Be Careful What You Ask For: Voice Control

We get it. We also watched Star Trek and thought how cool it would be to talk to our computer. From Kirk setting a self-destruct sequence, to Scotty talking into a mouse, or Picard ordering Earl Grey, we intuitively know that talking to a computer is better than typing, right? Well, computers talking back and forth to us is no longer science fiction, and maybe we aren’t as happy about it as we thought we’d be.

We weren’t able to pinpoint the first talking computer in fiction. Asimov and van Vogt had talking computers in the 1940s. “I, Robot” by Eando Binder, and not the more famous Asimov story, had a fully speaking robot in 1939. You could argue that “The Machine” in E. M. Forster’s “The Machine Stops” was probably speaking — the text is a little vague — and that was in 1909. The robot from Metropolis (1927) spoke after transforming, but you could argue that doesn’t count.

Meanwhile, In Real Life

In real life, computers weren’t as quick to speak. Before the middle of the twentieth century, machine-generated speech was an oddity. In 1779, a mechanical contrivance by Wolfgang von Kempelen, famous for the mechanical Turk chess-playing automaton, could form simple words. By 1939, Bell Labs could do even better speech synthesis electronically but with a human operator. It didn’t sound very good, as you can see in the video below, but it was certainly expressive.

Continue reading “Be Careful What You Ask For: Voice Control”

Why AI Usage May Degrade Human Cognition And Blunt Critical Thinking Skills

Any statement regarding the potential benefits and/or hazards of AI tends to be automatically very divisive and controversial as the world tries to figure out what the technology means to them, and how to make the most money off it in the process. Either meaning Artificial Inference or Artificial Intelligence depending on who you ask, AI has seen itself used mostly as a way to ‘assist’ people. Whether in the form of a chat client to answer casual questions, or to generate articles, images and code, its proponents claim that it’ll make workers more efficient and remove tedium.

In a recent paper published by researchers at Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) the findings from a survey are however that the effect is mostly negative. The general conclusion is that by forcing people to rely on external tools for basic tasks, they become less capable and prepared of doing such things themselves, should the need arise. A related example is provided by Emanuel Maiberg in his commentary on this study when he notes how simple things like memorizing phone numbers and routes within a city are deemed irrelevant, but what if you end up without a working smartphone?

Does so-called generative AI (GAI) turn workers into monkeys who mindlessly regurgitate whatever falls out of the Magic Machine, or is there true potential for removing tedium and increasing productivity?

Continue reading “Why AI Usage May Degrade Human Cognition And Blunt Critical Thinking Skills”

Freed At Last From Patents, Does Anyone Still Care About MP3?

The MP3 file format was always encumbered with patents, but as of 2017, the last patent finally expired. Although the format became synonymous with the digital music revolution that started in the late 90s, as an audio compression format there is an argument to be made that it has long since been superseded by better formats and other changes. [Ibrahim Diallo] makes that very argument in a recent blog post. In a world with super fast Internet speeds and the abstracting away of music formats behind streaming services, few people still care about MP3.

The last patents for the MP3 format expired in 2012 in the EU and  2017 in the US, ending many years of incessant legal sniping. For those of us learning of the wonders of MP3 back around ’98 through services like Napster or Limewire, MP3s meant downloading music on 56k dialup in a matter of minutes to hours rather than days to weeks with WAV, and with generally better quality than Microsoft’s WMA format at lower bitrates. When portable media players came onto the scene, they were called ‘MP3 players’, a name that stuck around.

But is MP3 really obsolete and best forgotten in the dustbin of history at this point? Would anyone care if computers dropped support  for MP3 tomorrow?

Continue reading “Freed At Last From Patents, Does Anyone Still Care About MP3?”

Software In Progress

Open source software can be fantastic. I run almost exclusively open software, and have for longer than I care to admit. And although I’m not a serious coder by an stretch, I fill out bug reports when I find them, and poke at edge cases to help the people who do the real work.

For 3D modeling, I’ve been bouncing back and forth between OpenSCAD and FreeCAD. OpenSCAD is basic, extensible, and extremely powerful in the way that a programming language is, and consequently it’s reliably bug-free. But it also isn’t exactly user friendly, unless you’re a user who likes to code, in which case it’s marvelous. FreeCAD is much more of a software tool than a programming language, and is a lot more ambitious than OpenSCAD. FreeCAD is also a program in a different stage of development, and given its very broad scope, it has got a lot of bugs.

I kept running into some really serious bugs in a particular function – thickness for what it’s worth – which is known to be glitchy in the FreeCAD community. Indeed, the last time I kicked the tires on thickness, it was almost entirely useless, and there’s been real progress in the past couple years. It works at least sometimes now, on super-simple geometries, and this promise lead me to find out where it still doesn’t work. So I went through the forums to see what I could do to help, and it struck me that some people, mostly those who come to FreeCAD from commercial programs that were essentially finished a decade ago, have different expectations about the state of the software than I do, and are a lot grumpier.

Open source software is working out its bugs in public. Most open source is software in development. It’s growing, and changing, and you can help it grow or just hang on for the ride. Some open-source userland projects are mature enough that they’re pretty much finished, but the vast majority of open-source projects are coding in public and software in progress.

It seems to me that people who expect software to be done already are frustrated by this, and that when we promote super-star open projects like Inkscape or Blender, which are essentially finished, we are doing a disservice to the vast majority of useful, but still in progress applications out there that can get the job done anyway, but might require some workarounds. It’s exactly these projects that need our help and our bug-hunting, but if you go into them with the “finished” mentality, you’re setting yourself up for frustration.

Networking History Lessons

Do they teach networking history classes yet? Or is it still too soon?

I was reading [Al]’s first installment of the Forgotten Internet series, on UUCP. The short summary is that it was a system for sending files across computers that were connected, intermittently, by point-to-point phone lines. Each computer knew the phone numbers of a few others, but none of them had anything like a global routing map, and IP addresses were still in the future. Still, it enabled file transfer and even limited remote access across the globe. And while some files contained computer programs, others files contained more human messages, which makes UUCP also a precursor to e-mail.

What struck me is how intuitively many of this system’s natural conditions and limitations lead to the way we network today. From phone numbers came the need for IP addresses. And from the annoyance of having know how the computers were connected, and to use the bang notation to route a message from one computer to another through intermediaries, would come our modern routing protocols, simply because computer nerds like to automate hassles wherever possible.

But back to networking history. I guess I learned my networking on the mean streets, by running my own Linux system, and web servers, and mail servers. I knew enough networking to get by, but that mostly focused on the current-day application, and my beard is not quite grey enough to have been around for the UUCP era. So I’m only realizing now that knowing how the system evolved over time helps a lot in understanding why it is the way it is, and thus how it functions. I had a bit of a “eureka” moment reading about UUCP.

In physics or any other science, you learn not just the status quo in the field, but also how it developed over the centuries. It’s important to know something about the theory of the aether to know what special relativity was up against, for instance, or the various historical models of the atom, to see how they inform modern chemistry and physics. But these are old sciences with a lot of obsolete theories. Is computer science old enough that they teach networking history? They should!

Learn New Tools, Or Hone Your Skill With The Old?

Buried in a talk on AI from an artist who is doing cutting-edge video work was the following nugget that entirely sums up the zeitgeist: “The tools are changing so fast that artists can’t keep up with them, let alone master them, before everyone is on to the next.” And while you might think that this concern is only relevant to those who have to stay on the crest of the hype wave, the deeper question resounds with every hacker.

When was the last time you changed PCB layout software or refreshed your operating system? What other tools do you use in your work or your extra-curricular projects, and how long have you been using them? Are you still designing your analog front-ends with LM358s, or have you looked around to see that technology has moved on since the 1970s? “OMG, you’re still using ST32F103s?”

It’s not a simple question, and there are no good answers. Proficiency with a tool, like for instance the audio editor with which I crank out the podcast every week, only comes through practice. And practice simply takes time and effort. When you put your time in on a tool, it really is an investment in that it helps you get better. But what about that newer, better tool out there?

Some of the reluctance to update is certainly sunk-cost fallacy, after all you put so much sweat and tears into the current tool, but there is also a real cost to overcome to learn the new hotness, and that’s no fallacy. If you’re always trying to learn a new way of doing something, you’re never going to get good at doing something, and that’s the lament of our artist friend. Honing your craft requires focus. You won’t know the odd feature set of that next microcontroller as well as you do the old faithful – without sitting down and reading the datasheet and doing a couple finger-stretching projects first.

Striking the optimal balance here is hard. On a per-project basis, staying with your good old tool or swapping to the new hotness is a binary choice, but across your projects, you can do some of each. Maybe it makes sense to budget some of your hacking time into learning new tools? How about ten percent? What do you think?

In Praise Of Simple Projects

Hackaday was at Chaos Communication Congress last week, and it’s one of those big hacker events that leaves you with so much to think about that I’m still processing it. Just for scope, the 38th CCC is a hacker event with about 15,000 attendees from all around Europe, and many from even further. If I were to characterize the crowd on a hardware-software affinity scale, I would say that it skews heavily toward the software side of the hacker spectrum.

What never ceases to amaze me is that there are a couple of zones that are centered on simple beginner soldering and other PCB art projects that are completely full 20 hours of the day. I always makes me wonder how it is possible to have this many hackers who haven’t picked up a soldering iron. Where do all these first-timers come from? I think I’m in a Hackaday bubble where not only does everyone solder at least three times a day, some of us do it with home-made reflow ovens or expensive microscopes.

But what this also means is that there’s tremendous reach for interesting, inviting, and otherwise cool beginner hardware projects. Hands-on learning is incredibly addictive, and the audience for beginner projects is probably ten times larger than that for intermediate or advanced builds. Having watched my own son putting together one of these kits, I understand the impact they can have personally, but it’s worth noting that the guy next to him was certainly in his mid-30s, and the girl across the way was even a few years younger than my son.

So let’s see some cool beginner projects! We’d love to feature more projects that could lure future hackers to the solder-smoky side.