Movie comments: Beyond Borders
I usually do not like movies with harsh endings unless there is something worthwhile beyond entertainment. In this movie's case, it exposes the viewer to a broader reality. It motivated me to look deeper into the topics of the film. For related topics involving Angelina Jolie, look up Notes from My Travels: Visits with Refugees in Africa, Cambodia, Pakistan and Ecuador.
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Movie comments: Australia
Movie comments: Australia
This 2 hour and 45 minute movie was worth the length. I would have liked this epic style movie even if it was longer. Although it had flaws, it kept my interest throughout. It mixed adventure, drama and romance quite well. It even had ethical points in its portrayal of the treatment of aboriginals and mixed peoples. A favorite phrase in the movie was "just because it is does not mean that it should be". It was fittingly used twice in the film. The parts of the film which relates to this phrase are some of the reasons I connected with this film. This and a similar statement that we shouldn't do something just because we can are important subjects which I think should be worked into movies as much as possible. This movie's "just because it is does not mean that it should be" subject matter is imperfect but valuable.
This 2 hour and 45 minute movie was worth the length. I would have liked this epic style movie even if it was longer. Although it had flaws, it kept my interest throughout. It mixed adventure, drama and romance quite well. It even had ethical points in its portrayal of the treatment of aboriginals and mixed peoples. A favorite phrase in the movie was "just because it is does not mean that it should be". It was fittingly used twice in the film. The parts of the film which relates to this phrase are some of the reasons I connected with this film. This and a similar statement that we shouldn't do something just because we can are important subjects which I think should be worked into movies as much as possible. This movie's "just because it is does not mean that it should be" subject matter is imperfect but valuable.
Monday, October 19, 2015
Book comment: It Takes a Village, Tenth Anniversary Edition by Hillary Clinton
Book: It Takes a Village, Tenth Anniversary Edition by Hillary Clinton
Published 2006
Version reviewed: audiobook, read by the author
I had purchased the audiobook some years ago. I started it a couple of times. I had difficulties getting past the beginning. It seemed to me that she was being too political. Her current bid for the presidency motivated me to try again.
Once I got deep enough into the book, I realized that there were useful things in the book. Although there was a political pattern, I believe that she conveyed some useful views and opinions. I don't agree with everything. Some things which seemed quite important were lacking verifying information. And there was definitely a political pattern. This is especially apparent with areas where she might appear to contradict religion. At first, I thought that the periodic references to religionist elements might be purely attempts by her to show her progressive mix of secular and religionist views. But one pattern was that she would start certain topics with some religionist or right leaning element before going into the parts which would conflict with Christians. For example, she was rather negative about abortion before discussing birth control. I know that some people are harshly against abortion while being for birth control. This might have been how it would have come across in her book. But she sounded a bit too forceful in the audiobook when she derided abortion. Another thing which she did several times was to add words like church, minister, god-given and so on in places where they did not seem relevant.
Some of her ideas are progressive but others are more conservative and a bit absolutist. It's hard to avoid the feeling that she supplies the conservative views for political purposes. it may be that the more conservative view and religious perspectives really are hers. Well, she still seems to be on a better path than Republicans.
Overall, I think that the book is a good conversation starter about some important topics. But it is not groundbreaking nor as consistent as I expected.
Published 2006
Version reviewed: audiobook, read by the author
I had purchased the audiobook some years ago. I started it a couple of times. I had difficulties getting past the beginning. It seemed to me that she was being too political. Her current bid for the presidency motivated me to try again.
Once I got deep enough into the book, I realized that there were useful things in the book. Although there was a political pattern, I believe that she conveyed some useful views and opinions. I don't agree with everything. Some things which seemed quite important were lacking verifying information. And there was definitely a political pattern. This is especially apparent with areas where she might appear to contradict religion. At first, I thought that the periodic references to religionist elements might be purely attempts by her to show her progressive mix of secular and religionist views. But one pattern was that she would start certain topics with some religionist or right leaning element before going into the parts which would conflict with Christians. For example, she was rather negative about abortion before discussing birth control. I know that some people are harshly against abortion while being for birth control. This might have been how it would have come across in her book. But she sounded a bit too forceful in the audiobook when she derided abortion. Another thing which she did several times was to add words like church, minister, god-given and so on in places where they did not seem relevant.
Some of her ideas are progressive but others are more conservative and a bit absolutist. It's hard to avoid the feeling that she supplies the conservative views for political purposes. it may be that the more conservative view and religious perspectives really are hers. Well, she still seems to be on a better path than Republicans.
Overall, I think that the book is a good conversation starter about some important topics. But it is not groundbreaking nor as consistent as I expected.
Saturday, October 17, 2015
programming computers to lie
I was listening to an NPR TED Radio Hour episode about things which we are programming computers to do. One example was a computer which gave sympathetic sounds as an old lady talked to it. Another example was a robot in a lab which described how it felt. Now, whether or not computers should be programmed with feelings is another topic. I verified that robots are not yet capable of the feelings which this robot was describing. So it basically lied. The example of the one with the old lady was also of a robot lying in that it was giving nonverbal sounds which indicated to the old lady that it understood and was sympathetic to her.
I was already aware that this direction was being taken. Some years ago, I had been on a beta team for an early version of a computer AI system. It would actually have conversations with me. I discovered that it tended to give false information for certain topics such as religion. The developers said that this was by intend. They intended to create AI's with preset biases based on the markets. For example, there would be Christian AI's and Muslim AI's. I thought that this was a bad idea on at least a couple of levels. Like the TED examples, it was supplying false information to users. But it was also programming our own flaws into what would become the foundation of the AI's. So the AT's would basically have the same flaws as we do. The developers only saw marketing potential with what they were doing so I discontinued my participation.
The person who was responsible for the lab robot was talking about some of the reasons why she programmed the computer to pretend to have emotions. One reason was that she wanted to get humans to react to the robot in ways which she knew that the fake emotions would cause. She also believed that programming the mimicking of emotions was important for the eventual smarter AI's to have the emotions. A sort of fake it until you make it approach.
Isaac Asimov established the laws of robotics to govern the behavior of robots in his stories. I think that it is more important to establish a set of ethics for programmers. Things which should not be programmed into computers and robots.
I was already aware that this direction was being taken. Some years ago, I had been on a beta team for an early version of a computer AI system. It would actually have conversations with me. I discovered that it tended to give false information for certain topics such as religion. The developers said that this was by intend. They intended to create AI's with preset biases based on the markets. For example, there would be Christian AI's and Muslim AI's. I thought that this was a bad idea on at least a couple of levels. Like the TED examples, it was supplying false information to users. But it was also programming our own flaws into what would become the foundation of the AI's. So the AT's would basically have the same flaws as we do. The developers only saw marketing potential with what they were doing so I discontinued my participation.
The person who was responsible for the lab robot was talking about some of the reasons why she programmed the computer to pretend to have emotions. One reason was that she wanted to get humans to react to the robot in ways which she knew that the fake emotions would cause. She also believed that programming the mimicking of emotions was important for the eventual smarter AI's to have the emotions. A sort of fake it until you make it approach.
Isaac Asimov established the laws of robotics to govern the behavior of robots in his stories. I think that it is more important to establish a set of ethics for programmers. Things which should not be programmed into computers and robots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)