic script. His computer language is called قلب. In English, it’s pronounced “Qalb”, after the Arabic word for heart. As long as a computer understands what to do with the instructions it’s given, they can be in any form, from numbers to letters to images.
The escape character is a rather small and humble thing, often ignored, easily misunderstood but vital in programming languages. It is used simply to say symbols that follow should be treated differently. The n in \n is no longer just an n but a newline character, for example. It is the escape character \ that makes the change. The escape character has a long history dating back to at least Ancient Egypt and probably earlier.
The Ancient Egyptians famously used a language of pictures to write:hieroglyphs. How to read the language was lost for thousands of years, and it proved to be fiendishly difficult to decipher. The key to doing this turned out to be the Rosetta Stone, discovered when Napoleon invaded Egypt. It contained the same text in three different languages: the Hieroglyphic script, Greek and also an Egyptian script called Demotic.
A whole series of scholars ultimately contributed, but the final decipherment was done by Jean-François Champollion. Part of the difficulty in decipherment, even with a Greek translation of the Rosetta Stone text available, was because it wasn’t, as commonly thought, just a language where symbolic pictures represented words (a picture of the sun, meaning sun, for example). Instead, it combined several different systems of writing but using the same symbols. Those symbols could be read in different ways. The first way was as alphabetic letters that stood for consonants (like b, d and p in our alphabet). Words could be spelled out in this alphabet. The second was phonetically where symbols could stand for groups of such sounds. Finally, the picture could stand not for a sound but for a meaning. A picture of a duck could mean a particular sound or it could mean a duck!
Part of the reason it took so long to decipher the language was that it was assumed that all the symbols were pictures of the things they represented. It was only when eventually scholars started to treat some as though they represented sounds that progress was made. Even more progress was made when it was realised the same symbol meant different things and might be read in a different way, even in the same phrase.
However, if the same symbol meant different things in different places of a passage, how on earth could even Egyptian readers tell? How might you indicate a particular group of characters had a special meaning?
One way the Egyptians used specifically for names is called a cartouche: they enclosed the sequence of symbols that represented a name in an oval-like box, like the one shown for Cleopatra. This was one of the first keys to unlocking the language as the name of pharaoh Ptolemy appeared several times in the Greek of the Rosetta Stone. Once someone had the idea that the cartouches might be names, the symbols used to spell out Ptolemy a letter at a time could be guessed at.
Putting things in boxes works for a pictorial language, but it isn’t so convenient as a more general way of indicating different uses of particular symbols or sequences of them. The Ancient Egyptians therefore had a much simpler way too. The normal reading of a symbol was as a sound. A symbol that was to be treated as a picture of the word it represented was followed by a line (so despite all the assumptions of the translators and the general perception of them, a hieroglyph as picture is treated as the exception not the norm!)
For example, the hieroglyph that is a picture of the Egyptian eagle stands for a single consonant sound, aleph. We would pronounce it ‘ah’ and it can be seen in the cartouche for Cleopatra that sounds out her name. However, add the line after the picture of the eagle (as shown) and it just means what it looks like: the Egyptian eagle.
Cartouches actually included the line at the end too indicating in itself their special meaning, as can be seen on the Cleopatra cartouche above
The Egyptian line hieroglyph is what we would now call an escape character: its purpose is to say that the symbol it is paired with is not treated normally, but in a special way.
Computer Scientists use escape characters in a variety of ways in programming languages as well as in scripting languages like HTML. Different languages use a different symbol as the escape character, though \ is popular (and very reminiscent of the Egyptian line!). One place escapes are used is to represent special characters in strings (sequences of characters like words or sentences) so they can be manipulated or printed. If I want my program to print a word like “not” then I must pass an appropriate string to the print command. I just put the three characters in quotation marks to show I mean the characters n then o then t. Simple.
However, the string “\no\t” does not similarly mean five characters \, n, o, \ and t. It still represents three characters, but this time \n, o and \t. \ is an escape character saying that the n and the t symbols that follow it are not really representing the n or t characters but instead stand for a newline (\n : which jumps to the next line) and a tab character (\t : which adds some space). “\no\t” therefore means newline o tab.
This begs the question what if you actually want to print a \ character! If you try to use it as it is, it just turns what comes after it into something else and disappears. The solution is simple. You escape it by preceding it with a \. \\ means a single \ character! So “n\\t” means n followed by an actual \ character followed by a t. The normal meaning of \ is to escape what follows. Its special meaning when it is escaped is just to be a normal character! Other characters’s meanings are inverted like this too, where the more natural meaning is the one you only get with an escape character. For example what if you want a program to print a quotation so use quotation marks. But quotation marks are used to show you are starting and ending a String. They already have another meaning. So if you want a string consisting of the five characters “, n, o, t and ” you might try to write “”not”” but that doesn’t work as the initial “” already makes a string, just one with no characters in it. The string has ended before you got to the n. Escape characters to the rescue. You need ” to mean something other than its “normal” meeting of starting or ending a string so just escape it inside the string and write “\”not\””.
Once you get used to it, escaping characters is actually very simple, but is easy to find confusing when first learning to program. It is not surprising those trying to decipher hieroglyphs struggled so much as escapes were only one of the problems they had to contend with.
A Turing machine can be used to do any computation, as long as you get its program right. Let’s create a program to do something simple to see how to do it. Our program will subtract two numbers.
The first thing we need to do is to choose a code for what the patterns of chocolates mean. To encode the two numbers we want to subtract we will use sequences of dark chocolates separated by milk chocolates, one sequence for each number. The more dark chocolates before the next milk chocolate the higher the number will be. For example if we started with the pattern laid out as below then it would mean we wanted to compute 4 – 3. Why? Because there is a group of four dark chocolates and then after some milk chocolates a group of three more.
M M M D D D D M M D D D M M M M …
(M = Milk chocolate, D = Dark chocolate)
Here is a program that does the subtraction if you follow it when the pattern is laid out like that. It works for any two numbers where the first is the bigger. The answer is given by the final pattern. Try it yourself! Begin with a red lolly and follow the table below. Start at the M on the very left of the pattern above.
From the above starting pattern our subtraction program would leave a new pattern:
M M M D M M M M M M M M M M M …
There is now just a single sequence of dark chocolates with only one chocolate in it. The answer is 1!
Try lining up some chocolates and following the instructions yourself to see how it works.
Could you make the most powerful computer ever created…out of chocolates? It’s actually quite easy. You just have to have enough chocolates (and some lollies). It is one of computer science’s most important achievements.
Imagine you are in a sweet factory. Think big – think Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. A long table stretches off into the distance as far as you can see. On the table is a long line of chocolates. Some are milk chocolate, some dark chocolate. You stand in front of the table looking at the very last chocolate (and drooling). You can eat the chocolates in this factory, but only if you follow the rules of the day. (There are always rules!)
The chocolate eating rules of the day tell you when you can move up and down the table and when you can eat the chocolate in front of you. Whenever you eat a chocolate you have to replace it with another from a bag that is refilled as needed (presumably by Oompa-Loompas).
You also hold a single lolly. Its colour tells you what to do (as dictated by the rules of the day, of course). For example, the rules might say holding an orange one means you move left, whereas a red one means you move right. Sometimes the rules will also tell you to swap the lolly for a new one.
The rules of the day have to have a particular form. They first require you to note what lolly you are holding. You then check the chocolate on the table in front of you, eat it and replace it with a new one. You pick up a lolly of the colour you are told. You finally move left, move right or finish completely. A typical rule might be:
If you hold an orange lolly and a dark chocolate is on the table in front of you, then eat the chocolate and replace it with a milk one. Swap the lolly for a pink one. Finally, move one place to the left.
A shorthand for this might be: if ORANGE, DARK then MILK, PINK, LEFT.
You wouldn’t just have one instruction like this to follow but a whole collection with one for each situation you could possibly be in. With three colours of lollies, for example, there are six possible situations to account for: three for each of the two types of chocolate.
As you follow the rules you gradually change the pattern of chocolates on the table. The trick to making this useful is to make up a code that gives different patterns of chocolates different meanings. For example, a series of five dark chocolates surrounded by milk ones might represent the number 5.
See Chocoholic Subtraction for a set of rules that subtracts numbers for you as a result of shovelling chocolates into your face.
Our chocolate machine is actually a computer as powerful as any that could possibly exist. The only catch is that you must have an infinitely long table!
By powerful we don’t mean fast, but just that it can compute anything that any other computer could. By setting out the table with different patterns at the start, it turns out you can compute anything that it is possible to compute, just by eating chocolates and following the rules. The rules themselves are the machine’s program.
This is one of the most famous results in computer science. We’ve described a chocoholic’s version of what is known as a Turing machine because Alan Turing came up with the idea. The computer is the combination of the table, chocolates and lollies. The rules of the day are its program, the table of chocolates is its memory, and the lollies are what is known as its ‘control state’. When you eat chocolate following the rules, you are executing the program.
Sadly Turing’s version didn’t use chocolates – his genius only went so far! His machine had 1s and 0s on a tape instead of chocolates on a table. He also had symbols instead of lollies. The idea is the same though. The most amazing thing was that Alan Turing worked out that this machine was as powerful as computers could be before any actual computer existed. It was a mathematical thought experiment.
So, next time you are scoffing chocolates at random, remember that you could have been doing some useful computation at the same time as making yourself sick.
by Tina Chowdhury, Institute of Bioengineering, School of Engineering and Materials Science, Queen Mary University of London
Microwaves aren’t just useful for cooking your dinner. Passing through your ears they might help check your health in future, especially if you are an elite athlete. Bioengineer Tina Chowdhury tells us about her multidisciplinary team’s work with the National Physics Laboratory (NPL). Lots of wearable gadgets work out things about us by sensing our bodies. They can tell who you are just by tapping into your biometric data, like fingerprints, features of your face or the patterns in your eyes. They can even do some of this remotely without you even knowing you’ve been identified. Smart watches and fitness trackers tell you how fast you are running, how fit you are and whether you are healthy, how many calories you have burned and how well you are sleeping or not sleeping. They also work out things about your heart, like how well it beats. This is done using optical sensor technology, shining light at your skin and measuring how much is scattered by the blood flowing through it.
With PhD student, Wesleigh Dawsmith, and electronic engineer, microwave and antennae specialist, Rob Donnan, we are working on a different kind of sensor to check the health of elite athletes. Instead of using visible light we use invisible microwaves, the kind of radiation that gives microwave ovens their name. The microwave-based wearables have the potential to provide real-time information about how our bodies are coping when under stress, such as when we are exercising, similar to health checks without having to go to hospital. The technology measures how much of the microwaves are absorbed through the ear lobe using a microwave antenna and wireless circuitry. How much of the microwaves are absorbed is linked to being dehydrated when we sweat and overheat during exercise. We can also use the microwave sensor to track important biomarkers like glucose, sodium, chloride and lactate which can be a sign of dehydration and give warnings of illnesses like diabetes. The sensor sounds an alarm telling the person that they need medication, or are getting dehydrated, so need to drink some water. How much of the microwaves are absorbed is linked to being dehydrated
Making it work
We are working with with Richard Dudley at the NPL to turn these ideas into a wearable, microwave-based dehydration tracker. The company has spent eight years working on HydraSenseNPL a device that clips onto the ear lobe, measuring microwaves with a flexible antenna earphone.
A big question is whether the ear device will become practical to actually wear while doing exercise, for example keeping a good enough contact with the skin. Another is whether it can be made fashionable, perhaps being worn as jewellery. Another issue is that the system is designed for athletes, but most people are not professional athletes doing strenuous exercise. Will the technology work for people just living their normal day-to-day life too? In that everyday situation, sensing microwave dynamics in the ear lobe may not turn out to be as good as an all-in-one solution that tracks your biometrics for the entire day. The long term aim is to develop health wearables that bring together lots of different smart sensors, all packaged into a small space like a watch, that can help people in all situations, sending them real-time alerts about their health.
When you go shopping for a new gadget like a smartphone or perhaps a microwave are you mostly wowed by its sleek looks, do you drool over its long list of extra functionality? Do you then not use those extra functions because you don’t know how? Rather than just drooling, why not go to the races to help find a device you will actually use, because it is easy to use!
On your marks, get set… microwave
Take an everyday gadget like a microwave. They have been around a while, so manufacturers have had a long time to improve their designs and so make them easy to use. You wouldn’t expect there to be problems would you! There are lots of ways a gadget can be harder to use than necessary – more button presses maybe, lots of menus to get lost in, more special key sequences to forget, easy opportunities to make mistakes, no obvious feedback to tell you what it’s doing… Just trying to do simple things with each alternative is one way to check out how easy they are to use. How simple is it to cook some peas with your microwave? Could it be even simpler? Dom Furniss, a researcher at UCL decided to video some microwave racing as a fun way to find out…
Everyday devices still cause people problems even when they are trying to do really simple things. What is clear from Microwave racing is that some really are easier to use than others. Does it matter? Perhaps not if it’s just an odd minute wasted here or there cooking dinner or if actually, despite your drooling in the shop, you don’t really care that you never use any of those ‘advanced’ features because you can never remember how to.
Better design helps avoid mistakes
Would it matter to you more though if the device in question was a medical device that keeps a patient alive, but where a mistake could kill? There are lots of such gadgets: infusion pumps for example. They are the machines you are hook up to in a hospital via tubes. They pump life-saving drugs, nutrient rich solutions or extra fluids to keep you hydrated directly into your body. If the nurse makes a mistake setting the rate or volume then it could make you worse rather than better. Surely then you want the device to help the nurse to get it right.
Making safer medical devices is what the research project, called CHI+MED, that Dom works* on is actually about. While the consequences are completely different, the core task in setting an infusion pump is actually very similar to setting a microwave – “set a number for the volume of drug and another for the rate to infuse it and hit start” versus “set a number for the power and another for the cooking time, then hit start”. The same types of design solutions (both good and bad) crop up in both cases. Nurses have to set such gadgets day in day out. In an intensive care unit, they will be using several at a time with each patient. Do you really want to waste lots of minutes of such a nurse’s time day in, day out? Do you want a nurse to easily be able to make mistakes in doing so?
What the microwave racing video shows is that the designers of gadgets can make them trivially simple to use. They can also make them very hard to use if they focus more on the looks and functions of the thing than ease of use. Manufacturers of devices are only likely to take ease of use seriously if the people doing the buying make it clear that we care. Mostly we give the impression that we want features so that is what we get. Microwave racing may not be the best way to do it (follow the links below to explore more about actual ways professionals evaluate devices), but next time you are out looking for a new gadget check how easy it is to use before you buy … especially if the gadget is an infusion pump and you happen to be the person placing orders for a hospital!
*CHI+MED finished in 2015 and this issue of CS4FN was one of the project’s outputs.
by Rafael Pérez y Pérez of the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, México
What’s your favourite story? Perhaps it’s from a brilliant book you’ve read: a classic like Pride and Prejudice or maybe Twilight, His Dark Materials or a Percy Jackson story? Maybe it’s a creepy tale you heard round a campfire, or a favourite bedtime story from when you were a toddler? Could your favourite story have actually been written by a machine?
Stories are important to people everywhere, whatever the culture. They aren’t just for entertainment though. For millennia, people have used storytelling to pass on their ancestral wisdom. Religions use stories to explain things like how God created the world. Aesop used fables to teach moral lessons. Tales can even be used to teach computing! I even wrote a short story called ‘A Godlike Heart‘ about a kidnapped princess to help my students understand things like bits.
It’s clear that stories are important for humans. That’s why scientists like me are studying how we create them. I use computers to help. Why? Because they give a way to model human experiences as programs and that includes storytelling. You can’t open up a human’s brain as they create a story to see how it’s done. You can analyse in detail what happens inside a computer while it is generating one, though. This kind of ‘computational modelling’ gives a way to explore what is and isn’t going on when humans do it.
So, how to create a program that writes a story? A first step is to look at theories of how humans do it. I started with a book by Open University Professor Mike Sharples. He suggests it’s a continuous cycle between engagement and reflection. During engagement a storyteller links sequences of actions without thinking too much (a bit like daydreaming). During reflection they check what they have written so far, and if needed modify it. In doing so they create rules that limit what they can do during future rounds of engagement. According to him, stories emerge from a constant interplay between engagement and reflection.
What knowledge would you need to write a story about the last football World Cup?
With this in mind I wrote a program called MEXICA that generates stories about the ancient inhabitants of Mexico City (they are often wrongly called the Aztecs – their real name is the Mexicas). MEXICA simulates these engagement-reflection cycles. However, to write a program like this you need to solve lots of problems. For instance, what type of knowledge does the program need to create a story? It’s more complicated than you might think. What knowledge would you need to write a story about the last football World Cup? You would need facts about Brazilian culture, the teams that played, the game’s rules… Similarly, to write a story about the Mexicas you need to know about the ancient cultures of Mexico, their religion, their traditions, and so on. Figuring out the amount and type of knowledge that a system needs to generate a story is a key problem a computer scientist trying to develop a computerised storyteller needs to solve. Whatever the story you need to know something about human emotions. MEXICA uses its knowledge of them to keep track of the emotional links between the characters using them to decide sensible actions that then might follow.
By now you are probably wondering what MEXICA’s stories look like. Here’s an example:
“Jaguar Knight made fun of and laughed at Trader. This situation made Trader really angry! Trader thoroughly observed Jaguar Knight. Then, Trader took a dagger, jumped towards Jaguar Knight and attacked Jaguar Knight. Jaguar Knight’s state of mind was very volatile and without thinking about it Jaguar Knight charged against Trader. In a fast movement, Trader wounded Jaguar Knight. An intense haemorrhage aroused which weakened Jaguar Knight. Trader knew that Jaguar Knight could die and that Trader had to do something about it. Trader went in search of some medical plants and cured Jaguar Knight. As a result, Jaguar Knight was very grateful towards Trader. Jaguar Knight was emotionally tied to Trader but Jaguar Knight could not accept Trader’s behaviour. What could Jaguar Knight do? Trader thought that Trader overreacted; so, Trader got angry with Trader. In this way, Trader – after consulting a Shaman – decided to exile Trader.”
As you can see it isn’t able to write stories as well as a human yet! The way it phrases things is a bit odd, like “Trader got angry with Trader” rather than “Trader got angry with himself”. It’s missing another area of knowledge: how to write English naturally! Even so, the narratives it produces are interesting and tell us something about what does and doesn’t make a good story. And that’s the point. Programs like MEXICA help us better understand the processes and knowledge needed to generate novel, interesting tales. If one day we create a program that can write stories as well as the best writers we will know we really do understand how humans do it. Your own favourite story might not be written by a machine, but in the future, you might find your grandchildren’s favourite ones were!
If you like to write stories, then why not learn to program too then you could try writing a storytelling program yourself. Could you improve on MEXICA?