Category: cs4fn issues

Dickens knitting in code

Ball of wool pink and yellow close up
Image by Silvia Stödter from Pixabay 

Charles Dickens is famous for his novels highlighting Victorian social injustice. Despite what people say, art and science really do mix, and Dickens certainly knew some computer science. In his classic novel about the French Revolution, A Tale of Two Cities, one of his characters relies on some computer science based knitting.

Dickens actually moved in the same social circles as Charles Babbage, the Victorian inventor of the first computer (which he designed but unfortunately never managed to build) and Ada Lovelace the mathematician who worked with him on those first computers. They went to the same dinner parties and Dickens will have seen Babbage demonstrate his prototype machines. An engineer in Dickens novel, Little Dorrit, is even believed to be partly based on Babbage. Dickens was probably the last non-family member to visit Ada before she died. She asked him to read to her, choosing a passage from his book Dombey and Son in which the son, Paul Dombey, dies. Like Ada, Paul Dombey had suffered from illness all his life.

So Charles Dickens had lots of opportunity to learn about algorithms! His novel ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ is all about the French Revolution, but lurking in the shadows is some computer science. One of the characters, a revolutionary called Madame Defarge takes the responsibility of keeping a register of all those people who are to be executed once the revolution comes to pass: the aristocrats and “enemies of the people”. Of course in the actual French Revolution lots of aristocrats were guillotined precisely for being enemies of the new state.

Now Madame Defarge could have just tried to memorize the names on her ‘register’ as she supposedly has a great memory, but the revolutionaries wanted a physical record. That raises the problem, though, of how to keep it secret, and that is where the computer science comes in. Madame Defarge knits all the time and so she decides to store the names in her knitting.

“Knitted, in her own stitches and her own symbols, it will always be as plain to her as the sun. Confide in Madame Defarge. It would be easier for the weakest poltroon that lives, to erase himself from existence, than to erase one letter of his name or crimes from the knitted register of Madame Defarge.”

Computer scientists call this Steganography: hiding information or messages in plain sight, so that no one suspects they are there at all. Modern forms of steganography include hiding messages in the digital representation of pictures and in the silences of a Skype conversation.

Madame Defarge didn’t of course just knit French words in the pattern like a victorian scarf version of a T-shirt message. It wouldn’t have been very secret if anyone looking at the resulting scarf could read the names. So how to do it? In fact, knitting has been used as a form of steganography for real. One way was for a person to take a ball of wool and mark messages down it in Morse Code dots and dashes. The wool was then knitted into a jumper or scarf. The message is hidden! To read it you unpick it all and read the morse code back off the wool.

The names were “Knitted, in her own stitches and her own symbols”

That wouldn’t have worked for Madame Defarge though. She wanted to add the names to the register in plain view of the person as they watched and without them knowing what she was doing. She therefore needed the knitting patterns themselves to hold the code. It was possible because she was both a fast knitter and sat knitting constantly so it raised no suspicion. The names were therefore, as Dickens writes “Knitted, in her own stitches and her own symbols”

She used a ‘cipher’ and that brings in another area of computer science: encryption. A cipher is just an algorithm – a set of rules to follow – that converts symbols in one alphabet (letters) into different symbols. In Madame Defarge’s case the new symbols were not written but knitted sequences of stitches. Only if you know the algorithm, and a secret ‘key’ that was used in the encryption, can you convert the knitted sequences back into the original message.

In fact both steganography and encryption date back thousands of years (computer science predates computers!), though Charles Dickens may have been the first to use knitting to do it in a novel. The Ancient Greeks used steganography. In the most famous case a message was written on a slave’s shaved head. They then let the hair grow back. The Romans knew about cryptographic algorithms too and one of the most famous ciphers is called the Caesar cipher as Julius Caesar used it when writing letters…even in Roman times people were worried about the spies reading their equivalent of emails.

Dickens didn’t actually describe the code that Madame Defarge was using so we can only guess…but why not see that as an opportunity and (if you can knit) why not invent a way yourself. If you can’t knit then learn to knit first and then invent one! Somehow you need a series of stitches to represent each letter of the alphabet. In doing so you are doing algorithmic thinking with knitting. You are knitting your way to being a computer scientist.

Paul Curzon, 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 supported this article through research grants (EP/K040251/2 and EP/K040251/2 held by Professor Ursula Martin as well as grant EP/W033615/1). 

Understanding Ultron: A Turing test for world domination

Are the robots out to get us?

'Robot Mech Machine' working on a virtual display
‘Robot Mech Machine’
Image by Lukas from Pixabay

Avengers: Age of Ultron is the latest film about robots or artificial intelligences (AI) trying to take over the world. AI is becoming ever present in our lives, at least in the form of software tools that demonstrate elements of human-like intelligence. AI in our mobile phones apply and adapt their rules to learn to serve us better, for example. But fears of AI’s potential negative impact on humanity remain as seen in its projection into characters like Ultron, a super-intelligence accidentally created by the Avengers.

But what relation do the evil AIs of the movies have to scientific reality? Could an AI take over the world? How would it do it? And why would it want to? AI movie villains need to consider the whodunit staples of motive and opportunity.

Motive? What motive?

Let’s look at the motive. Few would say Intelligence in itself unswervingly leads to a desire to rule the world. In movies AI are often driven by self preservation, a realisation that fearful humans might shut them down. But would we give our AI tools cause to feel threatened? They provide benefits for us and there also seems little reason in creating a sense of self-awareness in a system that searches the web for the nearest Italian restaurant, for example.

Another popular motive for AIs’ evilness is their zealous application of logic. In Ultron’s case the goal of protecting the earth can only be accomplished by wiping out humanity. This destruction by logic is reminiscent of the notion that a computer would select a stopped clock over one that is two seconds slow, as the stopped clock is right twice a day whereas the slow one is never right. Ultron’s plot motivation, based on brittle logic combined with indifference to life, seems at odds with todays AI systems that reason mathematically with uncertainty and are built to work safely with users.

Opportunity Knocks

When we consider an AI’s opportunity to rule the world we are on somewhat firmer ground. The famous Turning Test of machine intelligence was set up to measure a particular skill – the ability to conduct a believable conversation. The premise being that if you can’t tell the difference between AI and human skill, the AI has passed the test and should be considered as intelligent as humans.

So what would a Turing Test for the ‘skill’ of world domination look like? To explore that we need to compare the antisocial AI behaviours with the attributes expected of human world domination. World dominators need to control important parts of our lives, say our access to money or our ability to buy a house. AI does that already – lending decisions are frequently made by an AI sifting through mountains of information to decide your credit worthiness. AIs now trade on the stock market too.

An overlord would give orders and expect them to be followed. Anyone who has stood helplessly at a shop’s self-service till as it makes repeated bagging related demands of them already knows what it feels like to be bossed about by AIs.

Kill Bill?

Finally, no megalomaniac Hollywood robot would be complete without at least some desire to kill us. Today military robots can identify targets without human intervention. It is currently a human controller that gives permission to attack but it’s not a stretch to say that the potential to auto kill exists in these AIs, but we would need to change the computer code to allow it.

These examples arguably show AI in control in limited but significant parts of life on earth, but to truly dominate the world, movie style, these individual AIs would need to start working together to create a synchronised AI army – that bossy self-service till talking to your health monitor and denying selling you beer, then both ganging up with a credit scoring system to only raise your credit limit if you both buy a pair of trainers with a built in GPS tracker and only eat the kale from your smart fridge but after the shoe data shows you completed the required five mile run.

It’s a worrying picture but fortunately I think it’s an unlikely one. Engineers worldwide are developing the Internet of things, networks connecting all manner of devices together to create new services. These are pieces of a jigsaw that would need to join together and form a big picture for total world domination. It’s an unlikely situation – too much has too fall into place and work together. It’s a lot like the infamous plot-hole in Independence Day – where an Apple Mac and an alien spaceship’s software inexplicably have cross-platform compatibility. [See video below for a possible answer!]

Our earthly AI systems are written in a range of computer languages, hold different data in different ways and use different and non-compatible rule sets and learning techniques. Unless we design them to be compatible there is no reason why adding two safely designed AI systems, developed by separate companies for separate services would spontaneously blend to share capabilities and form some greater common goal without human intervention.

So could AIs, and the robot bodies containing them, pass the test and take over the world? Only if we humans let them, and help them a lot. Why would we?

Perhaps because humans are the stupid ones!

Peter McOwan, Queen Mary University of London

Watch…

More on …

‘Serious Fun’ – Issue 26 of CS4FN magazine, which celebrated the life of Peter McOwan, who died in 2019. Peter was the co-founder (with Paul Curzon) of the CS4FN magazine and website.

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

A Wookie for three minutes please

How Foley artists can manipulate natural and synthesised sounds for film, TV and radio

Black and white photo of a walrus being offered a fish, with one already in its mouth
“Are you sure that’s a microphone?”
Image by Kabomani-Tapir from Pixabay

Theatre producers, radio directors and film-makers have been trying to create realistic versions of natural sounds for years. Special effects teams break frozen celery stalks to mimic breaking bones, smack coconut shells on hard packed sand to hear horses gallop, rustle cellophane for crackling fire. Famously, in the first Star Wars movie the Wookie sounds are each made up of up to six animal clips combined, including a walrus! Sometimes the special effect people even record the real thing and play it at the right time! (Not a good idea for the breaking bones though!) The person using props to create sounds for radio and film is called a Foley artist, named after the work of Jack Donovan Foley in the 1920’s. Now the Foley artist is drawing on digital technology to get the job done.

Designing sounds

Sound designers have a hard job finding the right sounds. So how about creating sound automatically using algorithms? Synthetic sound! Research into sound creation is a hot topic, not just for special effects but also to help understand how people hear and for use in many other sound based systems. We can create simple sounds fairly easily using musical instruments and synthesisers, but creating sounds from nature, animal sounds and speech is much more complicated.

The approaches used to recognize sounds can be the basis of generating sounds too. You can either try and hand craft a set of rules that describe what makes the sound sound the way it does, or you can write algorithms that work it out for themselves.

Paying patterns attention

One method, developed as a way to automatically generate synthetic sound, is based on looking for patterns in the sounds. Computer scientists often create mathematical models to better understand things, as well as to recognize and generate computer versions of them. The idea is to look at (or here listen to) lots of examples of the thing being studied. As patterns become obvious they also start to identify elements that don’t have much impact. Those features are ignored so the focus stays on the most important parts. In doing this they build up a general model, or view, that describes all possible examples. This skill of ignoring unimportant detail is called abstraction, and if you create a general view, a model of something, this is called generalisation: both important parts of computational thinking. The result is a hand-crafted model for generating that sound.

That’s pretty difficult to do though, so instead computer scientists write algorithms to do it for them. Now, rather than a person trying to work out what is, or is not important, training algorithms work it out using statistical rules. The more data they see, the stronger the pattern that emerges, which is why these approaches are often referred to as ‘Big Data’. They rely on number crunching vast data sets. The learnt pattern is then matched against new data, looking for examples, or as the basis of creating new examples that match the pattern.

The rain in train(ing)

Number crunching based on Big Data isn’t the only way though, sometimes general patterns can be identified from knowledge of the thing being investigated. For example, rain isn’t one sound but is made up of lots of rain drops all doing a similar thing. Natural sounds often have that kind of property. So knowledge of a phenomenon can be used to create a basic model to build a generator around. This is an approach Richard Turner, now at Cambridge University, has pioneered, analysing the statistical properties of natural sounds. By creating a basic model and then gradually tweaking it to match the sound-quality of lots of different natural sounds, his algorithms can learn what natural sounds are like in general. Then, given a specific natural ‘training’ sound, it can generate synthetic versions of that sound by choosing settings that match its features. You could give it a recorded sample of real rain, for example. Then his sound processing algorithms apply a bunch of maths that pull out the important features of that particular sound based on the statistical models. With the critical features identified, and plugged in to his general model, a new sound of any length can then be generated that still matches the statistical pattern of, and so sounds like, the original. Using the model you can create lots of different versions of rain, that all still sound like rain, lots of different campfires, lots of different streams, and so-on.

For now, the celery stalks are still in use, as are the walrus clippings, but it may not be long before film studios completely replace their Foley bag of tricks with computerised solutions like Richard’s. One wookie for 3 minutes and a dawn chorus for 5 please.

Become a Foley Artist with Sonic Pi

You can have a go at being a Foley artist yourself. Sonic Pi is a free live-coding synth for music creation that is both powerful enough for professional musicians, but intended to get beginners into live coding: combining programming with composing to make live music.

It was designed for use with a Raspberry Pi computer, which is a cheap way to get started, though works with other computers too. Its also a great, fun way to start to learn to program.

Play with anything, and everything, you find around the house, junk or otherwise. See what sounds it makes. Record it, and then see what it makes you think of out of context. Build up your own library of sounds, labelling them with things they sound like. Take clips of films, mute the sound and create your own soundscape for them. Store the sound clips and then manipulate them in Sonic Pi, and see if you can use them as the basis of different sounds.

Listen to the example sound clips made with Sonic Pi on their website, then start adapting them to create your own sounds, your own music. What is the most ‘natural sound’ you can find or create using Sonic Pi?

Jane Waite and Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London.

More on …

 Magazines

  • Issue 21: Computing Sounds Wild
    • explores the work of scientists and engineers who are using computers to understand, identify and recreate wild sounds, especially those of birds. We see how sophisticated algorithms that allow machines to learn, can help recognize birds even when they can’t be seen, so helping conservation efforts. We see how computer models help biologists understand animal behaviour, and we look at how electronic and computer generated sounds, having changed music, are now set to change the soundscapes of films. Making electronic sounds is also a great, fun way to become a computer scientist and learn to program.
The front cover of issue 21 of CS4FN called Computing Sounds Wild

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

 

Executable Biology

Computing cancer using computational modelling

(From the archive)

Cells Mitosis
Image by Colin Behrens from Pixabay

Can a robot get cancer? Silly question. Our bodies are made of cells. Robots aren’t. Cells are the basic building blocks of life and come in lots of different forms from long thin nerve cells that allow us to sense the world, to round blood cells that carry oxygen around our bodies. Cancer occurs when cells go rogue and start reproducing in an uncontrolled way. A computer can’t get cancer, but you can allow virtual diseases to attack virtual cells inside a computer. Doing that may just help find cures. That is what Jasmin Fisher, who leads a research group at Microsoft Research in Cambridge, has devoted her career to.

Becoming a medic isn’t the only way to help save lives!

Computational Modelling is changing the way the sciences are done. It is the idea that you can run experiments on virtual versions of things you are investigating. A computer model is essentially just a program that simulates the phenomena of interest. For example, by writing a program that simulates the laws of Physics, you can use it to run virtual Physics experiments about the motion of the planets, say. If your virtual planets do follow the paths real planets do, then you have evidence the laws are right. If they don’t your laws (or the models) need to change. You can also make predictions such as when an eclipse will happen. If you are right it suggests the laws you coded are good descriptions of reality. If wrong, back to the drawing board.

Jasmin has been pioneering this idea with the stuff of life and death. She focusses on modelling cells and the specific ways that we think cancer attacks them. It gives a way of exploring what is going on at the level of the molecules inside cells, and so how well new medicines might, or might not, work. Experiments can be done quickly and easily on the programmed models by running simulations. That means the real experiments, taking up expensive lab time, can focus on things that are most likely to be successful. Jasmin’s work has helped researchers design more effective actual experiments because they start with a better understanding of what is going on. One of the most important questions she is studying is how cells end up becoming what they are, and how this differs between normal cells and cancer cells. Understand this and we will be much closer to understanding how to stop cancer.

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

How to get a head in robotics

Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay

[This article includes a free papercraft activity with a paper robot that expresses ’emotions’.]

If humans are ever to get to like and live with robots we need to understand each other. One of the ways that people let others know how they are feeling is through the expressions on their faces. A smile or a frown on someone’s face tells us something about how they are feeling and how they are likely to react. We can also tell something of a person’s emotions from their eyes and eyebrows. Some scientists think it might be possible for robots to express feelings this way too, but understanding how a robot can usefully express its ‘emotions’ (what its internal computer program is processing and planning to do next), is still in its infancy. A group of researchers in Poland, at Wroclaw University of Technology, have come up with a clever new design for a robot head that could help a computer show its feelings. It’s inspired by the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon and movie series.

The real Emys orbicularis (European pond turtle) Image by Luis Fernández García, CC BY-SA 3.0 from Wikimedia

The real Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle

Their turtle-inspired robotic head called EMYS, which stands for EMotive headY System is cleverly also the name of a European pond turtle, Emys orbicularis. Taking his inspiration from cartoons, the project’s principal ‘head’ designer Jan Kedzierski created a mechanical marvel that can convey a whole range of different emotions by tilting a pair of movable discs, one of which contains highly flexible eyes and eyebrows.

Eye see

The CS4FN/LIREC emotional Robot face with three discs like EMYS
Image by CS4FN

The lower disc imitates the movements of the human lower jaw, while the upper disk can mimic raising the eyebrows and wrinkling the forehead. There are eyelids and eyebrows linked to each eye. Have a look at your face in the mirror, then try pulling some expressions like sadness and anger. In particular look at what these do to your eyes. In the robot, as in humans, the eyelids can move to cover the eye. This helps in the expression of emotions like sadness or anger, as your mirror experiment probably showed.

Pop eye

But then things get freaky and fun. Following the best traditions of cartoons, when EMYS is ‘surprised’ the robot’s eyes can shoot out to a distance of more than 10 centimetres! This well-known ‘eyes out on stalks’ cartoon technique, which deliberately over-exaggerates how people’s eyes widen and stare when they are startled, is something we instinctively understand even though our eyes don’t really do this. It makes use of the fact that cartoons take the real world to extremes, and audiences understand and are entertained by this sort of comical exaggeration. In fact it’s been shown that people are faster at recognising cartoons of people than recognising the un- exaggerated original.

High tech head builder

The mechanical internals of EMYS consist of lightweight aluminium, while the covering external elements, such as the eyes and discs, are made of lightweight plastic using 3D rapid prototyping technology. This technology allows a design on the computer to be ‘printed’ in plastic in three dimensions. The design in the computer is first converted into a stack of thin slices. Each slice of the design, from the bottom up, individually oozes out of a printer and on to the slice underneath, so layer-by-layer the design in the computer becomes a plastic reality, ready for use.

Facing the future

A ‘gesture generator’ computer program controls the way the head behaves. Expressions like ‘sad’ and ‘surprised’ are broken down into a series of simple commands to the high-speed motors, moving the various lightweight parts of the face. In this way EMYS can behave in an amazingly fluid way – its eyes can ‘blink’, its neck can turn to follow a person’s face or look around. EMYS can even shake or nod its head. EMYS is being used on the Polish group’s social robot FLASH (FLexible Autonomous Social Helper) and also with other robot bodies as part of the LIREC project (www.lirec.eu [archived]). This big project explores the question of how robot companions could interact with humans, and helps find ways for robots to usefully show their ‘emotions’.

Do try this at home

You can program a paper version of an EMYS-like robot. Download and follow the instructions on the Emotion Machine in the printable version below and build your own EMYS.

Print, cut out and make your own emotional robot. The strips of paper at the top (‘sliders’) containing the expressions and letters are slotted into the grooves on the robot’s face and happy or annoyed faces can created by moving the sliders.

By selecting a series of different commands in the Emotion Engine boxes, the expression on EMYS’s face will change. How many different expressions can you create? What are the instructions you need to send to the face for a particular expression? What emotion do you think that expression looks like – how would you name it? What would you expect the robot to be ‘feeling’ if it pulled that face?

Emotion Machine Sheet - a robot head with strips to thread foreyes, eyebrow and mouth
Click on the image to go to the download page. Activity sheet by CS4FN

Go further

Why not draw your own sliders, with different eye shapes, mouth shapes and so on. Explore and experiment! That’s what computer scientists do.

Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London

More on …

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

Letters from the Victorian Smog: Braille: binary, bits & bytes

Reading Braille - a hand on a page of Braille
Image by Myriams-Fotos from Pixabay

We take for granted that computers use binary: to represent numbers, letters, or more complicated things like music and pictures…any kind of information. That was something Ada Lovelace realised very early on. Binary wasn’t invented for computers though. Its first modern use as a way to represent letters was actually invented in the first half of the 19th century. It is still used today: Braille.

Braille is named after its inventor, Louis Braille. He was born 6 years before Ada though they probably never met as he lived in France. He was blinded as a child in an accident and invented the first version of Braille when he was only 15 in 1824 as a way for blind people to read. What he came up with was a representation for letters that a blind person could read by touch.

Choosing a representation for the job is one of the most important parts of computational thinking. It really just means deciding how information is going to be recorded. Binary gives ways of representing any kind of information that is easy for computers to process. The idea is just that you create codes to represent things made up of only two different characters: 1 and 0. For example, you might decide that the binary for the letter ‘p’ was: 01110000. For the letter ‘c’ on the other hand you might use the code, 01100011. The capital letters, ‘P’ and ‘C’ would have completely different codes again. This is a good representation for computers to use as the 1’s and 0’s can themselves be represented by high and low voltages in electrical circuits, or switches being on or off.

He was inspired by an earlier ‘Night Writing’ system developed by Charles Barbier to allow French soldiers in the 1800s to read military messages without using a lamp (which gave away their position, putting them at risk).

The first representation Louis Braille chose wasn’t great though. It had dots, dashes and blanks – a three symbol code rather than the two of binary. It was hard to tell the difference between the dots and dashes by touch, so in 1837 he changed the representation – switching to a code of dots and blanks.

He had invented the first modern
form of writing based on binary.

Braille works in the same way as modern binary representations for letters. It uses collections of raised dots (1s) and no dots (0s) to represent them. Each gives a bit of information in computer science terms. To make the bits easier to touch they’re grouped into pairs. To represent all the letters of the alphabet (and more) you just need 3 pairs as that gives 64 distinct patterns. Modern Braille actually has an extra row of dots giving 256 dot/no dot combinations in the 8 positions so that many other special characters can be represented. Representing characters using 8 bits in this way is exactly the equivalent of the computer byte.

Modern computers use a standardised code, called Unicode. It gives an agreed code for referring to the characters in pretty well every language ever invented including Klingon! There is also a Unicode representation for Braille using a different code to Braille itself. It is used to allow letters to be displayed as Braille on computers! Because all computers using Unicode agree on the representations of all the different alphabets, characters and symbols they use, they can more easily work together. Agreeing the code means that it is easy to move data from one program to another.

The 1830s were an exciting time to be a computer scientist! This was around the time Charles Babbage met Ada Lovelace and they started to work together on the analytical engine. The ideas that formed the foundation of computer science must have been in the air, or at least in the Victorian smog.

Paul Curzon and Jo Brodie, Queen Mary University of London

More on…

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

Only the fittest slogans survive!

A conveyer belt passing through a production machine.
Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay

Being creative isn’t just for the fun of it. It can be serious too. Marketing people are paid vast amounts to come up with slogans for new products, and in the political world, a good, memorable soundbite can turn the tide over who wins and loses an election. Coming up with great slogans that people will remember for years needs both a mastery of language and a creative streak too. Algorithms are now getting in on the act, and if anyone can create a program as good as the best humans, they will soon be richer than the richest marketing executive. Polona Tomašicˇ and her colleagues from the Jožef Stefan Institute in Slovenia are one group exploring the use of algorithms to create slogans. Their approach is based on the way evolution works – genetic algorithms. Only the fittest slogans survive!

A mastery of language

To generate a slogan, you give their program a short description on the slogan’s topic – a new chocolate bar perhaps. It then uses existing language databases and programs to give it the necessary understanding of language.

First, it uses a database of common grammatical links between pairs of words generated from wikipedia pages. Then skeletons of slogans are extracted from an Internet list of famous (so successful) slogans. These skeletons don’t include the actual words, just the grammatical relationships between the words. They provide general outlines that successful slogans follow.

From the passage given, the program pulls out keywords that can be used within the slogans (beans, flavour, hot, milk, …). It generates a set of fairly random slogans from those words to get started. It does this just by slotting keywords into the skeletons along with random filler words in a way that matches the grammatical links of the skeletons.

Breeding Slogans

New baby slogans are now produced by mating pairs of initial slogans (the parents). This is done by swapping bits into the baby from each parent. Both whole sections and individual words are swapped in. Mutation is allowed too. For example, adjectives are added in appropriate places. Words are also swapped for words with a related meaning. The resulting children join the new population of slogans. Grammar is corrected using a grammar checker.

Culling Slogans

Slogans are now culled. Any that are the same as existing ones go immediately. The slogans are then rated to see which are fittest. This uses simple properties like their length, the number of keywords used, and how common the words used are. More complex tests used are based on how related the meanings of the words are, and how commonly pairs of words appear together in real sentences. Together these combine to give a single score for the slogan. The best are kept to breed in the next generation, the worst are discarded (they die!), though a random selection of weaker slogans are also allowed to survive. The result is a new set of slogans that are slightly better than the previous set.

Many generations later…

Hot chocolate from above with biscuits, spoon of chocolate and fir cone on a leaf.
Image by Sabrina Ripke from Pixabay

The program breeds and culls slogans like this for thousands, even millions of generations, gradually improving them, until it finally chooses its best. The slogans produced are not yet world beating on their own, and vary in quality as judged by humans. For chocolate, one run came up with slogans like “The healthy banana” and “The favourite oven”, for example. It finally settled on “The HOT chocolate” which is pretty good.

More work is needed on the program, especially its fitness function – the way it decides what is a good slogan and what isn’t. As it stands this sort of program isn’t likely to replace anyone’s marketing department. They could help with brainstorming sessions though, to spark new ideas but leaving humans to make the final choice. Supporting human creativity rather than replacing it is probably just as rewarding for the program after all.

(From the archive)

More on …

Related Magazines …

Issue 22 Cover Creative Computing

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

What are birds actually saying?

A gull squarking with mouth wide
Image by Thanasis Papazacharias from Pixabay

Birds make so much noise, and it’s very complex. Is it just babble, or are they saying complicated things to each other? If so, could we work out what they are saying, what it means? Could we learn their language and speak to the birds?

We know that bird communication is not as complicated as the words and sentences in human speech. So far, no one has been able to find grammatical patterns like those we find in human language. There apparently aren’t rules for birds like the ones we have about verbs and nouns. Birds don’t have to learn grammar! Exactly how complex bird languages are is still hotly debated, though.

Sometimes they’re passing on information about predators, or food, or sometimes just advertising their own fitness – showing off to get a mate (a bit like karaoke nights). Scientists have proved that such specific kinds of information are in the sounds birds make by observing bird behaviour. By playing recordings of birds and seeing how other birds react, they can see what information was communicated by a particular sound. If you play a ‘predator near’ call, for example, then other birds flee, but they stay put if you play other calls. They get the message.

Birds are definitely passing on
specific information when they sing.

It turns out some birds have even learnt the languages of other animals and use it both to help those other animals and to support a life of crime. Many animals listen for the alarm calls of the animals around them, and so flee when others see a problem. Birds called Drongos, for example, act as lookouts for Meerkats, giving warning calls when they see Meerkat predators, allowing them to return to the safety of their burrows. However, the Drongos also sound false alarms every so often. They do it when they see a Meerkat with some juicy morsel. As the Meerkats run, the Drongo swoops in to steal the abandoned food.

Unfortunately for the Drongo, Meerkats are quite clever and get wise to the con. Eventually, they start to ignore the Drongo and only listen for their own Meerkat sentry’s call. The Drongo has another trick though. They are really good at mimicking sounds they hear, just like parrots. They have learnt to speak Meerkat just like the scientists do in experiments. So when the Meerkats stop reacting, the Drongos just switch tactics and start making perfect Meerkat language alarm calls instead. Once again the food is theirs.

Drongos give false alarms so they can steal food.

While most of us can’t reproduce bird sounds ourselves, and so talk directly to animals, we can certainly write programs to do it. In Star Wars, C3PO is a master of languages, speaking millions. Real robots of the near future will be able to mimic the sounds of whatever animals they wish and communicate with them in at least the simple ways that animals of different species listen and talk to each other. Perhaps something like this might be used to help protect endangered species from their predators, for example, watching for hawks and issuing timely warnings. We just have to hope they don’t turn to the Dark Side, like the Drongos, and use these skills to support a life of crime.

Dan Stowell and Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London

Watch …

Magazine

  • Issue 21: Computing Sounds Wild
    • Computing Sounds Wild explores the work of scientists and engineers who are using computers to understand, identify and recreate wild sounds, especially those of birds. We see how sophisticated algorithms that allow machines to learn, can help recognize birds even when they can’t be seen, so helping conservation efforts. We see how computer models help biologists understand animal behaviour, and we look at how electronic and computer generated sounds, having changed music, are now set to change the soundscapes of films. Making electronic sounds is also a great, fun way to become a computer scientist and learn to program.
The front cover of issue 21 of CS4FN called Computing Sounds Wild

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

Ada Lovelace: Visionary

Red floating treble clef
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

It is 1843, Queen Victoria is on the British throne. The industrial revolution has transformed the country. Steam, cogs and iron rule. The first computers won’t be successfully built for a hundred years. Through the noise and grime one woman sees the future. A digital future that is only just being realised.

Ada Lovelace is often said to be the first programmer. She wrote programs for a designed, but yet to be built, computer called the Analytical Engine. She was something much more important than a programmer, though. She was the first truly visionary person to see the real potential of computers. She saw they would one day be creative.

Charles Babbage had come up with the idea of the Analytical Engine – how to make a machine that could do calculations so we wouldn’t need to do it by hand. It would be another century before his ideas could be realised and the first computer was actually built. As he tried to get the money and build the computer, he needed someone to help write the programs to control it – the instructions that would tell it how to do calculations. That’s where Ada came in. They worked together to try and realise their joint dream, jointly working out how to program.

Ada also wrote “The Analytical Engine has no pretensions to originate anything.” So how does that fit with her belief that computers could be creative? Read on and see if you can unscramble the paradox.

Ada was a mathematician with a creative flair and while Charles had come up with the innovative idea of the Analytical Engine itself, he didn’t see beyond his original idea of the computer as a calculator, she saw that they could do much more than that.

The key innovation behind her idea was that the numbers could stand for more than just quantities in calculations. They could represent anything – music for example. Today when we talk of things being digital – digital music, digital cameras, digital television, all we really mean is that a song, a picture, a film can all be stored as long strings of numbers. All we need is to agree a code of what the numbers mean – a note, a colour, a line. Once that is decided we can write computer programs to manipulate them, to store them, to transmit them over networks. Out of that idea comes the whole of our digital world.

Ada saw even further though. She combined maths with a creative flair and so she realised that not only could they store and play music they could also potentially create it – they could be composers. She foresaw the whole idea of machines being creative. She wasn’t just the first programmer, she was the first truly creative programmer.

Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London

More on …

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

 

I know where your cat lives

Image by Prawny from Pixabay

Governments pass laws to protect their citizens’ privacy. They outlaw reading email, listening in to phone calls and accessing data without permission or a court order. If you really care about privacy though, you need to protect your ‘metadata’ too: data about data. The police and security services can learn a lot from metadata when they put their minds to it. Anyone else with access can too. You need to take care of yours (and that of your cat).

Imagine you are on the run, hoping not to be found. You would make sure no one took a photograph of you that showed where you were, but you might think you were safe enough if you weren’t standing next to a distinctive landmark. Think again. John McAfee (who was on the run from the Police at the time), was located by a photograph, but not because of anything visible in the picture. It was because of the hidden metadata attached to it.

Metadata is all the indexing information that goes with data. So a film on DVD is actual data but the name of the film, the director, information about the actors, and so on – that’s its metadata. Similarly, the words you say in a phone call are the data, but who is calling who and from where is metadata.

With photos (the data), the metadata includes where the photo was taken and the camera it was taken with. Smartphones track very precise location information, and, unless you switch this setting off, this metadata of where it was taken is saved with the picture. If the photo is uploaded to a website, the metadata is uploaded too, and that’s what happened to John McAfee. A journalist interviewed him and took a photo, intending not to give away his whereabouts. However, he uploaded the photo which gave away the precise location in the metadata. This would have made it easier for law enforcement to catch up with him … had he not found out about the location-leak first and made his escape in the nick of time.

Location based services on smartphones are really useful. If you want to find out where you are, how far away something is, or use the inbuilt map apps on the phone to plan how to get somewhere, then you need to let the phone know where it is. But you might not want a photograph you take inside your home to share the information of where that house is to anyone who cares to know, stalkers and trolls included.

The website “I know where your cat lives” aims to make more people aware of the information they give away unintentionally. Plenty of people share photographs of their gorgeous pets on the Internet. Most also unwittingly give away the precise latitude and longitude of where they live. The site collects publicly available cat photos with their metadata and plots them on an aerial photo map, showing where each cat’s photo has been taken, and so likely where the owner lives

German Green party MP, Malte Spitz, went a step further and published 6 months of records kept (at the time by law) by his phone company about him. To emphasise how scary it was privacy-wise he published it in the form of a minute by minute interactive map, so anyone could follow his exact location (just like the phone company) as though in real time from the location metadata his phone was giving away all the time. The metadata was combined with his freely available social networking data, allowing anyone to see not just where he was but often what he was doing. Germany no longer requires phone companies to keep this metadata, but other countries have antiterrorist laws that require similar information to be kept for everyone. You can explore Malte’s movements at (archived link: www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention) to get an idea of how your life is being tracked by metadata.

Don’t just look after your cat, look after your cat’s metadata too (not to mention your own)!

 Jo Brodie, Queen Mary University of London

More on …

In the news …

 Related Magazine

A copy can be found on page 8 in ‘Keep Out’ – Issue 24 of CS4FN magazine, on Cyber Security and Privacy

Our magazines and booklets are free to download from: https://cs4fndownloads.wordpress.com

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