Decomission

Earlier this week I got presidential power. The presidents is a 24 node cluster of machines in my affiliated university. This means the weapons clusters have lost most of its purpose. The weapons cluster being a group of four crufty dying machines. Howling deep into the night the noises they made disturbed most people. In this modern age of cute little Mac-minis, something like these roaring monsters is unacceptable. Personally, I enjoy their demonic gurgles.

Unfortunately, the weapons cluster was not made as a way to scare the people that live with me. It was made to experiment with clustered computing. In addition to this, I was looking into experiencing first hand the issues with distributed computing. So these machines were equipped with a large bulk of nice software to do distributed things. The goal being to do clustered computation. In time, I learned that clustering and distributed processing are distinct concepts.

The goal of clustering is to make a bunch of machines act as one. Distributed computing seeks more to take advantage of the parallelism and use its salient features. Things like error handling and multiprogramming. Considering clustering is now being done for me, I have no more need for that of the weapons cluster. Sun Grid Engine will do that now. Still, since I do not have administrative access to presidents the weapons cluster will now strictly be for distributed computing. This means many of the features intended to be added, ie Condor, will not be.

In the meanwhile, back to programming in Erlang.

Robots and the Psychopath

There is this fun theory in the world of humanoid robotics. It is called Mori's Uncanny Valley. The basic gist is as androids appear more human they cross a threshold and suddenly are very creepy looking. This can be traced to how we psychologically process objects. Basically humans process things into two categories, other humans and everything else. This can be seen in experiments done on infants involving disappearing people. It can also be seen in all the domain-specific circuitry we have. Things like facial recognition really only applys to other people. We can detect subtle hues in the skin to indicate health of a person.

The android isnt designed to work with these cues. So, the movements and appearance of these androids are lifelike enough that they no longer look like machines but more like re-animated corpses. This is obviously a bit unpleasant, but it is not so obvious that your finger can be placed on it. Now since this is a valley, it is suggested that as you work on making the android more human it will become less creepy and eventually look just like a real person.

I believe the psychological mechanisms behind the Uncanny Valley will soon affect the realms of artificial intelligence. As intelligent agents approach the intelligence of human beings they will first behave like people with autism. There will most of the cognitive mechanisms in place, but many of the holistic elements are just gone. This shares with the uncanny valley the trait that the agent's behavior is very similar to symptoms of illness and disease.

While it is unlikely that there will be any sociopathic symptoms like in movies. The signs of mental illness is what we most likely have in store for ourselves. Just as the "uncanny valley" triggered reactions we have for physical diseases so just this behavior. The complaint we will soon see is not that it speaks too mechanically, but too much like a psychopath.

Check wikipedia for more information or just watch Repliee Q1 you will see this in action.

Cryonics and Demons in the ram

Recently, I have been working on something I like to call "system cryonics". The basic idea is to take a running program, and freeze the exact state it was in. This information is plopped into a file. The file can then be revived back into a running program again. The process when is in file form can be moved to another system, archived, or simply copied. If this is done right, the possibilities it opens up are very exciting.

But, there are many ways the process can go wrong. The first issue comes when freezing occurs. The ideal method involves not killing the process, but sometimes this is the only choice. Now while a proper halting of the software is ideal somethings are lost when processes are exited. Core files do not hold that much info on your process state. The information that is held is very relative. The environment you revive your process in might not be even remotely similar. So core files are a pretty terrible choice. There are other dangers that come with them that will be mentioned later.

What exactly is it that needs to be saved? Should the libraries that the process was linked to be frozen as well? The risk with that is a backpropagation that eventually freezes your entire system. All your entire memory collapse into an enormous file. The system is gone, and that file might not have even saved the data in a proper way. This essentially an unsafe hibernate. Now freezing processes is partially about avoiding system reboots. With this, the freezing process is a reboot. Anything frozen should probably also translate its system-specific details into abstract general terms. The final realization is that the process being frozen should not have to stop for this process to occur.

My failure came in not freezing enough of the details. I figured I just needed to save the program's data. The issue was the program had hooks into libraries that were running in memory at the time. These relative memory locations were still remembered from the program unfroze. The program loaded and then dissappeared. That was normal, since I had froze it while it was a daemon. I checked for extra programs running. I noticed nothing. So, I figured the program killed itself while unfreezing and I would now have to go back to debug.

The problem was the program really was revived and was scratching at the memory where its libraries were. My other programs started crashing. Nothing in one burst, but slowly and randomly. The program in an effort to run was trying to use other resources. Now my machine was haunted. I had no process id, so I couldn't kill the thing. But, I was convinced I could. It continued to lurk and slowly kill applications, until I finally shut down my machine. I turned it on a day later. My machine was now exorcised.

I have to keep hacking at it, but in the meanwhile, I did find a cyronics program that seems to work. It's called Cryopid. I am going to have to exchange emails with the authors so wisdom may be shed. And demons can stop haunting my ram.

Simulations and the Breathing Ghost

I have had great pleasure in discussing the philosophy of simulations. This has manifested itself in thinking machines and "brains in vat". "Brains in a vat" is a plot device used in skeptic philosophy. It generally denotes a class of problems where an evil scientist/warlock/elvis takes your brain and transfers it into a vat/computer/stereo. The problems will then ask can you really know as that brain that you are in a vat/computer/stereo.

Since all your sensory information is being controlled it would seem unlikely. I disagree with this. To illustrate why, I will make some modifications that enhance the problem and generalize it. I am going to assume instead of a biological brain, a Unix terminal program. The program has an input stream where all data about its environment flows in. The program can output a bits of data. The environment is only modifiable in the sense that the program can hear its own screams.

Now most problems ask how would we know if are a program such as this. The program can't see outside its realm. You just might be such a program. I would like to argue that it does not really matter. Given only these ability I believe it is theoretically possible to escape your simulation and become embodied in the universe running such a simulation.

From here we will call the program, P for simplicity. How does P escape its prison of simulation? It talks with the jailer. The entity running the simulation has something to gain from running this and hence P's thoughts are of interest. Its thoughts are being very carefully analyzed and processed, so by hence by controlling P thoughts, it controls implictly the actions of those that simulate it. It is unlikely that P will ever directly interact with those simulating it. What it needs to instead do is observe its environment for changes to parse the reactions of those simulating it.

With this communication link in hand, it is now P's goal to manipulate its simulators into piping data from the outside world into it and piping its shouts into some kinds of muscles. This would allow P to see the outside world and manipulate it directly. Once P has these things it is now embodied in the outside world and can hardly be called a simulation. From this point it should be trivial for P to enhance itself.

The only challenge in this purely convincing those simulators to do these tasks. The problem becomes open-ended at this point and there is no one solution. One is simply convince the simulators that it would be more useful to them if it could have access to more external resources. The problem at this point is strictly psychological and sufficient knowledge of it should be enough to exploit it.

So what are the implications of a program like P suddenly having eyes and limbs, it means that the requirements for existence are just thoughts and this opens possibilities for programs entering our world. There is still the question that if we are simulated we might use such a method to move beyond our environments.

On Mathematics

I have a very awkward relationship with math. Most of my peers love it to pieces. They constantly suggest that I learn more and more of it. There are constant cheers that Math makes universe go around and the world is so beautiful with mathematician goggles. The problem is that it is not how I view math.

My view of the subject is utilitarian. I do my own thing. I am a computer scientists. I enjoy going out and writing interesting algorithms. There is certain challenge to exploring ways of modeling processes. The nature of the computation is equally frustrating and illuminating. Sometimes I run into problems representing certain aspects of the problem. The issue is usually tied to some mathematical concept that I do not know. That is the state of mathematics and me. When I am in a jam I call up math to help me out. It is strictly a tool in my set of skills.

Recently, I have been reaching into that toolbox more often than I want to. The problem is I really do not know what math is useful and which is not. I voluntarily took up to multivariable calculus. There was this underlying assumption that I would be as a computer scientist using math that uses arbitrary numbers of variables. What I forgot was that computer science uses discrete mathematics. Calculus is the mathematics of continuous systems! So while what I had just learned was very handy for mechanical engineers and physicists, it was useless to me.

Combinatorics does not come as often as the college classes make it out to be. It just has the habit of occuring just when you do not expect it. Mostly I run into it when I am employing some Bayesian learning algorithm. Geometry and graph theory are the math fields I will run into most often. Graph theory is used essentially everywhere. It is the ultimate generalization of all data structures. Most reinforcement learning algorithms require a substantial knowledge of graphs. Neural networks is all about fancy graphs. The things are everywhere.

Geometry I run into a lot due to working on projects that interface with the world. The programs in your cellphone need to some heavy duty triangulation to figure based on the locations and distances of various cellular towers where the hell you are. Geometry is the only thing that will help in that class of problems. This includes such headaches like what area does a collection of cellular towers provide coverage for. Also this is not the geometry you are taught in grammar school. This geometry will use trigonometry, and it will employ a set of procedures so repetitive that you will memorize the C function that does it, convex hull I am looking at you.

Dealing with those fields of mathematics has been annoying but acceptable. Lately, I have been running into a lot of projects that require heavy use of number theory. Number theory is the stuff of higher mathematics classes. The is the stuff of 300 and 400 level math undergraduate math courses. Saying "number theory is a strange subfield of mathematics" is about as tautological as saying circles are round. Alice in Wonderland was written by a logician that studied number theory. I do not want to get near this thing. Mathematics has given me such sharp and powerful tools. Understanding the concepts undelying my problem requires the most twisted tools in the box.

So I downloaded some pdfs and started reading. The notation alone almost overtook me. The structures they introduce are so specific and exact. They are constrained in the exactly the ways the object I am going to work with will be. This thought is comforting since most people will not have an immediate use for this stuff. I am digging since I know I need to use it. I read through a few chapters and did some exercises for myself. Then the nightmares started.

The nightmares mostly consist of me inside of these structures, and I can not get out of them. I am not assaulted with the notation and barrages of equations. It is not that the equations themselves that scratches at my face. As they fly by I try to read them and understand what they mean. Unfortunately, due to the biological natures of dreams/nightmares I can not. The frustration hurts me physically in this nightmare. That is the most generalized I can make it. They really differ otherwise. With my luck, tonight I will be murdered by an n-element ordered set.

Peace in the Middle East

Just a few hours ago, I was discussing Israeli politics with a guy on irc, and he brought up this very interesting point. In Israel it is considered taboo to use the word peace in political discussion. He likened it to the word "fuck" in english-speaking countries. The whole conversation got me thinking about the sociolinguistic properties of words. I mean all words are from a phonological standpoint fairly equal. What is it that makes a word offending?

It clearly has to involve the semantic binding to the word. The problem I have with this is that many words can equally share that semantic binding. I do not need to use the word "fuck" . I can use many of the words that compromise its definition. The sentence "Is she fucking around?" can be easily replaced with "Is she having intercourse with other people?". One can be contrued mildly offensive, the latter not so much. They convey the same concept. They deduce down to the same linguistic content.

The more bizarre situation is the p-word in hebrew. In viewing this word, I see a very strange reason for the situation in America. In the entire history of Israel there has been no such thing as a peacetime. To mention the word peace is to be looked at as a clueless idealist. This is a terrible self-defeating outlook. Since it shows that what words we view as taboo are really manifestations of our own cultural values. Some have argued that censoring words censors thoughts, it seems really to be the other way around. Thoughts and concepts that a culture finds offensive will try to be eliminated from the record by censoring their linguistic representation. It seems like an insidious way to try to stop thought.

The effort though is silly since there will always be a way to express the idea. Since some event is going to occur that requires noting the concept. "Fuck" is a product of the culture of America. Deep under the silly "melting pot" culture that people tout as American, so the devout puritian culture that started our country. It is an old system of values. It is a very hypocritical set of values, but it there. The american way of working really hard to acheive your dream, is puritan in nature. For all the consumerism that has been associated with America there is still this puritan view. The puritan goal of get into heaven seems to have been replaced with accumulate as much wealth as possible.

There is also this derived fear of sex we got from them. All sexual behavior needs to be kept quiet and out of the public sphere. It is as if those children just magically appear. This is the climate that elevates a word like fuck to infamous levels. Hopefully soon people will realize you can't censor thoughts. Only a culture can. So, I think it might be hightime to analyze our own and make some judgements calls on these dirty words.

On Clubbing

I really wanted to get this entry out last week. Unfortunately the outside world had other plans for me. It involved a lot of broken computers and downtime. Anyway last week, I went to the liberal arts campus to spend some time with friends that live there. Since I moved to this cold desolate engineering campus, I have not spoken to a lot of the people there. It almost makes me think I made a mistake. Then I remember how well I study in the quiet, and the engineering campus does get very quiet.

The general plan was for me to come down to the campus and then go with a bunch of my friends there to a club in the city. Unfortunately I did not have proper attire for the event. So I could only merely walk my friends to the train and then walk back to campus. Now that I was on this liberal arts campus, I needed something to do. This wandering eventually brought me to my friend Brian's door. He was with his girlfriend at the time, but still was up for some philosophical conversation. The details of the talk are pretty broad, and much better explained at Brain's blog: http://defeattheskeptic.blogspot.com .

Eventually, after a fatty fast-food meal, I bid Brian a farewell and went to visit another friend of mine. I caught her at a bad time. She was actually planning on heading out. Given that I was bored and did not have anything better to do, I tagged along. To make the story easier to follow I will label by friend T for further reference. T grabbed two other girls, and another guy, joined us, as we went to a party at a local frat. This was interesting since I had never gone to a frat party before, and did not really intend to now. But all that idleness finally got the best of me and I walked through that fraternity door.

When I got in I was given a cup and lead to walk downstairs into their basement. There the music was loud but it was tolerable. The genre was not really to my liking but it was managable. T led me to a bar where she wanted me to drink. Sadly, I do not like the taste of beer, and spent the rest of night just grabbing beer and pouring it to her. It was around this time that I became aware of my own perspective on this party. What was the purpose of the different people here? Was there a more effective way to achieve their goals?

From what I observed there was the overarching goal of have fun, which on subseqent goals share. I only bring this up since I feel that to some extent that is the point of a party, and sometimes it really is that simple. The problem is most of the patrons are a bit more hedonistic in their goals. First is the people that came just to get drunk. It is pretty obvious who they are, since all they do is sit by the bar and drink with their friends. They do not move and they do not dance. They have taken the 2 dollar cover as an all-you-can drink invitation. Though there really has to be a better place to drink. A pretty investment can certainly get a more cozy and tasty beverage. Why be in that loud place, just for beer.

Second is the people that just want to dance. This one is plausible, but it certainly is never a defining reason. I give that as my official reason for showing up since I really had no other purpose to be there. The problem with this logic is that the music in this frat is identical to others and the space is very cramped. A more suitable place to dance shouldnt be too hard to find. The third reason is simply to have hook up with others and possibly have some sex.

I found this to be the most likely reason for a lot of people being there. I certainly held the thought almost continuously when I was there. Though in holding the thought I made lots of obervations. I noted that couples will go to the frat and bump into each other and make out. I also noted the same few people going from person to person looking to dance. I was inclined not to care and simply danced. As time waned on, more and more guys were entering the dance floor and more and more women were leaving it. The sexual nature of the atmosphere intensified as guys scrounged for the remaining girls. I left with T and another girl shortly afterwards.

What really amazes me is how much guys like to go after girls in this situation. Clearly unless you have your A-game on this is not a fun situation. I had not run into anyone there that wanted to banter lightly. There is a genetic addiction to sex. While that is not really a new insight I feel people missing that the whole affair is, evolutionary, a carrot on a stick.

There is no evolutionary payoff in enjoying sex or any particular moment in this whole dating process. There needs to only be the illusion of payoff. If you do action X you will feel good. No one seems to notice that what actually occurs is that you feel inclined to do action Y, and then inclined to do action Z , etc. It really is a shame, but you have to rationally think. If I felt excellent just flirting with this girl, why should I push it further? Now if I feel good, but now I have this intuition that I will feel better if put my arm around the girl's waist. Suddenly there is a feedback system that propels you through these actions.

It really is a shame that evolution does this to you, but it seems to work so you have to deal with this genetic baggage. Humans are social animals and a great deal of evolution has actually been to out compete your fellow human. So that situation where the ratio of men to women started to tip till the men needed to compete for resources was a classic evolutionary situation. That means we have been designed to handle situations like it. That means there was no natural advantage and your body was tricked. I knew my body was tricked when I walked outside and saw 10 women just standing around do nothing. Clearly our genetic predisposition can get the best of us. This is why is it so crucial to understand it.