2020年11月25日 星期三

On Tech: We’re still smarter than computers

For now.

We’re still smarter than computers

Nikita Iziev

On Tech will be off for the rest of the week. Have a nice Thanksgiving.

The idea of computers usurping people has been a staple of science fiction. My colleague Cade Metz says that we might be getting there. Maybe.

Cade spoke with me about a technology known as GPT-3, which learns to crank out writing that seems as if it was composed by humans. This technology could help accelerate the development of computer programs that can carry on a conversation or even spread faked information at the click of a button.

But Cade emphasized that technology has promised for more than half a century to out-human humans. It never quite gets there. Or not yet.

Shira: Explain how GPT-3 works.

Cade: It’s based on neural networks, which is a technological approach that learns by analyzing vast amounts of data. It’s how Siri recognizes spoken words and Facebook identifies faces in digital photos.

In this case, a neural network scanned through essentially the whole internet to do one thing: Predict the next word in a sequence of words. But it also learned how humans piece language together. This means that with very little prompting, you can get it to generate tweets, pen romance columns or even write simple computer programs.

This sounds bonkers.

It’s incredibly impressive, but the system has significant flaws. If I tried to generate a speech that sounded like President Trump, maybe five out of 10 times the GPT-3 version wouldn’t make sense, would repeat phrases in ways that people wouldn’t and would require editing to make it logical.

ADVERTISEMENT

If something works only half the time, it might not be that useful. People go wrong in assuming technologies like this are more advanced than they really are because they’re cherry-picking the successful experiments and ignoring the mistakes.

What is an example of something useful that GPT-3 might do, and something potentially destructive?

An automated system that handles the repetitive, boring parts of writing software programs really could make life easier for human programmers.

The most frightening potential use is disinformation. Imagine a computer that can create unlimited amounts of false information or fake photos and you can’t distinguish between what’s real and fabricated.

ADVERTISEMENT

We hear all the time about technology that writes like people or converses like us, or makes realistic computer-generated human faces or faked videos. Why?

Repeatedly since the 1950s scientists have produced technologies that seemed as if we were close to mimicking human intelligence. Each time we were nowhere close.

The capabilities of this kind of technology have advanced significantly in the past 10 years because of neural networks, but this human mimicry is largely based on identifying and matching patterns. Humans do far more than pattern matching. The question is, when does the technology move beyond that?

Well, are these things going to get as capable or more capable than people?

There is a massive argument about this, even among artificial intelligence researchers. Some of them believe that if you give neural networks enough time and data or computerized simulations of the world, eventually they’ll reach human intelligence. And others think that’s just ridiculous, at least in the foreseeable future.

So will you and I still have writing jobs in 10 years?

Having used this stuff and talked to a lot of people about this technology, I’m not worried in the short term. But you can see the trend. This technology continues to get better, and it doesn’t have to get much more advanced to complement human workers or maybe over a long period of time make certain job sectors obsolete.

ADVERTISEMENT

I will say that language models such as GPT-3 are like self-driving cars. They have both improved dramatically but the last little bit of improvement to reach human capability is very difficult.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Apps for TV are even worse

I griped on Tuesday about smartphone apps. But streaming apps for TV are even more dreadful, because they combine the worst aspects of smartphone app stores and the cable TV system.

Here’s what I mean: If you have cable or satellite television service, every channel in your lineup is there because of an agreement between the channel owner and your TV provider.

ESPN’s owner, Walt Disney, hammers out a complicated contract with Comcast, and Comcast pays Disney a bunch of money, and then you get to watch college football games. Sometimes these business arrangements reach an impasse and ESPN might disappear for a while as Disney and Comcast fight over money. It’s annoying.

The streaming world could have freed us from this old school mess. Instead it entrenched the mess and took it up a notch.

In the same way that Apple and Google decide what apps can work on your phone, companies like Amazon and Roku decide what apps you can download onto their streaming TV devices. And like cable TV companies — and unlike Apple and Google — Amazon, Roku and their peers often reach individual contracts with streaming services to split the airtime for in-app commercials or to pay a commission for each Netflix subscriber who signs up.

When the lawyers can’t make a deal, you might not be able to find HBO Max, the Peacock video app or Apple TV+ on your streaming device. It’s bad. This is why you need to consult a flow chart to watch TV, and streaming apps probably cost more than they would absent this tangle.

I don’t know what to do. Maybe all of us should connect our smartphones or computers to our televisions and bypass the streaming devices entirely. But know this in your heart: The streaming entertainment system makes no sense, and it’s not your fault.

Before we go …

  • More unwanted attention for YouTube: The Google-owned site blocked the right-wing channel One America News Network from posting new videos for a week for breaking YouTube’s rules with false claims about a guaranteed cure for Covid-19. YouTube has specific policies to punish channels for spreading misinformation related to the coronavirus but not for false claims about election fraud, which OAN has aggressively pushed, my colleague Dai Wakabayashi writes.
  • We can free ourselves (a little) from screens: Set modest goals like a 20-minute daily limit for reading online news on the weekends, and create No-Phone Zones like the dinner table. My colleague Brian X. Chen has these and other tips for giving our minds a break from wallowing in our phones and other screens. (Counterpoint to Brian: If I don’t look at screens then I think about the world and get sad and so GIVE ME ALL THE SCREENS.)
  • Use your precious screen time to stare at smooth brains: Wired explores the memes that have served as our attempts to laugh while shrieking at a year filled with disasters. There are the “unwrinkled brain” memes and TikTok videos with dazed “nee noo nee noo” sounds — all to express opting out of thinking about what’s happening around us.

Hugs to this

Ping Pong the cat fell four stories from her owner’s apartment to the roof of another building. Ping Pong was rescued by London firefighters and she is OK! Although you wouldn’t know it by looking at Ping Pong’s expression in this photo. (Thanks to my colleague Erin McCann for sharing this on Twitter.)

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

Lessons in Gratitude From My Grandmother

Our pandemic sacrifices pale in comparison to her immigrant journey.

Lessons in Gratitude From My Grandmother

My grandmother, pictured here with my grandfather, uncle and mother, was always thankful for her life in the U.S., even if she never felt fully American.Jessica Grose

Every Thanksgiving, my extended family poses for a photo on an outdoor staircase, as many as four generations from my mother’s side staggered across the steps. My mom tells me that this year will be the first time in almost 50 years that we won’t have this photo. While my heart breaks that my kids won’t get to see their passel of cousins from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, I’m still grateful. And among the reasons I’m able to muster so much gratitude, looking down the barrel of a depressing and likely lonely winter, is because of my Oma — my mother’s mother.

Thanksgiving was her favorite holiday. She was a nonobservant Jew, and it was the one holiday she really went all out for, the only time the extended family gathered. The meal my mother makes to this day consists of Oma’s recipes. These dishes weren’t exactly the stereotypical American meal; there were never canned cranberries, and Oma would have rather died than put marshmallows near sweet potatoes.

The foods she prepared — a wild rice stuffing with sausage, a sweet potato souffle, cakes that always tasted of almond — were her immigrant interpretation of the traditional fare, shaped by an Austrian background and her idea of what it meant to be a midcentury American wife and parent. Which is to say, a central European flavor profile heavily influenced by Julia Child.

Oma and Opa, my grandfather, arrived in America under duress from Vienna: Opa in September 1938, and Oma several months later, after witnessing the terror and destruction of Kristallnacht. My grandfather’s family was devastated by the Holocaust; Oma’s family was luckier, but still permanently dispersed among England, Israel and the United States.

ADVERTISEMENT

My mother said that Oma loved Thanksgiving because she was thankful for her life here, even if she never felt fully American. Both her wholesale adoption of Thanksgiving and her reimagining of the meal are common rites of passage for new Americans, although the holiday as we know it today was created partly as a way to control new and often undesired immigrants in the late-19th and early-20th century.

President Abraham Lincoln began a national day of Thanksgiving on the fourth Thursday of November to honor battles won in the Civil War, and President Andrew Johnson continued the tradition, though Southern states refused to celebrate the holiday until after Reconstruction, which ended in 1877. The mythology of the Pilgrims as a persecuted Christian minority and their relationship to Native Americans and their harvests weren’t dragged into it until later in the 19th century. Janet Siskind, an emeritus professor of anthropology at Rutgers University, points out:

The explosion of interest in colonial history at this time was due to the fear of immigrants and the cultural changes they might foment. The Pilgrims provided a model of the good immigrant, imbued with religious conviction, a member of a Chosen People, striving to make a life in a new world.

It’s an unusual holiday not just because of the Pilgrim worship, but because it’s a national, mostly secular celebration that is centered around one specific basic meal: turkey, sweet potatoes, pumpkin pie and cranberry sauce, said Krishnendu Ray, the chair of the department of nutrition and food studies at New York University. Many religious celebrations involve particular foods, but nationalistic celebrations rarely are so culinarily uniform.

The turkey itself is a particular object of struggle for new Americans, said Ray, who studied 126 Bengali immigrant households and their cuisine for his book “The Migrant’s Table,” and is a Bengali immigrant himself. “Me and the people I study have never cooked a huge bird like that in any form, ever,” he said. “Most of Indian cooking is stove top. It felt like the most alien thing to do and the most difficult thing to do.”

ADVERTISEMENT

For first-generation immigrants, “this ritual of Thanksgiving was entangled in this ambivalent sense of how to mimic the routine of the culture without ceding to it fully, and turkey becomes the site of this contestation,” Ray said.

The reason they’re taking the risk of making this big, foreign bird is for their children, Ray added. They knew the children would be hearing about turkey at school, and they wanted their kids to be able to fit in with their new peers. Lidia Marte, an assistant professor of sociology and anthropology at the University of Puerto Rico who has studied Dominican immigrants in New York City, found similar patterns: The turkey was cooked solely for the new generation, but it was infused with Caribbean spices, and served along with more typical Dominican side dishes.

For some of the families Marte studied, the turkey was also a marker of food security. If they could afford a turkey, it meant “they could join the national holiday and cook what everybody else did,” Marte said. The Thanksgiving meal could be a bridge, between who they were before they migrated, and their adaptation to a new society.

By the time I came into the picture, my grandparents were financially secure, and Oma had already perfected the Thanksgiving turkey after decades of practice. But I find myself imagining their first Thanksgiving after my mother was born. My grandfather had struggled to find an internship and residency after attending medical school in Vienna, and then was sent back to Europe as an Army medic in 1943. They had my uncle just before my grandfather shipped out, and my mother came along a few years after World War II.

ADVERTISEMENT

They had settled in Peekskill, N.Y. by then, and during my mother’s first summer, my grandparents witnessed the Paul Robeson rioters march past their house, yelling anti-Semitic and anti-Black slurs, and bringing back flashes of the terror that my grandparents thought they had left behind. I think about Oma going to the grocery store just a few months later, and buying a turkey, poring over a cookbook in her small kitchen, doing her best to get it right.

The sacrifice we are making this Thanksgiving by staying home is so small compared with everything she experienced, including the 1918 Flu pandemic, which swept through Austria when she was a child. The best way I can honor her is to help cook the meal she pioneered for our family, be grateful we can afford any kind of feast and continue to wear my mask so that we can all be here again next year.

Tiny Victories

Parenting can be a grind. Let’s celebrate the tiny victories.

To keep my 5-year-old daughter entertained while I make dinner, I’ll ask if she wants to watch the “Mommy Cooking Show.” She sits across the island as my audience while I describe what I’m doing, or give her a simple task to help with. She loves it, and I can cook uninterrupted! Kristen Roth, Charlotte, N.C.

If you want a chance to get your Tiny Victory published, find us on Instagram @NYTparenting and use the hashtag #tinyvictories; email us; or enter your Tiny Victory at the bottom of this page. Include your full name and location. Tiny Victories may be edited for clarity and style. Your name, location and comments may be published, but your contact information will not. By submitting to us, you agree that you have read, understand and accept the Reader Submission Terms in relation to all of the content and other information you send to us.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for NYT Parenting from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018