Local Color VII -- Kicks on 66

Police notes, March 6, 2012

(Something to which I look forward for my upcoming birthday celebration...)

Lawrence Vigil, 60, 804 Alarid St., was arrested at McDonald's, 1621 Pacheco St., at noon Sunday after he was found drinking rubbing alcohol mixed with Powerade. The report also said there was an open warrant out for his arrest for failure to pay fines.

AI Class RIP -- My Final Review

By popular demand (i.e., my friend Jen) here's my final comment on Stanford's online Introduction to Artificial Intelligence class. It appears that things went so well for the professors that one (Sebastian Thrun) has resigned his tenured position in order to found an online "university": http://www.udacity.com/. For various reasons I will not be participating.

After it was all over, but before the fat lady sang the grades, this question was posted on the forum site:

Did the top students find the questions ambiguous?

This forum keeps talking about the ambiguous questions. Perhaps we should be asking “ambiguous to whom?” My hunch is that the top students didn’t find the questions ambiguous, although I could be wrong. To test my hypothesis, perhaps Irvin and the Profs could give some data to work with, and we could (or they could) test this statistically.

Define a “top student” as a student who achieved say 90% or more on the mid-term (or mid-term + homeworks perhaps). Then look at how many got the “ambiguous” questions correct before the alternate solutions were accepted, vs. the non-top-students. If my hunch is right, it will be the non-top-students who found the questions ambiguous, which tells its own story.

It will also mean that the top-students’ rank overall won’t change too much from the introduction of the alternate solutions, as it will lift all those who got say 80% or less to say 85%. The ranking of students up above 90% won’t change a great deal.

Just a hunch.

Well. I managed to eek out a 96.5% (thanks to a reversal of answer fortune on one of the so-called ambiguous final questions where "they" gave in and accepted both answers as correct). This only put me in the top 25% of the class(!!?). Tough crowd. Here is my reply to the above. (It attracted not a single discussion comment nor have I seen it displayed in the blurbs for subsequent classes):

I too (believe that I) am in the 90%. I found many ambiguities in the lectures, homework, and exams. And I found each one very annoying because I felt I was being graded on how well I could guess what the professors really meant (why I cared about a grade is still a bit beyond me...). My general feeling is that grad students should have taught this course because they are closer to the assumptions being made, senior researchers are bound to "forget" that, e.g., their definitions of Stochastic or Partially Observable are built up over many years of experience. From the beginning certain things were not clearly defined, vis "Rationality" which was only mentioned in the summary of the first video lesson.

My biggest problem with this course was the inability to get answers to questions from definitive sources. First there was no real forum to ask them, and then when aiqus came on line, almost every question went unanswered because it related to open homework or exam questions. I finally realized that there is no point in taking a class where I cannot ask questions and am unlikely to take another online course because of that.

As an example, I got on the wrong track with Particle Filters early on and it was only by dint of repeated reading and listening that I stumbled on the right one. And the only way I knew that I had finally gotten close was that I got the exam questions right. A TA in a study group would have been able to correct my tangent in about 5 seconds...

The chief thing I learned in the class was that I am not very interested in Artificial Intelligence. I discovered that there are sister fields, Computational Intelligence for one, that are more in line with my interests but each has an academic rivalry that keeps them distinct. For instance, there were a couple references to RA Brooks early robotics work (in the book -- I forget if it came up in the videos), especially the 1991 paper "Intelligence Without Representation", which were somewhat dismissive -- because it seems that our professors are still more aligned with the symbolic AI school of thought.

Perhaps if this class had been a survey of the broader field rather than a (kind of) detailed study of specific techniques I would have found it less frustrating. One of my friends who was auditing the class said: There's a bunch of "Oh, that's how they do that" moments but it's missing the big picture.

Local Color VI -- Rural Renewal Program

Case#: 0212002168/ Unlawful taking of a Motor Vehicle,
Criminal Damage to Property/ Date: 02/09/12

Location:  1700 block of State Road 14, Galisteo, NM
On 2/9/12 between 1500 and 1530 hours unknown persons took a 1970's model Oldsmobile from the area for scrap metal.  While leaving the area unknown persons backed into the fence and caused $200.00 worth of damage.  Estimated value of the vehicle is unknown due to the vehicle being parked in the area for 20 years.


(I know, I know, I should post something new...I'm working up to the idea...and it should be State Road 41).

Local Color V -- Party Time!

Case#: 0212000946/ Burglary, Larceny, Criminal Damage to Property

On 1/17/12 deputy responded to above location in reference to a burglary.  Victim stated that between 0720 and 1900 hours unknown persons gained forced entry by throwing a rock through a rear bedroom window.  Victim stated that suspects took 15 Victoria Secret Bras and 40 pairs of Victoria Secret underwear.  Estimated value of items taken is $1500.00.  Estimated damage amount is $500.00.

Social Not Working

Last night I dreamed that I found a way to reanimate dead people such that they could perform their normal functions as Zombies.  It became rather popular with (American) Football players -- high school and up -- because it allowed them to play-through all injuries. When they got too old to continue their sports careers they became (David Chalmers should be proud of this thought experiment) Life Insurance Salesmen.

Which introduces my real topic:

Social Networking

Because our recent rain, sleet, snow, and dark of night conditions did not interfere with the USPS's delivery of my latest New Yorker -- somewhere else -- I am reduced to catching up on the IEEE Spectrum magazines littered around the house. The one I read before my dream was devoted to Social Networking in many of it's myriad forms, mainly focused on the two powerhouses of Google and Facebook (but no mention of Wikipedia?). After reading from cover to cover I have to admit: I just don't get it...

From the 10K level the two companies have similar business plans:

1. Provide ostensibly free information that people want;
2. Collect data about those people;
3. Sell advertising based upon that data;
4. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

I do understand Google's search service since I use it for all kinds of stuff every day. Funny(?) aside: I met Larry Page at SFI once and congratulated him for providing such a valuable service to everyone. He squinted at my name tag and asked, "What's a Reverse Engineer?"

But I don't understand social network services. I've used email for 30 years, run a website for 15 years, and have this very blog for my random thoughts. The number of responses I get is asymptotic to zero. Would doing all that on Facebook change my accessibility? At the price of having to sort through thousands of Farmville activity updates?

I can see the point of a social network when organizing, say, a Revolution. And I do somewhat understand that I could use it find new "friends" -- through I have some trouble even finding old friends -- if I wanted any. I'm not sure it would work any better than the old-fashioned newspaper personals (approximately zero responses) or online-dating (one response, who turned out to be someone I'd gone to college with). But why do I need to tell my "friends" what I ate this morning? (For the record: Envirokids Panda Puffs with added raisins and walnuts and a large Atomic latte.)

To hammer home the information leakage issue, one of the Spectrum articles was about a (very attractive, young, female) doctor who had to define various Trust levels for her "friends" to prevent her inner-circle personal information leaking into the political realm: Her Mother was kept strictly at Level 0... Do I even want to "share" stuff that is that sensitive? Or conversely, since my Mother is dead and the Department of Homeland Security is focused on cupcakes, maybe I don't even care who knows what?

I dunno....


Now, maybe, to the point: Advertising

This whole Internet thing is monetized -- what a lovely coinage, eh? -- by selling targeted advertising. Advertising which attempts to get us to buy things that are, mostly, made elsewhere, and to pay for them with credit that is, mostly, backed by the full faith of the US Government's printing presses. Faith that is being purchased by the same folks who are making the things in the first place. This process seems to be consuming the best and brightest 1% of our young engineers and scientists, who are rewarded with free gourmet food (sour-grapes-contrast with my waning experience at The Company).

Until recently I have been a Very Bad Interzen. I never bothered to look at all those Ads cluttering up my online content. But I read an article about the New Thing being targeted campaigns, rather than just targeted products. For example, they figure out that you respond to bargains and then they offer you coupons. So I started looking at the ads to see what they know about me.

Thank God they were not so sophisticated years ago when I spent a month trolling for ball screw nuts in order to rebuild my milling machine -- I can't even think about the advertising that would generate. But now, on every page, I have an ad for the Ryobi Lithium power tool batteries that I looked up a week ago -- and rejected because, at 4x the price of the old Nicads, I could find no explicit indication, anywhere, that they are compatible or last any longer.

Thus, so far, they have not discerned my preferred campaign style...

ARE YOU LISTENING GOOGLE?

...I respond to ads that tell me:

• What something is;
• What it does;
• How well it works;
• How long it lasts.

And please stop sending email asking me to join the latest wunderkind networking site.

3AM

I wrote this recently thinking I would enter an AARP volunteerism contest. It turned out they wanted a different kind of story (and the stupid entry website just ate my homework when I tried to apply) so I gave up. The actual event happened about a year ago, but we just had two more 3AM fire calls -- on which I demurred response -- so I think it describes the job reasonably well...

When my pager goes off at 3AM I am, uncharacteristically, sleeping rather soundly: "Vehicle fire, intersection of (two streets near my home)". I grumble and think, "Ah, the go-getter kids will go-get this one". But in fact the (two streets near my home) are between me and my Fire Station, so it really is My Neighborhood that needs help. I stumble on some clothes, retain my slippers because it's either a false alarm or I'll have to don my full bunkers -- fire gear and boots -- anyway, and get out the door in under five minutes. A couple minutes later I'm at the specified intersection and find nothing of interest.  I radio this information to the dispatch center who reply, "The caller said at the end of (one of the streets near my home)". So.  Hmm. Maybe it's the _other_ end?

For the last five years I've been a volunteer firefighter in an area of Urban-Wildland Interface bisected by about 20 miles of Interstate Highway.  Our district covers 120 square miles and has a population of 6000 people.  The week after I signed on there was a multiple casualty highway accident involving a family of five. During the -- very detailed -- post incident review I thought, "You know, this might not be for me...". But through a series of fortuitous coincidences I persevered and now have Hazmat, Structural and Wildland Fire, and Medical First Responder certificates. I can also dismantle your car in about ten minutes if you are trapped inside.  And I can drive with Lights'n'Sirens. In my own Personally Operated Vehicle even.

This being Urban-Wildland Interface territory the other end of my street is a mile and a half away around two hills. I U-turn and head back whence I came. Other folks responding are reporting that they see flames somewhere near my hill. So this is a real fire. Someplace nearby.

About 50% of our calls are medical and 20% are fires that don't exist.  Two of the 300 fire alarm checks we've had in the last five years were actual fires. One was because the flue in the fireplace had fallen closed and the other was a pot of forgotten eggs boiling on the stove.  There have also been a few well-done Thanksgiving turkeys to deal with.  In those years we've lost two structures. One due to a wildland fire that took most of the County to control. Overall we've been very lucky.  Really.

Fire trucks are spreading out in a somewhat directed search pattern as I make my way through the hills to the other-end-of-the-street. At the end I find a pickup truck in flames, "Fully Involved". Coming closer I see a body face down on ground near the driver's side, twitching as if it were attached to an electric line. I think, "WTF? Gangs? Up Here?" But I have the presence of mind to get on the radio and report what I see, and more importantly: Where I am. Now at least everyone else can find us.

I join forces with another of our guys who followed me up the hill and drag the "patient" away from the burning vehicle. The fire is spreading to the surrounding brush so I return to my truck to direct the rest of the cavalry to the scene and get suited-up for battle.

Then I stand there for what seems like an hour wondering, "Where the 'heck' is everyone?"

Finally our fire engine arrives. I pull a hose line and extinguish the brush fire while others get geared up and deal with the vehicle. It's all over in a few moments. Discounting the panic.

The patient turned out to be one of our own guys who had, shall we say, over-extended himself and decided that his exit strategy should be immediate. In a moment of clarity he radioed-in the location of his fire, which our dispatchers then slightly misinterpreted. Our department's participation in his initial group therapy sessions kind of overwhelmed the counseling facility. But he's doing fine now.

Some additional addenda

In thinking about my recent (12/30/11, below) modest proposal -- yes, I know, I'm not supposed to be thinking about it -- a few additional points came to mind:

• The Job Multiplier -- Every pointless regulatory job created at the federal level would create at least 10 more jobs at the state and local levels, not to mention the affected industries scrambling to hire folks to comply/scam the new regulation. Money well spent in lubricating the economy.
• Funding -- "Just who's going to pay?" comes to mind. It's all Pay as You Go via application and use fees. Let's say I want to kill my neighbor. There's an initial application, environmental impact documents, various agency approvals, announcements, and god-knows-what-else-a-motivated-legislator can come up with. Each step has a nominal fee to cover costs. Plus I'll probably have to hire someone to guide me through the maze -- there's another private sector job right there! Once it's all signed and sealed my neighbor may not show up at the appointed time and place, so there needs to be a compliance officer to insure that I don't take matters into my own hands by going out of bounds -- this is probably a public sector job. On the other hand I may have annoyed the neighbor so much that he DOES show up armed with the necessary permits. Then we have a good old fashioned duel on our hands, and may need a second compliance officer to enforce whatever rules the-motivated-legislator has determined to be necessary. But I should be able to retain any funds which exceed the license fees, so there is profit to be made at each turn. If one applies this system to something like Credit Default Swaps I think you can imagine just how much potential profit, even subtracting fees, is available for exploitation.
• Some Things Are Too Important to Be Obfuscated -- For instance I would say this includes Emergency Services -- the Fire and EMS which are close to my own heart and some subsets of Law Enforcement (there are whack jobs out there {I leave the precise definition to the reader} and it would be counter-productive to require private citizens to go through the whole permit process in order to get them under control). This stuff falls under what I would call the Sturgeon's Revelation clause: 90% of everything is crud. Where the remaining 10% (maybe downgraded to 5% these days) is this Too Important to Fail stuff. So I would lighten up a bit on the regulations here and actually make a concerted effort to provide these services efficiently. I haven't seen any of the limited government folks address this. Do we really eliminate all services dedicated to the public good? How about Stop signs at busy intersections? Or even roads themselves? Obviously there are opportunities for constructive argument here.

Interestingly enough Sturgeon stumbled on a classification system similar to the 80-20 Pareto Principle (that Pareto guy really got around didn't he?) which shows some empirical evidence that 80% of everything takes 20% of the resources and vice-versa. While working in the tech industry I independently developed my own 80/15/5 rule of thumb: 80%-Crap/15%-Gray-area/5%-Non-crap, which proved to be fairly useful. This could be applied to the task of determining exactly how to classify all the various public services.