Author: Paul Curzon

Alan Turing’s life

Alan Turing Portrait
Image of Alan Turing: Elliott & Fry, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Alan Turing was born in London on 23 June 1912. His parents were both from successful, well-to-do families, which in the early part of the 20th century in England meant that his childhood was pretty stuffy. He didn’t see his parents much, wasn’t encouraged to be creative, and certainly wasn’t encouraged in his interest in science. But even early in his life, science was what he loved to do. He kept up his interest while he was away at boarding school, even though his teachers thought it was beneath well-bred students. When he was 16 he met a boy called Christopher Morcom who was also very interested in science. Christopher became Alan’s best friend, and probably his first big crush. When Christopher died suddenly a couple of years later, Alan partly helped deal with his grief with science, by studying whether the mind was made of matter, and where – if anywhere – the mind went when someone died.

The Turing machine

After he finished school, Alan went to the University of Cambridge to study mathematics, which brought him closer to questions about logic and calculation (and mind). After he graduated he stayed at Cambridge as a fellow, and started working on a problem that had been giving mathematicians headaches: whether it was possible to determine in advance if a particular mathematical proposition was provable. Alan solved it (the answer was no), but it was the way he solved it that helped change the world. He imagined a machine that could move symbols around on a paper tape to calculate answers. It would be like a mind, said Alan, only mechanical. You could give it a set of instructions to follow, the machine would move the symbols around and you would have your answer. This imaginary machine came to be called a Turing machine, and it forms the basis of how modern computers work.

Code-breaking at Bletchley Park

By the time the Second World War came round, Alan was a successful mathematician who’d spent time working with the greatest minds in his field. The British government needed mathematicians to help them crack the German codes so they could read their secret communiqués. Alan had been helping them on and off already, but when war broke out he moved to the British code-breaking headquarters at Bletchley Park to work full-time. Based on work by Polish mathematicians, he helped crack one of the Germans’ most baffling codes, called the Enigma, by designing a machine (based on earlier version by the Poles again!) that could help break Enigma messages as long as you could guess a small bit of the text (see box). With the help of British intelligence that guesswork was possible, so Alan and his team began regularly deciphering messages from ships and U-boats. As the war went on the codes got harder, but Alan and his colleagues at Bletchley designed even more impressive machines. They brought in telephone engineers to help marry Alan’s ideas about logic and statistics with electronic circuitry. That combination was about to produce the modern world.

Building a brain

The problem was that the engineers and code-breakers were still having to make a new machine for every job they wanted it to do. But Alan still had his idea for the Turing machine, which could do any calculation as long as you gave it different instructions. By the end of the war Alan was ready to have a go at building a Turing machine in real life. If it all went to plan, it would be the first modern electronic computer, but Alan thought of it as “building a brain”. Others were interested in building a brain, though, and soon there were teams elsewhere in the UK and the USA in the race too. Eventually a group in Manchester made Alan’s ideas a reality.

Troubled times

Not long after, he went to work at Manchester himself. He started thinking about new and different questions, like whether machines could be intelligent, and how plants and animals get their shape. But before he had much of a chance to explore these interests, Alan was arrested. In the 1950s, gay sex was illegal in the UK, and the police had discovered Alan’s relationship with a man. Alan didn’t hide his sexuality from his friends, and at his trial Alan never denied that he had relationships with men. He simply said that he didn’t see what was wrong with it. He was convicted, and forced to take hormone injections for a year as a form of chemical castration.

Although he had had a very rough period in his life, he kept living as well as possible, becoming closer to his friends, going on holiday and continuing his work in biology and physics. Then, in June 1954, his cleaner found him dead in his bed, with a half-eaten, cyanide-laced apple beside him.

Alan’s suicide was a tragic, unjust end to a life that made so much of the future possible.

Jonathan Black, Paul Curzon and Peter W. McOwan, Queen Mary University of London (from the archive)

More on …

Related Magazines …

cs4fn issue 14 cover

Subscribe to be notified whenever we publish a new post to the CS4FN blog.

This blog is funded by EPSRC on research agreement EP/W033615/1.

QMUL CS4FN EPSRC logos

Chatbot or Cheatbot?

Speech bubbles Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay
Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay 

The chatbots have suddenly got everyone talking, though about them as much as with them. Why? Because one, chatGPT has (amongst other things) reached the level of being able to fool us into thinking that it is a pretty good student.

It’s not exactly what Alan Turing was thinking about when he broached his idea of a test for intelligence for machines: if we cannot tell them apart from a human then we must accept they are intelligent. His test involved having a conversation with them over an extended period before making the decision, and that is subtly different to asking questions.

ChatGPT may be pretty close to passing an actual Turing Test but it probably still isn’t there yet. Ask the right questions and it behaves differently to a human. For example, ask it to prove that the square root of 2 is irrational and it can do it easily, and looks amazingly smart, – there are lots of versions of the proof out there that it has absorbed. It isn’t actually good at maths though. Ask it to simply count or add things and it can get it wrong. Essentially, it is just good at determining the right information from the vast store of information it has been trained on and then presenting it in a human-like way. It is arguably the way it can present it “in its own words” that makes it seem especially impressive.

Will we accept that it is “intelligent”? Once it was said that if a machine could beat humans at chess it would be intelligent. When one beat the best human, we just said “it’s not really intelligent – it can only play chess””. Perhaps chatGPT is just good at answering questions (amongst other things) but we won’t accept that as “intelligent” even if it is how we judge humans. What it can do is impressive and a step forward, though. Also, it is worth noting other AIs are better at some of the things it is weak at – logical thinking, counting, doing arithmetic, and so on. It likely won’t be long before the different AIs’ mistakes and weaknesses are ironed out and we have ones that can do it all.

Rather than asking whether it is intelligent, what has got everyone talking though (in universities and schools at least) is that chatGPT has shown that it can answer all sorts of questions we traditionally use for tests well enough to pass exams. The issue is that students can now use it instead of their own brains. The cry is out that we must abandon setting humans essays, we should no longer ask them to explain things, nor for that matter write (small) programs. These are all things chatGPT can now do well enough to pass such tests for any student unable to do them themselves. Others say we should be preparing students for the future so its ok, from now on, we just only test what human and chatGPT can do together.

It certainly means assessment needs to be rethought to some extent, and of course this is just the start: the chatbots are only going to get better, so we had better do the thinking fast. The situation is very like the advent of calculators, though. Yes, we need everyone to learn to use calculators. But calculators didn’t mean we had to stop learning how to do maths ourselves. Essay writing, explaining, writing simple programs, analytical skills, etc, just like arithmetic, are all about core skill development, building the skills to then build on. The fact that a chatbot can do it too doesn’t mean we should stop learning and practicing those skills (and assessing them as an inducement to learn as well as a check on whether the learning has been successful). So the question should not be about what we should stop doing, but more about how we make sure students do carry on learning. A big, bad thing about cheating (aside from unfairness) is that the person who decides to cheat loses the opportunity to learn. Chatbots should not stop humans learning either.

The biggest gain we can give a student is to teach them how to learn, so now we have to work out how to make sure they continue to learn in this new world, rather than just hand over all their learning tasks to the chatbot to do. As many people have pointed out, there are not just bad ways to use a chatbot, there are also ways we can use chatbots as teaching tools. Used well by an autonomous learner they can act as a personal tutor, explaining things they realise they don’t understand immediately, so becoming a basis for that student doing very effective deliberate learning, fixing understanding before moving on.

Of course, a bigger problem, if a chatbot can do things at least as well as we can then why would a company employ a person rather than just hire an AI? The AIs can now a lot of jobs we assumed were ours to do. It could be yet another way of technology focussing vast wealth on the few and taking from the many. Unless our intent is a distopian science fiction future where most humans have no role and no point, (see for example, CS Forester’s classic, The Machine Stops) then we still in any case ought to learn skills. If we are to keep ahead of the AIs and use them as a tool not be replaced by them, we need the basic skills to build on to gain the more advanced ones needed for the future. Learning skills is also, of course, a powerful way for humans (if not yet chatbots) to gain self-fulfilment and so happiness.

Right now, an issue is that the current generation of chatbots are still very capable of being wrong. chatGPT is like an over confident student. It will answer anything you ask, but it gives wrong answers just as confidently as right ones. Tell it it is wrong and it will give you a new answer just as confidently and possibly just as wrong. If people are to use it in place of thinking for themselves then, in the short term at least, they still need the skill it doesn’t have of judging when it is right or wrong.

So what should we do about assessment. Formal exams come back to the fore so that conditions are controlled. They make it clear you have to be able to do it yourself. Open book online tests that become popular in the pandemic, are unlikely to be fair assessments any more, but arguably they never were. Chatbots or not they were always too easy to cheat in. They may well be good still for learning. Perhaps in future if the chatbots are so clever then we could turn the Turing test around: we just ask an artificial intelligence to decide whether particular humans (our students) are “intelligent” or not…

Alternatively, if we don’t like the solutions being suggesting about the problems these new chatbots are raising, there is now another way forward. If they are so clever, we could just ask a chatbot to tell us what we should do about chatbots…

Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London

.

More on …

Related Magazines …

Issue 16 cover clean up your language

Subscribe to be notified whenever we publish a new post to the CS4FN blog.

This blog is funded by EPSRC on research agreement EP/W033615/1.

QMUL CS4FN EPSRC logos

Daphne Oram: the dawn of music humans can’t play

Music notes over paint brush patterns
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

What links James Bond, a classic 1950s radio comedy series and a machine for creating music by drawing? … Electronic music pioneer: Daphne Oram.

Oram was one of the earliest musicians to experiment with electronic music, and was the first woman to create an electronic instrument. She realised that the advent of electronic music meant composers no longer had to worry about whether anyone could actual physically perform the music they composed. If you could write it down in a machine readable way then machines could play it electronically. That idea opened up whole new sounds and forms of music and is an idea that pop stars and music producers still make use of today.

She learnt to play music as a child and was good enough to be offered a place at the Royal College of Music, though turned it down. She also played with radio electronics with her brothers, creating radio gadgets and broadcasting music from one room to another. Combining music with electronics became her passion and she joined the BBC as a sound engineer. This was during World War 2 and her job included being the person ready during a live music broadcast to swap in a recording at just the right point if, for example, there was an air raid that meant the performance had to be abandoned. The show, after all, had to go on.

Composing electronic music

She went on to take this idea of combining an electronic recording with live performance further and composed a novel piece of music called Still Point that fully combined orchestral with electronic music in a completely novel way. The BBC turned down the idea of broadcasting it, however, so it was not played for 70 years until it was rediscovered after her death, ultimately being played at a BBC Prom.

Composers no longer had to worry
about whether anyone could actually
physically perform the music they composed

She started instead to compose electronic music and sounds for radio shows for the BBC which is where the comedy series link came in. She created sound effects for a sketch for the Goon Show (the show which made the names of comics including Spike Milligan and Peter Sellers). She constantly played with new techniques. Years later it became standard for pop musicians to mess with tapes of music to get interesting effects, speeding them up and down, rerecording fragments, creating loops, running tapes backwards, and so on. These kinds of effects were part of amazing sounds of the Beatles, for example. Oram was one of the first to experiment with these kinds of effects and use them in her compositions – long before pop star producers.

One of the most influential things she did was set up the BBC Radiophonic Workshop which went on to revolutionise the way sound effects and scores for films and shows were created. Oram though left the BBC shortly after it was founded, leaving the way open for other BBC pioneers like Delia Derbyshire. Oram felt she wasn’t getting credit for her work, and couldn’t push forward with some of her ideas. Instead Oram set herself up as an independent composer, creating effects for films and theatre. One of her contracts involved creating electronic music that was used on the soundtracks of the early Bond films starring Sean Connery – so Shirley Bassey is not the only woman to contribute to the Bond sound!

The Music Machine

While her film work brought in the money, she continued with her real passion which was to create a completely new and highly versatile way to create music…by drawing. She built a machine – the Oramics Machine – that read a composition drawn onto film reels. It fulfilled her idea of having a machine that could play anything she could compose (and fulfilled a thought she had as a child when she wondered how you could play the notes that fell between the keys on a piano!).

The 35mm film that was the basis of her system that dates all the way back to the 19th century when George Eastman, Thomas Edison and Kennedy Dixon pioneered the invention film based photography and then movies. It involved a light sensitive layer being painted on strips of film with holes down the side that allowed the film to be advanced. This gave Oram a recording media. She could etch or paint subtle shapes and patterns on to the film. In a movie light was shone through the film, projecting the pictures on the film on to the screen. Oram instead used light sensors to detect the patterns on the film and convert it to electronic signals. Electronic circuitry she designed (and was awarded patents for) controlled cathode ray tubes that showed the original drawn patterns but now as electrical signals. Ultimately these electrical signals drove speakers. Key to the flexibility of the system was that different aspects of the music were controlled by patterns on different films. One for example controlled the frequency of the sound, others the timbre or tone quality and others the volume. These different control signals for the music were then combined by Oram’s circuitry. The result of combining the fine control of the drawings with the multiple tapes meant she had created a music machine far more flexible in the sound it could produce than any traditional instrument or orchestra. Modern music production facilities use very similar approaches today though based on software systems rather than the 1960s technology available to Oram.

Ultimately, Daphne Oram was ahead of her time as a result of combining her two childhood fascinations of music and electronics in a way that had not been done before. She may not be as famous as the great record producers who followed her, but they owe a lot to her ideas and innovation.

Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London

More on …

Related Magazines …

Subscribe to be notified whenever we publish a new post to the CS4FN blog.

This blog is funded by EPSRC on research agreement EP/W033615/1.

QMUL CS4FN EPSRC logos

Hedy Lamarr: The movie star, the piano player and the torpedo

Hedy Lamarr eBay, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Image credit: eBay, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Hedy Lamarr was a movie star. Back in the 1940’s, in Hollywood’s Golden Age, she was considered one of the screen’s most beautiful women and appeared in several blockbusters. But Hedy was more than just good looks and acting skills. Even though many people remembered Hedy for her pithy quote “Any girl can be glamorous. All she has to do is stand still and look stupid”, at the outbreak of World War 2 she and composer George Antheil invented an encryption technique for a torpedo radio guidance system!

Their creative idea for an encryption system was based on the mechanism behind the ‘player piano’ – an automatic piano where the tune is controlled by a roll of paper with punched holes. The idea was to use what is now known as ‘frequency hopping’ to overcome the possibility of the control signal being jammed by the enemy. Normal radio communication involves the sender picking a radio frequency and then sending all communication at that frequency. Anyone who tunes in to that frequency can then listen in, but also jam it by sending their own more powerful signal at the same frequency. That’s why non-digital radio stations constantly tell you their frequency “96.2 FM” or whatever. Frequency hopping involves jumping from frequency to frequency throughout the broadcast. Then, only if sender and receiver share the secret of exactly when the jumps will be made, and to what frequencies, can the receiver pick up the broadcast or jam it. That is essentially what the piano roll could do. It stored the secret.

Though the navy didn’t actually use the method during World War II, they did use the principles during the Cuban missile crisis in the 1960’s. The idea behind the method is also used in today’s GPS, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and mobile phone technologies, underpinning so much of the technology of today. In 2014 she was inducted into the US national inventor’s hall of fame.

Peter W McOwan, Queen Mary University of London (from the archive)

LISTEN…

More on …

Related Magazines …

Subscribe to be notified whenever we publish a new post to the CS4FN blog.

This blog is funded by EPSRC on research agreement EP/W033615/1.

QMUL CS4FN EPSRC logos

EPSRC also supported this post through research grant EP/K040251/2 held by Professor Ursula Martin. 

Lynn Conway: revolutionising chip design

Lynn Conway photo
Lynn Conway:
Photo from wikimedia by Charles Rogers CC BY-SA 2.5

MIT professor and transgender activist, Lynn Conway along with Carver Mead, completely changed the way we think about, do and teach VLSI (Very Large Scale Integration) chip design. Their revolutionary book on VLSI design quickly became the standard book used to teach the subject round the world. It wasn’t just a book though, it was a whole new way of doing electronics. Their ideas formed the foundation of the way electronics industry subsequently worked and still does today. Calling her impact as totally transformational is not at an exaggeration. Prior to this, she had worked for IBM, part of a team making major advances in microprocessor design. She was however, sacked by IBM for being transgender when she decided to transition. Times and views have fortunately also been transformed too and IBM subsequently apologised for their blatant discrimination!

A core part of the electronics revolution Mead and Conway triggered was to start thinking of electronics design as more like software. They advocated using special software design packages and languages that allowed hardware designers to put together a circuit design essentially by programming it. Once a design was completed, tools in the package could simulate the behaviour of the circuit allowing it to be thoroughly tested before the circuit was physically built. The result was designs were less likely to fail and creating them was much quicker. Even better, once tested, the design could then be compiled directly to silicon: the programmed version could be used to automatically create the precise layout and wiring of components below the transistor level to be laid on to the chip for fabrication.

This software approach allowed levels of abstraction to be used much more easily in electronics design: bigger components being created from smaller ones, in turn built from smaller ones still. Once designed the detailed implementation of those smaller components could be ignored in the design of larger components. A key part of this was Conway’s idea of scalable design rules to follow as the designs grew. Designers could focus on higher level design, building on previous design and with the details of creating the physical chips automated from the high level designs.

This transformation is similar (though probably even more transformational) to the switch from programming in low level languages to writing programs in high level languages and allowing a compiler to create the actual low-level code that is run. Just as that allowed vastly larger programs to be written, the use of electronic deign automation software and languages allowed massively larger circuits to be created.

Conway’s ideas also led to MOSIS: an Internet-based service whereby different designs by different customers could be combined onto one wafer for production. This meant that the fabrication costs of prototyping were no longer prohibitively expensive. Suddenly, creating designs was cheap and easy, a boon for both university and industrial research as well as for VLSI education. Conway for example pioneered the idea of allowing her students to create their own VLSI designs as part of her university course, with their designs all being fabricated together and and the resulting chips quickly returned. Large numbers could now learn VLSI design in a practical way gaining hands-on experience while still at university. This improvement in education together with the ease with which small companies could suddenly prototype new ideas made possible the subsequent boom in hi-tech start-up companies at the end of the 20th century.

Before Mead and Conway chip design was done slowly by hand by a small elite and needed big industry support. Afterwards it could be done quickly and easily by just about anyone, anywhere.

Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London

More on …

Related Magazines …

A hoverfly on a leaf

Subscribe to be notified whenever we publish a new post to the CS4FN blog.

This blog is funded by EPSRC on research agreement EP/W033615/1.

QMUL CS4FN EPSRC logos

EPSRC also supported this post through research grant EP/K040251/2 held by Professor Ursula Martin. 

Sorry to bug you: Grace Hopper

Close up head on of a flying butterfly or moth
Image by Josch13 from Pixabay

In the 2003 film The Matrix Reloaded, Neo, Morpheus, Trinity and crew continue their battle with the machines that have enslaved the human race in the virtual reality of the Matrix. To find the Oracle, who can explain what’s going on (which, given the twisty plot in the Matrix films, is always a good idea), Trinity needs to break into a power station and switch off some power nodes so the others can enter the secret floor. The computer terminal displays that she is disabling 27 power nodes, numbers 21 to 48. Unfortunately, that’s actually 28 nodes, not 27! A computer that can’t count and shows the wrong message!

Sadly, there are far too many programs with mistakes in them. These mistakes are known as bugs because back in 1945 Grace Hopper, one of the female pioneers of computer science, found an error caused by a moth trapped between the points at Relay 70, Panel F, of the Mark II Aiken Relay Calculator being tested at Harvard University. She removed the moth, and attached it to her test logbook, writing ‘First actual case of bug being found’, and so popularised the term ‘debugging’ for testing and fixing a computer program.

Grace Hopper is famous for more than just the word ‘bug’ though. She was one of the most influential of the early computer pioneers, responsible for perhaps the most significant idea in helping programmers to write large, bug-free programs.

As a Lieutenant in the US Navy reserves, having volunteered after Pearl Harbor, Grace was one of three of the first programmers of Harvard’s IBM Mark I computer. It was the first fully automatic programmed computer.

She didn’t just program those early computers though, she came up with innovations in the way computers were programmed. The programs for those early computers all had to be made up of so-called ‘machine instructions’. These are the simplest operations the computer can do: such as to add two numbers, move data from a place in memory to a register (a place where arithmetic can be done in a subsequent operation), jump to a different instruction in the program, and so on.

Programming in such basic instructions is a bit like giving someone directions to the station but having to tell them exactly where to put their foot for every step. Grace’s idea was that you could write programs in a language closer to human language where each instruction in this high-level language stood for lots of the machine instructions – equivalent to giving the major turns in those directions rather than every step.

The ultimate result was COBOL: the first widely used high-level programming language. At a stroke her ideas made programming much easier to do and much less error-prone. Big programs were now a possibility.

For this idea of high-level languages to work though you needed a way to convert a program written in a high-level language like COBOL into those machine instructions that a computer can actually do. It can’t fill in the gaps on its own! Grace had the answer – the ‘compiler’. It is just another computer program, but one that does a specialist task: the conversion. Grace wrote the first ever compiler, for a language called A-O, as well as the first COBOL compiler. The business computing revolution was up and running.

High-level languages like COBOL have allowed far larger programs to be written than is possible in machine-code, and so ultimately the expansion of computers into every part of our lives. Of course even high-level programs can still contain mistakes, so programmers still need to spend most of their time testing and debugging. As the Oracle would no doubt say, “Check for moths, Trinity, check for moths”.

Peter W McOwan and Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London (from the archive)

More on …

Related Magazines …

A hoverfly on a leaf

Subscribe to be notified whenever we publish a new post to the CS4FN blog.

This blog is funded by EPSRC on research agreement EP/W033615/1.

QMUL CS4FN EPSRC logos

EPSRC also supported this post through research grant EP/K040251/2 held by Professor Ursula Martin. 

The first computer music

Robot with horn
Robot Image by www_slon_pics from Pixabay

The first recorded music by a computer program was the result of a flamboyant flourish added on the end of a program that played draughts in the early 1950s. It played God Save the King.

The first computers were developed towards the end of the second world war to do the number crunching needed to break the German codes. After the War several groups set about manufacturing computers around the world: including three in the UK. This was still a time when computers filled whole rooms and it was widely believed that a whole country would only need a few. The uses envisioned tended to be to do lots of number crunching.

A small group of people could see that they could be much more fun than that, with one being school teacher Christopher Strachey. When he was introduced to the Pilot ACE computer on a visit to the National Physical Laboratories, in his spare time he set about writing a program that could play against humans at draughts. Unfortunately, the computer didn’t have enough memory for his program.

He knew Alan Turing, one of those war time pioneers, when they were both at university before the War. He luckily heard that Turing, now working at the University of Manchester, was working on the new Feranti Mark I computer which would have more memory, so wrote to him to see if he could get to play with it. Turing invited him to visit and on the second visit, having had a chance to write a version of the program for the new machine, he was given the chance to try to get his draughts program to work on the Mark I. He was left to get on with it that evening.

He astonished everyone the next morning by having the program working and ready to demonstrate. He had worked through the night to debug it. Not only that, as it finished running, to everyone’s surprise, the computer played the National Anthem, God Save the King. As Frank Cooper, one of those there at the time said: “We were all agog to know how this had been done.” Strachey’s reputation as one of the first wizard programmers was sealed.

The reason it was possible to play sounds on the computer at all, was nothing to do with music. A special command called ‘Hoot’ had been included in the set of instructions programmers could use (called the ‘order’ code at the time) when programming the Mark I computer. The computer was connected to a loud speaker and Hoot was used to signal things like the end of the program – alerting the operators. Apparently it hadn’t occurred to anyone there but Strachey that it was everything you needed to create the first computer music.

He also programmed it to play Baa Baa Black Sheep and went on to write a more general program that would allow any tune to be played. When a BBC Live Broadcast Unit visited the University in 1951 to see the computer for Children’s Hour the Mark I gave the first ever broadcast performance of computer music, playing Strachey’s music: the UK National Anthem, Baa Baa Black Sheep and also In the Mood.

While this was the first recorded computer music it is likely that Strachey was beaten to creating the first actual programmed computer music by a team in Australia who had similar ideas and did a similar thing probably slightly earlier. They used the equivalent hoot on the CSIRAC computer developed there by Trevor Pearcey and programmed by Geoff Hill. Both teams were years ahead of anyone else and it was a long time before anyone took the idea of computer music seriously.

Strachey went on to be a leading figure in the design of programming languages, responsible for many of the key advances that have led to programmers being able to write the vast and complex programs of today.

The recording made of the performance has recently been rediscovered and restored so you can now listen to the performance yourself (see below).

Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London (updated from the archive)

Listen …

More on …

Related Magazines …

Subscribe to be notified whenever we publish a new post to the CS4FN blog.

This blog is funded by EPSRC on research agreement EP/W033615/1.

QMUL CS4FN EPSRC logos

Swat a way to drive

Flies are small, fast and rather cunning. Try to swat one and you will see just how efficient their brain is, even though it has so few brain cells that each one of them can be counted and given a number. A fly’s brain is a wonderful proof that, if you know what you’re doing, you can efficiently perform clever calculations with a minimum of hardware. The average household fly’s ability to detect movement in the surrounding environment, whether it’s a fly swat or your hand, is due to some cunning wiring in their brain.

Fly's head. Macro eye of a fly
Fly Image by Virvoreanu Laurentiu from Pixabay

Speedy calculations

Movement is measured by detecting something changing position over time. The ratio distance/time gives us the speed, and flies have built in speed detectors. In the fly’s eye, a wonderful piece of optical engineering in itself with hundreds of lenses forming the mosaic of the compound eye, each lens looks at a different part of the surrounding world, and so each registers if something is at a particular position in space.

All the lenses are also linked by a series of nerve cells. These nerve cells each have a different delay. That means a signal takes longer to pass along one nerve than another. When a lens spots an object in its part of the world, say position A, this causes a signal to fire into the nerve cells, and these signals spread out with different delays to the other lenses’ positions.

The separation between the different areas that the lenses view (distance) and the delays in the connecting nerve cells (time) are such that a whole range of possible speeds are coded in the nerve cells. The fly’s brain just has to match the speed of the passing object with one of the speeds that are encoded in the nerve cells. When the object moves from A to B, the fly knows the correct speed if the first delayed signal from position A arrives at the same time as the new signal at position B. The arrival of the two signals is correlated. That means they are linked by a well-defined relation, in this case the speed they are representing.

Do locusts like Star Wars?

Understanding the way that insects see gives us clever new ways to build things, and can also lead to some bizarre experiments. Researchers in Newcastle showed locusts edited highlights from the original movie Star Wars. Why you might ask? Do locusts enjoy a good Science Fiction movie? It turns out that the researchers were looking to see if locusts could detect collisions. There are plenty of those in the battles between X-wing fighters and Tie fighters. They also wanted to know if this collision detecting ability could be turned into a design for a computer chip. The work, part-funded by car-maker Volvo, used such a strange way to examine locust’s vision that it won an Ig Nobel award in 2005. Ig Noble awards are presented each year for weird and wonderful scientific experiments, and have the motto ‘Research that makes people laugh then think’. You can find out more at http://improbable.com

Car crash: who is to blame?

So what happens if we start to use these insect ‘eye’ detectors in cars, building

We now have smart cars with the artificial intelligence (AI) taking over from the driver completely or just to avoid hitting other things. An interesting question arises. When an accident does happen, who is to blame? Is it the car driver: are they in charge of the vehicle? Is it the AI to blame? Who is responsible for that: the AI itself (if one day we give machines human-like rights), the car manufacturer? Is it the computer scientists who wrote the program? If we do build cars with fly or locust like intelligence, which avoid accidents like flies avoid swatting or can spot possible collisions like locusts, is it the insect whose brain was copied that is to blame!?!What will insurance companies decide? What about the courts?

As computer science makes new things possible, society quickly needs to decide how to deal with them. Unlike the smart cars, these decisions aren’t something we can avoid.

Peter W McOwan, Queen Mary University of London (updated from the archive)

More on …

Related Magazines …

A hoverfly on a leaf

Subscribe to be notified whenever we publish a new post to the CS4FN blog.

This blog is funded by EPSRC on research agreement EP/W033615/1.

QMUL CS4FN EPSRC logos

Future Friendly: Focus on Kerstin Dautenhahn

Large robot facing a man in his home
Robot at home Image by Meera Patil from Pixabay

Kerstin Dautenhahn is a biologist with a mission: to help us make friends with robots. Kerstin was always fascinated by the natural world around her, so it was no surprise when she chose to study Biology at the University of Bielefeld in Germany. Afterwards she went on to study a Diploma in Biology where she did research on the leg reflexes in stick insects, a strange start it may seem for someone who would later become one of the world’s foremost robotics researchers. But it was through this fascinating bit of biology that Kerstin became interested in the ways that living things process information and control their body movements, an area scientists call biological cybernetics. This interest in trying to understand biology made her want to build things to test her understanding, these things would be based on ideas copied from biological animals but be run by computers, these things would be robots.

Follow that robot

From humble beginning building small robots that followed one another over a hilly landscape, she started to realise that biology was a great source of ideas for robotics, and in particular that the social intelligence that animals use to live and work with each other could be modelled and used to create sociable robots.

She started to ask fascinating questions like “What’s the best way for a robot to interrupt you if you are reading a newspaper – by gesturing with its arms, blinking its lights or making a sound?” and perhaps most importantly “When would a robot become your friend?” First at the University of Hertfordshire, now a Professor at the University of Waterloo she leads a world famous research group looking to try and build friendly robots with social intelligence.

Good robot / Bad robot – East vs West

Kerstin, like many other robotics researchers, is worried that most people tend to look on robots as being potentially evil. If we look at the way robots are portrayed in the movies that’s often how it seems: it makes a good story to have a mechanical baddie. But in reality robots can provide a real service to humans, from helping the disabled, assisting around the home and even becoming friends and companions. The baddie robot ideas tends to dominate in the west, but in Japan robots are very popular and robotics research is advancing at a phenomenal rate. There has been a long history in Japan of people finding mechanical things that mimic natural things interesting and attractive. It is partly this cultural difference that has made Japan a world leader in robot research. But Kerstin and others like her are trying to get those of us in the west to change our opinions by building friendly robots and looking at how we relate to them.

Polite Robots roam the room

When at the University of Hertfordshire, Kerstin decided that the best way to see how people would react to a robot around the house was to rent a flat near the university, and fill it with robots. Rather than examine how people interacted with robots in a laboratory, moving the experiments to a real home, with bookcases, biscuits, sofas and coffee tables, make it real. She and her team looked at how to give their robots social skills: what was the best way for a robot to approach a person, for example? At first they thought that the best approach would be straight from the front, but they found that humans felt this too aggressive, so the robots were trained to come up gently from the side. The people in the house were also given special ‘comfort buttons’, devices that let them indicate how they were feeling in the company of robots. Again interesting things happened, it turned out that not all, but quite a lot of people were on the whole happy for these robots to be close to themselves, closer in fact than they would normally let a human approach. Kerstin explains ‘This is because these people see the robot as a machine, not a person, and so are happy to be in close proximity. You are happy to move close to your microwave, and it’s the same for robots’. These are exciting first steps as we start to understand how to build robots with socially acceptable manners. But it turns out that robots need to have good looks as well as good manners if they are going to make it in human society.

Looks are everything for a robot?

This fall in acceptability
is called the ‘uncanny valley’

How we interact with robots also depends on how the robots look. Researchers had found previously that if you make a robot look too much like a human being, people expect it to be a human being, with all the social and other skills that humans have. If it doesn’t have these, we find interaction very hard. It’s like working with a zombie, and it can be very frightening. This fall in acceptability of robots that look like, but aren’t quite, human is what researchers call the ‘uncanny valley’, so people prefer to encounter a robot that looks like a robot and acts like a robot. Kerstin’s group found this effect too, so they designed their robots to look and act they way we would expect robots to look and act, and things got much more sociable. But they are still looking at how we act with more human like robots and built KASPAR, a robot toddler, which has a very realistic rubber face capable of showing expressions and smiling, and video camera eyes that allow the robot to react to your behaviours. He possesses arms so can wave goodbye or greet you with a friendly gesture. Most recently he was extended with multi-modal technology that allowed several children to play with him at the same time, He’s very lifelike and their hope was hopefully as KASPAR’s programming grew, and his abilities improved he, or some descendent of him, would emerge from the uncanny valley to become someone’s friend, and in particular, children with autism.

Autism – mind blindness and robots

The fact that most robots at present look like and act like robots can give them a big advantage to help them support children with autism. Autism is a condition that prevents you from developing an understanding of how to interact socially with the world. A current theory to explain the condition is that those who are autistic cannot form a correct understanding of others intentions, it’s called mind blindness. For example, if I came into the room wearing a hideous hat and asked you ‘Do you like my lovely new hat?’ you would probably think, ‘I don’t like the hat, but he does, so I should say I like it so as not to hurt his feelings’, you have a mental model of my state of mind (that I like my hat). An autistic person is likely to respond ‘I don’t like your hat’, if this is what he feels. Autistic people cannot create this mental model so find it hard to make friends and generally interact with people, as they can’t predict what people are likely to say, do or expect.

Playing with Robot toys

It’s different with robots, many autistic children have an affinity with robots. Robots don’t do unexpected things. Their behaviour is much simpler, because they act like robots. Using robots Kerstin’s group examined how we can use this interaction with robot toys to help some autistic children to develop skills to allow them to interact better with other people. By controlling the robot’s behaviours some of the children can develop ways to mimic social skills, which may ultimately improve their quality of life. There were some promising results, and the work continues to be only one way to try and help those suffering with this socially isolating condition.

Future friendly

It’s only polite that the last word goes to Kerstin from her time at Hertfordshire:

‘I firmly believe that robots as assistants can potentially be very useful in many application areas. For me as a researcher, working in the field of human-robot interaction is exciting and great fun. In our team we have people from various disciplines working together on a daily basis, including computer scientists, engineers and psychologist. This collaboration, where people need to have an open mind towards other fields, as well as imagination and creativity, are necessary in order to make robots more social.’

In the future, when robots become our workmates, colleagues and companions it will be in part down to Kerstin and her team’s pioneering effort as they work towards making our robot future friendly.

Peter W McOwan, Queen Mary University of London (from the archive)

More on …

Related Magazines …

Subscribe to be notified whenever we publish a new post to the CS4FN blog.

This blog is funded by EPSRC on research agreement EP/W033615/1.

QMUL CS4FN EPSRC logos

EPSRC also supports this blog through research grant EP/K040251/2 held by Professor Ursula Martin. 

The last speaker

The wings of a green macau looking like angel wings
Image by Avlis AVL from Pixabay

The languages of the world are going extinct at a rapid rate. As the numbers of people who still speak a language dwindle, the chance of it surviving dwindles too. As the last person dies, the language is gone forever. To be the last living speaker of the language of your ancestors must be a terribly sad ordeal. One language’s extinction bordered on the surreal. The last time the language of the Atures, in South America was heard, it was spoken by a parrot: an old blue-and-yellow macaw, that had survived the death of all the local people.

Why do languages die?

The reason smaller languages die are varied, from war and genocide, to disease and natural disaster, to the enticement of bigger, pushier languages. Can technology help? In fact global media: films, music and television are helping languages to die, as the youth turn their backs on the languages of their parents. The Web with its early English bias may also be helping to push minority languages even faster to the brink. Computers could be a force for good though, protecting the world’s languages, rather than destroying them.

Unicode to the rescue

In the early days of the web, web pages used the English alphabet. Everything in a computer is just stored as numbers, including letters: 1 for ‘a’, 2 for ‘b’, for example. As long as different computers agree on the code they can print them to the screen as the same letter. A problem with early web pages is there were lots of different encodings of numbers to letters. Worse still only enough numbers were set aside for the English alphabet in the widely used encodings. Not good if you want to use a computer to support other languages with their variety of accents and completely different sets of characters. A new universal encoding system called Unicode came to the rescue. It aims to be a single universal character encoding – with enough numbers allocated for ALL languages. It is therefore allowing the web to be truly multi-lingual.

Languages are spoken

Languages are not just written but are spoken. Computers can help there, too, though. Linguists around the world record speakers of smaller languages, understanding them, preserving them. Originally this was done using tapes. Now the languages can be stored on multimedia computers. Computers are not just restricted to playing back recordings but can also actively speak written text. The web also allows much wider access to such materials that can also be embedded in online learning resources, helping new people to learn the languages. Language translators such as BabelFish and Google Translate can also help, though they are still far from perfect even for common languages. The problem is that things do not translate easily between languages – each language really does constitute a different way of thinking, not just of talking. Some thoughts are hard to even think in a different language.

AI to the rescue?

Even that is not enough. To truly preserve a language, the speakers need to use it in everyday life, for everyday conversation. Speakers need someone to speak with. Learning a language is not just about learning the words but learning the culture and the way of thinking, of actively using the language. Perhaps future computers could help there too. A long-time goal of artificial intelligence (AI) researchers is to develop computers that can hold real conversations. In fact this is the basis of the original test for computer intelligence suggested by Alan Turing back in 1950…if a computer is indistinguishable from a human in conversation, then it is intelligent. There is also an annual competition that embodies this test: the Loebner Prize. It would be great if in the future, computer AIs could help save languages by being additional everyday speakers holding real conversations, being real friends.

Time is running out…
by the time the AIs arrive,
the majority of languages may be gone forever.

Too late?

The problem is that time is running out. Artificial intelligences that can have totally realistic human conversations even in English are still a way off. None have passed the Turing Test. To speak different languages really well for everyday conversations those AIs will have to learn the different cultures and ‘think’ in the different languages. The window of opportunity is disappearing. By the time the AIs arrive the majority of human languages may be gone forever. Let’s hope that computer scientists and linguists do solve the problems in time, and that computers are not used just to preserve languages for academic interest, but really can help them to survive. It is sad that the last living creature to speak Atures was a parrot. It would be equally sad if the last speakers of all current languages bar English, Spanish and Chinese say, were computers.

Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London (from the cs4fn archive)

More on …

Related Magazines …

Issue 16 cover clean up your language

Subscribe to be notified whenever we publish a new post to the CS4FN blog.

This blog is funded by EPSRC on research agreement EP/W033615/1.

QMUL CS4FN EPSRC logos