Singularity Hub

Lyric's tiny chip is full of possibilities.

Traditional computer processing is based on 1 and 0, yes and no, but Lyric Semiconductor wants us to consider the power of  ’maybe’. The Cambrdige, Massachusetts startup recently came out of stealth to announce the development of their new computer chip that calculates using probabilities. Lyric has used $20 million in DARPA and venture funding to rethink the way we process problems, from the basic architecture of its circuits all the way up to its software language . Everything is grey, not black and white. This new approach to computing has led to a new kind of chip that can handle probability based decisions quicker, using less space, and less energy. Instead of just cramming more gates on an integrated circuit like other computer chip designers, Lyric may have found a way to make those elements work harder. Check out a brief example of the chip’s power in the video below.

Spam filtering, product suggestions, identity verification…a large portion of modern computer processing power is spent on problems that rely on computers to analyze the probability of a situation. The Lyric approach uses probability natively, allowing for a quicker solution to these problems. In the video below, a program attempts to determine how many users are typing on a keyboard, and in what order. Instead of trying to find the definite solution, it seeks the most likely solution…and ends up with the right answer. Pretty cool.

A big application for Lyric’s new technology will be error correction. 30 nm NAND flash memory will typically have 1 bit wrong per 1000. As we reach to build smaller and smaller chips, that error rate is likely to increase. Lyric Error Correction (LEC) uses their probability processing to counter for mistakes in memory processing. LEC gets the same results as traditional binary chips but in an area 30 times as small, and with only 10% of the power.

Lyric Error Correction cleans up mistakes in stored memory. LEC allows cheap flash drives (with higher error rates) to be used in small portable systems like phones.

While still built on silicon, Lyric’s probability chip uses a completely new architecture for gates. The chip doesn’t process a long series of opens and closed connections as ones and zeros. Instead, there’s a great connectivity between nodes, variables talk to each other, creating a highly parallel processing method. Instead of Boolean logic (And, Or, Not) the chip relies on Bayesian probability logic. At every step in the process, Lyric had to rethink how computer processing was done. That means their approach has the capability to produce a revolutionary advance in computing.

It also means that everything they do is relatively untested. What kind of artifacts does probability processing introduce into computing? Are there strange limits on power consumption, environmental sensitivities, or long term failure concerns? We don’t even know if they’ll be able to scale up production to meet demand. So while Lyric’s potential for more powerful processing has generated a lot of buzz, we need to be cautious in our expectations. It may take a long time before we know if this technology is truly viable.

That being said, I love to consider what probability based processing could mean. It could let us solve problems in a way akin to how the universe views the basic physical interactions between its smallest particles. Perhaps it will have an impact in how we model biological systems. Maybe it will affect how we simulate the brain. We’ll have to wait and see what Lyric can accomplish in the years ahead.

Personally, I’m hoping for an Infinite Improbability Drive.

[image credits: Lyric Semiconductor]
[video credit: mewilczek]
[source: Lyric]

• Chip for Eye Implants Could Run for a Year on Millimeter Sized Battery
• FACETS: Making Computers Work Like Brains
• 25 nm breakthrough paves way for smaller, faster chips
• Tiny Sensor Could Run For Years Harnessing Energy from Environment
• Intel's Infoscape Demos New Chip's Major Graphics Mojo (Video)

Priority Inbox learns which emails are important enough for you to read.

Google announced Monday that it would be rolling out a new email sorting feature for its 170+ million Gmail users. The “Priority Inbox” allows you to train Gmail how to rate incoming email according to its importance. Those messages that you actually need to pay attention to are bubbled up to the top so that you can find them easily. According to Google, Priority Inbox judges the importance of emails by monitoring which types of emails you regularly read and which you reply to. You can also individually mark the importance of an email through plus and minus buttons or set up filters to automatically mark messages for you. Along with Gmail’s evaluation of spam (which is quite good), Priority Inbox has the potential to manage even the worst email overload. Watch Google’s cutesy ad for the beta product below. I think programs like Priority Inbox are the key ingredients in the next generation of artificial intelligence enabled personal assistants.

When AI personal assistants were discussed in commercials in the 90s, companies predicted that they would be able to do almost anything: pay your bills, drive your car, defeat your enemies with real kung-fu grip, etc. While our current generation of AI assistants has yet to reach these lofty goals, they have become very adept at one function: relating your commands to other programs. Google’s new Voice Actions for Android Phones, and Apple’s newly aquired Siri for iPhones, let you speak commands and rely on the assistant to manage other applications to get the job done. In short, our AI assistants have become fledgling middle managers, handling our outbound requests. Priority Inbox, however, displays an example of another important quality of a personal assistant – the ability to manage inbound information.

Priority Inbox is probably very low on the AI food chain. It’s little more than a smart filter than can learn. Yet that sort of ground-level information management is an essential part of what we will want AI assistants to accomplish. We’re are going to be flooded with incoming information as billions of people around the world jump online in the next few decades and begin to rely more and more on electronic communication. Which phone calls will you answer? Which Facebook friends do you really want to stay in contact with? Which news feeds will you actually need to read? AI personal assistants will be able to manage this information with simple filtering, allowing these data streams to enhance your experience rather than overwhelm it.

Priority Inbox automatically sorts incoming emails into different sections, while still allowing you to control which stick around for easy referencing.

Google has already discussed other data management AI projects (Big Query and the Prediction API) that will allow companies to apply even better analysis to the information they gather. These programs are part of the same basic ecosystem – they manage incoming data so that you know what’s important, and what actions are most profitable to take next.

I think what we’re seeing is the slow formation of the two paradigms that will constitute the next generation of wide spread AI. We’ll want learning programs to manage incoming data, and we’ll want them to translate our commands into outgoing actions. These narrow applications of artificial intelligence are pretty much already here, but they are bound to get better. I don’t look into my spam folder anymore, I trust Gmail’s filters enough that I don’t feel like I have to double check them. With sufficient training, I’m sure I’ll end up trusting Priority Inbox in the same way. Eventually we’ll have analogous programs for all forms of digital communication: calls, txts, news feeds, etc. I’m slowly getting Siri to where it understands my commands well enough that I don’t double check it for some tasks. Eventually personal assistants will be trusted to manage all our mundane digital requests. If you told me fifteen years ago that I would be happy to have a virtual assistant that told me what information was important, and managed all my commands to other programs, I would have assumed that the world have been taken over by machines and that I was being doped with soma. Now I think such programs would not only be a welcome addition to our digital world, I believe they are halfway here.

[image and video credits: Google]
[source: Google Blog, Google Help]

• Google Buzz Challenges Facebook, Twitter In Social Evolution
• Voice-Actions on Android Look Great - Star Trek Quality!
• Siri: a Free Personal Assistant in Your iPhone (video)
• Google Puts Artificial Intelligence into the Cloud With New API
• Is There a Digital Afterlife?

Are robots enabling hospital layoffs? A little.

Is your company feeling the pains of the recession? Robots may be the cure. El Camino Hospital in Silicon Valley is looking to cut expenses, so they’ve invested in 19 Aethon TUG robots. These smart carts can haul supplies around the hospital, making deliveries and pickups at a fraction of the costs of human workers. El Camino recently announced that it would further be cutting costs by firing up to 140 workers from its two facilities in Los Gatos and Mountain View. Coincidence? Yes, mostly, but it’s still a sign that as robots begin to work in human environments, some humans will be leaving.

Credit should be given to Alicia Caramenico at FierceHealthcare who put together announcements in Businessweek and San Jose Mercury News to notice that upcoming El Camino Hospital layoffs come after earlier trials for Aethon’s new Tug robots. We’ve seen Aethon’s TUG robots in action before, and they aren’t meant to replace nurses or other medical staff. The company generally markets them as ‘augmenting’ human workers – giving medical personnel more time to work with patients and less time hauling supplies. But it’s clear that the robots have a cost advantage over human workers doing the same job. According to a hospital administrator quoted in the Businessweek article the 19 TUGs perform $1 million of human labor per year, but only cost $350,000. A 65% reduction in labor costs? That’s very appealing.

So I think we’re likely to see the situation at El Camino repeated often (it may already have been at other Aethon trial locations). A hospital needs to cut costs, so they switch to robot workers for mundane tasks. Then, either as a result of the switch, or because of the same economic pressure, they cut human jobs. Admittedly, the situation at El Camino is complex, and there’s not a one to one robot to human exchange. 19 TUGs should translate to roughly 19 human workers replaced but layoffs are estimated at 140 (a total of 195 people were warned that their jobs were possibly in jeopardy). 15% of those laid off will be nurses and other medical staff, whose talents are far beyond robots (for now). Clearly automation isn’t to blame for all of these jobs lost.

Yet it’s hard to deny that robots are at least enabling some small fraction of these layoffs. As hospital automation improves this trend could increase and not just among the lowest tiers of human workers. We’ve seen pharmacy robots that automate drug dispensaries, and we’ve seen how completely new hospitals could be built from the ground up to incorporate robot workers at many different levels of operation. The hospital of the future is likely to rely more on automation than many would expect, and with fewer humans (per dollar) than currently seen in your neighborhood facility.

Does that mean that hospital workers will be out of jobs? In any other industry I might argue yes. Many jobs are typically going to be lost and humans will be forced into new positions (such as programmer, robot overseer, or what have you). Medicine, however, is such a quickly expanding industry that I think hospital workers will be able to find work for years to come. As the global population ages we’ll need more and more hospitals. Each one will have a smaller percentage of human staff, perhaps, but the total level of humans needed may continue to rise. Jobs may move to new areas, but I think they’ll still be there.

So, it’s likely that we’ll see more cases like El Camino, and it’s likely that we’ll see many disruptive instances as hospitals adopt more automated services. Still, I’m not overly worried for human hospital workers. For the rest of us? Well, the debate on whether full-scale automation will hurt or hinder our economy rages on. I’m optimistic about the whole thing. Cheaper labor, cheaper goods, more humans being able to focus on interesting problems instead of mundane tasks – I think these are all likely outcomes. But whether or not automation makes sound sense for our economy, there’s little doubt that companies will continue to use them to save costs. For many jobs, humans are simply going to be too expensive. That is, until robots form an union.

[image credit: Aethon and SNIS (modified)]
[source: Mercury News, Businessweek, FierceHealthcare]

• Incredible TUG Robots Automate Delivery in Hospitals (video)
• The Robot Hospital of the Future, Coming Soon To Scotland
• Robotics Industries: We're Creating Jobs, Helping the Economy
• Computers To Take Human Jobs, Shutdown Global Economy? Get Ford's Book Free
• Robot Pharmacists Are Picking Your Medications—Literally

Is this the fountain of youth?

A recently published study in Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research shows that heavy drinkers actually live longer than those who abstain from alcohol. Scientists at the University of Texas Austin and Stanford University studied more than 1800 individuals over a twenty year period and correlated their alcohol consumption with all forms of death. Moderate drinkers, those that consume one to three drinks per day, had the lowest mortality rates. Heavy drinkers were 70% more likely to perish, and abstainers (those who currently did not drink) were over 100% more likely to die than moderates. Even controlling for past drinking habits (some abstainers were recovering alcoholics), sociodemographic info, and health, heavy drinkers were still only 45% more likely to die than moderates while nondrinkers rated in at +51%. While the authors don’t propose a single cause for why heavy drinking may be less detrimental to your health than abstaining, it seems clear that lifting a cup, especially in moderation, may be a fun means of pursuing longevity.

When studying areas around the world that live the longest (the Blue Zones) we seem to come across a winning formula for longevity: eat well (mostly plants), exercise regularly, and avoid stress. Further study of centenarians suggest that while genes play an important role in later years, lifestyle choices and social bonds may be bigger effects up to your 70s. How does the new data about drinking fit into this understanding? Well there are physiological effects such as reduced heart disease that are associated with moderate drinking, especially for red wines (perhaps due to resveratrol). But the easiest answer may be that alcohol is a social lubricant.

Yep, increased risks for liver disease and various cancers associated with heavy drinking are likely to offset the benefits received from consuming alcohol. So the gains that heavy drinkers have over tee-totalers may be social. Whether that means that abstainers are less likely to form new social bonds, or simply don’t have an easy way to release stress, I can’t say.

Before you race out to the pub to grab another pint with your mates, however, we should consider some of the limitations of this study. First, the study focused on individuals 55 to 65 years in age who had some form of outpatient care in the three years leading up to the study. As the research followed 20 years of their life, this puts many of the individuals in the 75 to 85 range at closing. That makes sense, clearly, as this was a study focusing on mortality, but it may be that alcohol consumption raises death rates among younger individuals in ways it wouldn’t for older ones (which you might expect in cases of accidental death, murder, and suicide).

While researchers strove to get an accurate sampling across many different demographics groups, the study also focused mostly on men, who made up 63% of the group. Social norms for drinking, as well as physiological benefits from alcohol consumption, are likely different for men than for women.

Scientists also did their best to control factors in their study. They adjusted for gender, age, health, former drinking habits, and behavior when reaching their conclusions about heavy drinkers outliving abstainers. Still, there may be other factors not adjusted for as alcohol consumption is such a complex social behavior. Overall mortality rates, not adjusted, were 69% for abstainers, 60% for heavy drinkers, and 41% for moderates.

The surest path to longevity may be in finding ways to get the benefits of behaviors while avoiding their risks. Even moderate alcohol consumption can raise chances for certain diseases and forms of accidental death. As scientists strive to find ways to give you the physiological benefits of drinking without the impairments, we should keep the social benefits in mind as well. Relieving stress and strengthening social bonds are a key ingredient to living a long and healthy life, and most of the world uses alcohol to help achieve these goals. If we find ways to pursue them without lifting a glass it may be a better solution. Still, even if we never divorce alcohol from its benefits, I’m sure we’ll find new ways to increase its effectiveness using technology. There are certainly a few robots who are willing to help.

[image credit: John White via WikiCommons]
[source: Holahan et al, 2010]

• Study: Elderly With Less Vitamin D More Likely to Die
• Genes Are Secret to Longevity, Scientists Can Predict Using Genome
• Get Ready To Live Past 100
• Will Resveratrol Let You Live Forever?
• Disabling a Single Gene Extends Mice Life by 20%

Snakes in trees! Robots in trees! Robot snakes in trees!

Carnegie Mellon has taught its robotic snake to climb trees, though one hopes it won’t start offering your spouse apples. “Uncle Sam” (presumably named for its red, white, and blue markings) is a snake robot built from modular pieces. The latest in a line of ‘modsnakes’ from Carnegie Mellon’s Biorobotics Lab, Uncle Sam can move in a variety of different ways including rolling, wiggling, and side-winding. It can also wrap itself around a pole and climb vertically, which comes in handing when scaling a tree. You have to watch this thing in action. There is something incredibly life-like, and eerie, about the way it scales the tree outdoors and then looks around with its camera ‘eye’. Projects like Uncle Sam show how life-mimicking machines could revolutionize robotics in the near future.

Nature is a fantastic designer. Sure, she works slowly, but every project is subjected to years of testing and refinement. It’s no wonder then that we see engineers looking to nature for inspiration in robotics. We’ve reviewed many examples, including Festo’s AirPenguins, UC’s roach-like Dash robot, and Chiba’s hummingbird. Like these other groups, Carnegie Mellon has gone to great lengths to imbue their snake robots with traits from their natural counterparts. The Biorobotics lab has researched the various ways that snakes can move (their gaits) and taught their robots how to follow in their footsteps (so to speak). You can see their effort in the way the Uncle Sam modsnake climbs a tree – the robot seems alive.

Yet what Uncle Sam has over many other bio-inspired robots is its modular design. Built from repeated segments of sensors and actuators, modular bots let you construct larger machines out of relatively simple building blocks. As we’ve discussed before, modular robotics also allow the possibility for robot to self assemble in the field, and to be easily repaired if a section is damaged.

Carnegie Mellon, then, is really pursuing the best of both worlds. Their designs for modsnakes incorporate animal-like movements with very machine-like repetitive construction. That’s a model that could work again and again in robotics moving forward.

Despite the emphasis placed on humanoid robots, animal-like bots have clear advantages and are relatively simpler to build. Snake bots could be hunting for survivors in fallen buildings after natural disasters. With modular design these bots could be as long as they needed. If engineers can work out issues with power supply (you’ll notice Uncle Same is on a tether) they may be here very soon. In any case, I’m sure we’ll be hearing more about Carnegie Mellon’s modsnakes in the near future. Especially if Samuel L. Jackson sees this video.

Somebody get these m@#$*#@ f%$%* robot snakes out this m#$%#$* f#$*$% tree!

[screen capture and video credit: Carnegie Mellon]
[source: Carnegie Mellon Biorobotics Lab]

• Cool Omnitread Snake Robot Still Slithering (Video)
• Super Simple Tube Climbing Robot Wins Best Video at ICRA 2010
• The Rise of the Modular Robot: A Review in Videos
• The Remote Controlled Hummingbird Robot From Chiba (Video)
• Festo's Extraordinary Robots That Mimic Biology (video)

Touchscreens and swarm robotics go together like geeks and video games.

Mark Micire’s PhD dissertation puts robotic control at his fingertips. The UMass Lowell student developed a command and control program for the Microsoft Surface touchscreen so that swarm robots can be easily guided. Watching Micire’s program in action makes it look like he’s playing StarCraft, only with real robots. Teams of bots can be color coded, groups can be selected by circling them with a finger, and robots can be commanded to move either individually or en masse. You can even manually drive a robot with a special pop-up interface. What’s the use for this multitouch control system? There are military applications, but Micire has a strong background in search and rescue robotics. Touchscreen swarms could be the next innovation in disaster relief. Watch Micire’s demo his system in the video below.

Swarm robots come in a huge variety of shapes, sizes, and capabilities, but they generally follow one strategy: many hands make light work. Bots are used together to divide and conquer a problem, overcoming challenges with a large number of workers. Many of the swarms we’ve seen are autonomous. In critical missions, however, robot AI may not yet be sufficient to find a solution to a problem. That’s why human guidance is still very important. Micire’s touchscreen program gives the operator various levels of control. This would allow humans to adjust their involvement as the case warrants. If robot autonomy can handle a situation, commands could simply instruct bots in a general way – go there, look for human bodies, report back. The system also allows for more direct commands – follow this route, etc. When direct human control is needed, operators can manually drive bots using the DREAM interface (Dynamically Resizing Ergonomic And Multitouch), as you can see at 2:23 in the video below.

Unfortunately, the demo above doesn’t show the system controlling physical robots. The bots on the screen are simulated. But Micire can control real world robots using the touchscreen, as you can see in the video below:

Micire’s work seem immediately applicable to fieldwork for robotics. It’s really no surprise considering his experience in search and rescue operations. It’s important to remember that robots already form a valuable part of S&R teams, allowing humans to explore areas that are too hazardous or difficult to reach. Case in point, here’s Micire’s video of work he did in Mississippi after Hurrican Katrina back in 2005

Of course, there are many applications for guided swarms besides disaster relief. Autonomous and guided drones are valuable assets in modern warfare, and advanced control systems like Micire’s could improve their usability. We’ve already seen how a similar technology (telestrators) are being developed by the US Air Force. Additionally, touchscreen controls could help swarms tackle industrial maintenance, exploration, or even surgery.

Swarm robotics holds a lot of potential, but most of the focus we’ve seen has been on the robots themselves. Micire’s work shows an interesting way in which humans can be readily inserted into the robot’s decision making process. In the near term that will allow these swarms to perform better as human intelligence still exceeds AI. Once autonomy out-paces human decision making we may still use such command systems as a means of providing over-arching control of our robots. It will be interesting to see if the potential of Micire’s program attracts any real-world applications in the years ahead.

…Maybe someone needs help fending off a zergling rush?

Video of Mark Micire’s complete PhD defense can be found here.
[screen capture and video credits: Mark Micire]
[source: UMass Lowell, Mark Micire]

• I-Swarm Micro Robots are Up and Running
• Swarm Robotics: Beware The Swarm (videos)
• Swarm Robotics: The Swarm Is Coming
• MIT's Flyfire - Miniature Helicopters Turn Sky into Digital Screen (video)
• Teams of Military Robots To Compete in Australia for Money and Contracts (video)

Singularity University's GSP class of 2010.

Singularity University recently wrapped up its second summer graduate studies program (GSP ‘10). SU, started by Peter Diamandis and Ray Kurzweil, among others, aims at preparing humanity for accelerating changes in technology. How are they going to do this? By training students. For this year’s GSP, 80 students spent 10 weeks learning about accelerating technologies from the some of the top minds in their field, including Vint Cerf, Ralph Merkle, Bob Metcalfe and more. How do you know the summer program a success? Well, you could look at the team projects that the students produced, which as we discussed before could lead to a dozen new tech startups. You could also just ask the students what they thought of their time -which is exactly what I did during the SU closing ceremony last Friday. Videos are below.

Not only does SU hope to “prepare humanity” for the future, they aim their students at doing the same. The GSP team projects challenge students to help one billion people in the next decade. It’s seems appropriate then that SU is very globally minded in the construction of its student body. Over 1600 people applied for this year’s GSP, and only 80 were selected. Judging by the comments of Diamandis and Kurzweil at the closing ceremony, a great deal of weight was put on making the students reflect the world they are hoped to change. 73% of students are from outside the US, with over 35 countries represented. 50% receive a partial or full scholarship (which is nice considering tuition is $25k). There’s a wonderful amount of diversity, but the students did all seem to have one thing in common: these are driven individuals. 90% of the class want to start a business upon graduation. You can sense their ambition and excitement (as well as some exhaustion) in the brief interviews in the video below. There’s one Executive Program alumnus thrown in with a bunch of GSP ‘10 graduates just to round out the perspective.

In case my on-the-street reporting just doesn’t do it for you, Singularity University also produced their own video interviewing their GSP ‘10 students. Here’s a video of that video (sorry for the poor quality) as seen during the closing ceremonies:

As one of the GSP students mentioned in the first video, the schedule for the summer program is grueling: 90+ hours of lecture, 55+ hours of workshops, 35 hours of onsite visits. Yet, despite all of this cramming I don’t think you can consider Singularity University to be providing a technical education. That is, the focus may be on technological changes, but the students aren’t going to be prepared to develop the science behind those technologies themselves – though some are in PhD programs and otherwise have educational backgrounds which may enable them to do so. No, Singularity University impresses me more as a sort of high-tech business school. Its students take the lessons their learn about emerging scientific fields and develop new startups that could leverage that understanding. Which, depending on your feelings on business school, might seem either brilliant or disturbing.

After talking with the GSP ‘10 students I’m definitely leaning towards brilliant. Each one seemed to have an uncanny sense on where their new knowledge might be best applied, not just for their own benefit, but for the good of humanity. Not a startup was mentioned that didn’t have, at its core, the motive of improving the lives of as many people as possible. Every student I talked to discussed the expectations they had of themselves (and each other) to find ways of using technology for Good. Techno-optimism abounded, but so did techno-responsibility.

Which, in my book, is a pretty good indication that Singularity University is doing something right. I laugh sometimes when I hear people refer to the idea of the Singularity as the ‘Rapture of the Nerds’. As if the only concern the techno-optimistic have is to escape the world around them. The truth is that science and technology have the potential to inflict great suffering on humanity, or to ease its suffering in equally great amounts. Institutions like Singularity University that not only teach their students what could happen, but also how to shape things for the mutual benefit of humanity, are working towards a brighter future. Talking with the GSP ‘10 students I was deeply impressed by their goals and their passions for solving the grand challenges that face the world. It’s far too early to tell if the summer program will lead these individuals to accomplish great things, but I’m fairly confident that most will at least try.

Good luck to you all.

[image credit: Singularity University]
[video credit: Aaron Saenz/Singularity Hub]

• Singularity University's Summer Program Doubling in Size - Sign Up Now
• SU Ends 2nd Year With a Dozen More Ways to Help a Billion People
• Singularity University To Launch June 29 - Exclusive Interview With Executive Director Salim Ismail
• Singularity University Gathers Steam, Rolls Out New Website
• Sign Up for Singularity University's Executive Program

SciFi legend Arthur C. Clarke gives us a vision of the distant future - the year 2000!

Arthur C. Clarke predicted the rise of telecommuting, telemedicine, and mobile phones decades before they existed. I recently came across his televised interview with the BBC Horizon program recorded in 1964. In it, the world famous writer, inventor, and science promoter shares his vision for the world of tomorrow. A world in which you and I currently live. As Singularity Hub strives to provide some insight into how emerging technologies may develop and affect our world in the years ahead, I thought it would be enlightening (and humbling) to see how one of the last century’s most creative and brilliant minds handled predicting our future. The 1964 BBC interview is provided for you, in full, in the two videos below, along with Clarke’s last interview given in 2007 at age 90. It’s remarkable what Clarke got right in his predictions, hilarious what he got wrong, and thought-provoking in what yet remains to be seen.

Considered one of the ‘big three’ science fiction writers of the 20th century, Clarke also helped originate the idea of using geostationary orbits for communication satellites. As such, it may not be surprising that while many of his predictions seem outlandish his thoughts on telecommunication were remarkably prescient. By the year 2000 a good deal of the world could talk to their friends (via mobile phones) without knowing their exact locations. We’ve also seen how business travel may be slowly being replaced with telepresence, and telemedicine is a rapidly developing technology. All of these predictions can be heard in the first half of the Horizon program seen in the video below.

The Arthur Clarke interview begins at 3:50.

Of course, we have to take Clarke’s failures with his successes. Mentally enhanced chimps as a new servant class? The end of cities (due to telecommunication)? These haven’t happened yet, and I personally don’t see them coming true any time soon.

But if you were to categorize Clarke’s predictions, the biggest group would certainly be “still undetermined”. Clarke’s hopes for space exploration (including moon bases, terra-forming, and the location of alien civilizations) are not inconceivable, though some would argue them unlikely. We also can’t be sure how artificial intelligence will develop in the years ahead. Although narrow AI has already made leaps and bounds since Clarke’s days, he expressly predicted greater than human-like intelligence and the supplanting of the human species. It’s yet to be seen if mechanical evolution, as Clarke puts it, will supersede biological. Recording onto brains is still a possibility. We’ve actually seen some progress with suspended animation, though not to the degree Clarke wished for. Replicators…well those were a long term prediction. Overall, most of his vision is still too far out for us to have proven or disproven. Which is the result you’d expect when you don’t put many dates on your predictions.

At the end of 2007, when Clarke was nearing 90, TVE Asia Pacific recorded what is traditionally considered the author’s last interview. While he doesn’t go into great depth about his visions for the future, he does mention (starting around 2:30) his excitement for commercial spaceflight and the adoption of the mobile phone. As you can see, towards the end of his life Clarke seemed to care more about humanity’s grand challenges (especially peace and the environment) than how to apply a meter stick to technological progress.

What should the techno-optimistic and future minded person take away from Clarke’s 1964 interview? Perhaps a healthy dose of reality. No single individual, no matter how brilliant, is going to be able to perfectly predict the future. Perhaps the best we can hope for is to accurately understand the trends in our own fields of expertise. Yet we must remember Clarke’s assertion at the beginning of the program. Those who wish to predict the future are stuck between two hard choices. Easily accepted predictions will seem ridiculously conservative with decades of hindsight. Daring visions will be ridiculed in their own time, but may (or may not) be vindicated in the future. As we struggle to understand what accelerating technologies may produce in the years ahead of us we will have to find the middle ground between Clarke’s hard choices. Undoubtedly however, another 50 years will find our own predictions to be insightful, hilarious, and perplexing in turn.

[screen capture credit: BBC Horizon]
[video credits: BBC Horizon, TVE Asia Pacific]

• Kurzweil’s New Movie “The Singularity is Near” Debuts in New York
• AT&T Predictions From 16 Years Ago Become Reality
• 12 Videos That Will Help You Love the Future
• Four Great Science Fiction Authors Weigh In on the Singularity (video)
• The Best Robot Dances On the Web (Videos)

Cardionet struggles despite the need for mobile realtime heart monitoring.

Cardionet MCOT allows you to monitor your heart in realtime, which can be of major benefit for those prone to heart attacks and disease. The device, which consists of a few sensors and a monitor, has been on the market for several years but continues to struggle. The company behind the technology, also Cardionet, has seen its share prices fall to record lows. According to press releases from the company, mediocre sales can be linked to low reimbursements by major insurance carriers like United Healthcare and Wellpoint. The company was also dealing with a securities class action litigation. Yet these problems pale in comparison to a larger strategic mistake: the company needs to stop worrying about improving their business and start worrying about improving their technology. Cardionet MCOT needs to be adapted and made cheaper or it won’t be able to compete.

As we mentioned when we first discussed the technology last year, the Cardionet MCOT system requires patients not just to have a device, but monitoring services as well. Essentially your heart information is recording on a handheld and periodically uploaded to your provider. Serious conditions can be spotted ahead of time, and dangerous conditions can raise alerts in realtime. See the video below for more details. It’s a great idea, and one that could save thousands of lives. We’ve seen an enhanced version of the concept in the form of an implant, and a milder version in the form of fitness sensors. Clearly heart monitoring is a technology people are ready to invest in, the question is, what form should it take.

Current reimbursements for Cardionet MCOT range from around $750 to $1250 (assumably per year). According to MobiHealthNews, at the $750 level Cardionet finds their business model untenable. That seems incredibly lame. Toumaz and WIN have both created wearable health data networking devices that are so cheap they are disposable. We’re seeing new health monitoring smart phone applications (like those from AirStrip) that while far from free are relatively cheap ways to tie in medical professionals with (sometimes realtime) patient data. I find it hard to believe that a ECG device can’t be created and monitored at a price where $750 in reimbursement wouldn’t lead to a profit.

Clearly it’s difficult to deal with the shifting whims of the insurance industry. But Cardionet MCOT was approved back in 2002. The company has had a winning idea for eight years and is still failing to grow as it should. Make Cardionet smaller and easier, model it after the disposable patches or home health monitoring systems. Incorporate the use of smart phones or other well tested mobile tech. Leverage artificial intelligence systems to save you labor costs on the monitoring side. Whatever it takes, find the right form for the technology and the idea will prosper no matter what the insurance situation. In fact, screw insurance. Make the system cheap enough, simple enough, and light enough and you’ll have people buying the monitor on their own.

Heart disease is one of the biggest killers in the US and the world. Mobile realtime ECG is a winning concept. If you can’t make it work, you’re doing something wrong.

[image and video credits: Cardionet]
[source: Cardionet]

• Body 2.0 - Continuous Monitoring Of The Human Body
• Toumaz Digital Plaster to Wirelessly Monitor Patient Vital Signs Hits Trials
• The WIN Human Recorder - A Patch To Monitor Your Health
• Deliver Babies, Treat Heart Attacks, Scan Brains From Your Phone
• Health Care's Wireless Future: Vital Signs in Remote Real-time

Ze'ev Klapow taught Willow Garage's robots some new tricks as a summer intern..

I’m not sure what you’re favorite summer job was during high school but I bet it wasn’t nearly as cool as Ze’ev Klapow’s. He’s one of the student interns at Willow Garage and this summer he got to spend his time hanging out with the company’s most popular robots. Klapow developed a prototype IR sensor for the Texai, a telepresence bot, so it could detect and avoid ledges. No more falling to its death whenever it neared a set of stairs or other sharp drop. He also developed code for the PR2 research robot that allows it to calibrate its sensors with almost no outside help. Klapow’s work is available as part of the Robot Operating System (ROS), free for anyone else to use, improve, and adapt. Check out Ze’ev explaining his work in the video below. Robotic suicide avoidance and auto-calibration, not bad for an intern.

I enjoy writing about Willow Garage mostly because I like their robots and open source philosophy, but I’m becoming more and more enamored with their work ethic as well. They get a lot of effort out of their engineering staff, as evidenced by their fast and furious ‘hackathon‘ programming sessions we’ve covered this summer. It’s clear that they get just as much dedication from their students/interns as well. Yes, Klapow’s results aren’t mind-blowing, and I’m sure for a mature robotics engineer these tasks would be relatively straight forward. But for a high school student this is top notch work, and valuable too. Klapow’s code is now available to all the research groups using the PR2s around the world, and will be a part of ROS forever. His work with the Texai is equally useful and might prove valuable if Willow Garage ever ends up bringing the telerobot to market. Kudos to Klapow for these two successes and kudos to Willow Garage for its dedication to the robotics community, whether it be through open source code or training future engineers one summer at a time.

[screen capture and video credit: Willow Garage]
[source: Willow Garage]

• Willow Garage's Big Announcement: PR2 Robots Will Go On Sale Next Month
• Willow Garage Robot Fetches Beer, Engineers Rejoice (Video)
• Willow Garage Shares Specs for TeleRobot, Takes It To Show and Tell at School
• Willow Garage Celebrates April Fools' with "Telepresence for Robots" Video
• Willow Garage Teaches Robot to Play Pool In One Week!

The debate on fish oil supplements rages on.

A new study by Dutch scientists found that low doses of omega-3 fatty acids provided little to no help preventing future heart attacks in patients with a history of heart disease. As published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers followed 4837 patients for 40 months and gave each supplements containing docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), as found in fish oil, and/or alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), as found in certain nuts and vegetables. All patients had previously had a myocardial infarction (heart attack). By examining which patients had (another) MI during the 40 months of observation, the researchers determined that these fatty acids weren’t helping. Does this spell the end for fish oil supplements? Hardly. The Dutch work is important, but still leaves many questions unanswered.

This research comes in contrast with previous experiments which showed that fatty acids could significantly reduce the risks of heart attacks when taken regularly as a supplement. The nearly 5000 patients in the Dutch study received the Omega-3s in amounts comparable to previous tests (400mg for DHA/EHA or 2g for ALA per day – disguised in identical tasting sticks of margarine). But when comparing the recipients of supplements to those of placebo, the fatty acids didn’t seem to provide protection against MI. Of the 4800+ patients, 671 had a heart attack during the trial. The Dutch scientists, led by Daan Kromhout of Wageningen University, gave several reasons in their paper for why the discrepancy may have arisen.

The first idea is that the Dutch patients were mostly old men. Average age was 69 (range of 60 to 80) and 78% were male. Other tests for fatty acid supplements covered different ranges of age, and many focused on women. In fact, the Dutch researchers did find some indication that the women in the study benefited slightly from receiving ALA.

Another possible culprit (perhaps the most likely) is that all patients were receiving top of the line medical care. As all previously had experienced MI, they were being dosed with start of the art medications to prevent further heart attacks. 85% of the patients were taking statins. Kromhout and his colleagues suggest that this medical care may have had a profound enough life-saving effect that the bonuses from fatty acid supplements were negligible. If so, the experiment would not have been particularly insightful into the effects of omega-3s, but it would be a good sign that modern medicine really helps with MI.

The final major possibility is that the Dutch patients were outside the time in which fatty acids may have helped with heart disease. Patients had experienced their heart attacks an average of 4 years before the study began. Other trials for fatty acids had begun treating patients with supplements much closer to the original MI. There may be some optimal time after (or before) MI for taking fatty acids as a supplement.

I encourage you to read the NEJM article on this study – as far as medical publications go it’s pretty accessible. But I don’t think we can draw any definitive conclusions from this work. Yes, 4837 patients over 40 months is a good data set, but the study had its limitations as the authors discussed. As we mentioned earlier, a much larger study (20,000 patients) is forthcoming from the US National Institute of Health which should shed much needed light on the effects of fish oil and vitamin D. That study, however, will have its own limitations in terms of patient selection, just like the Dutch research. The truth is that while each study provides new data, we’re likely to need years of more trials before we can write the definitive word on fish oil. Hopefully, however, we’ll eventually collect enough information that we can reasonably understand if and when fatty acids will help protect your heart. When that happens we’ll have another tool in our kit for keeping us healthier and happier longer.

[image via thinkorthwim.com]
[source: Kromhout et al, NEJM 2010]

• Vitamin D and Fish Oil - Time to Put Up or Shut Up
• Study: Elderly With Less Vitamin D More Likely to Die
• Ginkgo Biloba Fails Again
• Growing New Blood Vessel Networks With Cell Injections
• Get More Magnesium, Get Smarter

SU's students face a difficult final project: helping a billion people in the next decade.

Dreaming big is easy when you believe in the exponential growth of technology. Singularity University just wrapped up its second summer Graduates Studies Program. This year’s 80 students were challenged with positively affecting 1 billion people in the next decade. Drawing on what they had learned about accelerating technology in the past 10 weeks of study, the students laid the groundwork for more than a dozen new startups in five general areas of interest: Water, Food, Energy, Space, and UpCycle. The ideas they came up with were pretty interesting. I was able to attend SU’s closing ceremony last Friday, chat with the students about their projects, and get a sense of how the university is achieving its goal of preparing humanity for accelerating technological change. There’s a bunch of videos of the event for you to browse through below. Enjoy.

From what I could gather from talking with faculty, students, and staff, Singularity University GSP ‘10 was held at a break neck pace. 90+ hours of lectures, 55+ hours of workshops, 35+ hours of on site visits, and the last three weeks saw students working during all hours of the day preparing for their team projects. So Friday’s Closing Ceremony had an air of much needed release, exhausted excitement, and joyful triumph. The evening was very festive as you can see in the video below.

Singularity University’s inaugural summer program in 2009 was a great success. They had 40 talented students taught by some of the biggest names in nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and other emergent fields. Last year’s class produced several startups including Civiguard and Gettaround which we’ve covered before. Now, SU seems to have undergone a bit of exponential growth of its own. They’ve doubled to 80 students and we’re likely to see 10 to 15 startups emerge from GSP 10. Each of these prospective businesses is aimed at improving the world. The challenge of helping 1 billion people in 10 years was taken very seriously. Every project held the potential to affect the world if successful. The SU GSP ‘10 Students dreamed big. Occasionally too big, perhaps. Some of the projects you’ll hear about in the videos below are completely reliant upon technologies that have yet to been developed in marketable ways.

Team projects for GSP ‘10 were divided into five broad areas. The first of these was Energy, and contained just one group: Amunda. The project, which will almost certainly become a startup, is aimed towards bringing transparency to the world energy market. Through the open exchange of information, Amunda hopes to pair alternative energy entrepreneurs with emerging markets. The dream is to have an explosive growth in adoption as was seen in the last decade with mobile phones. Check out the presentation below:

The second area for team projects was Water. Three groups (Nishio, Sensoria, and H2020) aimed towards tackling three problems with the world’s water supply: availability, purity, and distribution. Nishio wants to use synthetic biology and nanotechnology filters to desalinate water along the coast and pump it using solar power. Sensoria believes that water purity can be tested by seeing how water samples interact with human cells from various parts of the body. H2020 wants to provide an online destination where people can report on water resources and find tested solutions to problems they may encounter.

In Food, there was just one project: Agropolis. The team’s general aim was to accelerate the adoption of small scale hydroponics and aeroponics. Homes could grow a large portion of their own groceries, restaurants could serve vegetables grown in the same building where you eat, and billions of people all over the world would have access to bountiful local food. As I mentioned when we discussed hydroponic fish farms in Wisconsin, the urban agricultural movement is already well underway all around the world. Agropolis’ real innovation would be in finding ways to incorporate accelerating technologies. For example, artificial intelligence attached to biosensors could lead to better regulation of environmental conditions to maximize how quickly crops grow. Abundant solar energy would let you have a 24 hour sun cycle with many vertical layers of crops so that a large amount of food could be grown in a small space. Agropolis was one of my favorite projects at SU this year, largely because I think it’s viable. Urban agriculture is already happening, Agropolis will simply leverage whatever technologies it can to accelerate that trend. Even if one of the technologies (like solar power) is late in arriving, the others may still be able to be implemented in ways that improve yield.

Space was the theme with by far had the most teams associated with it, fitting considering that Singularity University is nestled within the NASA Ames Research Center. While all of the space projects were interesting and had some long term potential, I’m not sure how many of these teams you’ll be hearing about in the next few years. As always, space-based concepts face a steep uphill challenge when it comes to adoption due to the tremendous costs and weight bureaucracy surrounding the field.

The final area for team projects was termed UpCycle, which basically covers sustainability. We can’t forget that the exponential growth of technology is likely to lead to an exponential growth in waste (at least in the short term). i2Cycle sought to pair up industries so that one company’s waste could be another’s supplies. Fre3dom is looking into how remote areas of the world could repair and maintain their expensive equipment through novel processes like 3D prinitng. Eventually such an endeavor could lead to the decentralization of manufacturing as a whole. My favorite, however, was Biomine. The project considered removing the valuable metals from electronic waste. The millions of computers and mobile phones thrown away every year contain tons of copper and other marketable metals. Modeling themselves on a technique already in use in a BHP Billiton mine in Chile, Biomine hopes to use dead microorganisms to extract metal from our ‘e-waste’. I like the idea of adapting proven mine technology to reclamation efforts, not simpy because it seems likely to work, but also because it is likely to have a humanitarian effect on many waste-processing towns around the world (see 3:00 in the video below):

I’m not sure if there’s a single measure for a university’s success, but the team projects at SU are probably a good indication that the institution is doing something right. While I don’t think ten weeks (no matter how intensive) is enough time to teach someone about the intricacies of accelerating technologies, it is clearly enough time to spark the imagination. Hopefully the lessons the GSP ‘10 students have learned will not only guide them towards dreaming big about the future, but also discerning which new tech-based opportunities have a good chance of success. Singularity Hub will keep you up to date on how these team projects (and eventual startups) develop in the years ahead. Though, if all goes according to plan, you’ll be able to see their successes yourself when you look at the faces of the billions of people these students hope to help.

[image credit Singularity University]
[video credits: Aaron Saenz/Singularity Hub]

• How was Singularity University's Second Summer? Ask the Students (video)
• Sign Up for Singularity University's Executive Program
• Singularity University Launches Class of 2010 With Opening Ceremony
• Singularity University's Summer Program Doubling in Size - Sign Up Now
• Singularity University To Launch June 29 - Exclusive Interview With Executive Director Salim Ismail

Now Lego and ROS can play together.

Those little Lego robots you’ve been building just became much more powerful. Willow Garage recently announced that it designed code to link the popular Lego Mindstorms NXT to the formidable Robot Operating System (ROS). ROS is an open source collection of robotics software that has been used on everything from autonomous cars to humanoid bipeds. We’re talking world class robotics research here. Now that versatile library can be accessed by amateur and beginning robotics engineers using Lego NXT. To demonstrate the new capabilities, Willow Garage plugged models from Lego Digital Designer into ROS’s 3D visualization display. Using ROS code, the NXT robot can build maps of its surroundings, and it can use those to navigate around. That’s just a tiny sample of all the cool code that is now available. Check out the video below to see beginning of the ROS/Lego alliance.

Singularity Hub has seen its fair share of amazing Lego NXT robots. They can solve Rubik’s Cubes (in so many different ways), model Segways, play Tetris – it’s an impressive catalog. Yet every time I see these amateur accomplishments I lament the fact that so much time and talent has been spent in efforts that, while cool looking, aren’t really advancing research in the robotics community. What we really need is a way of getting hard working Lego NXT enthusiasts building more advanced and useful systems. Willow Garage’s work to bring Lego into the ROS fold is a great step in that direction. Sure, in the beginning the flow of innovation will be one sided. Lego NXT builders will be simply taking ROS code and seeing what kind of amazing new things they can do with it. Eventually however we’ll see some insights trickling in the other direction. Lessons learned in Lego may help design new ROS code. And once it’s in ROS it’s available to everyone in the robotics community.

I’m really happy with this development. Willow Garage has built a bridge to connect the power of ROS with the democracy of Lego. I can’t wait to see what happens next.

[screen capture and video credits: Willow Garage]
[source: ROS]

• Segway Made from Lego Robot Kit Works Without a Gyro (video)
• First Video of Lego Robot Playing Tetris
• Next Chapter in the Lego Robotics Saga: Amazing Bipedal Walking
• LEGO Robot Solves Any Rubik's Cube In Less Than 12 Seconds (Video)
• Lego Robot Solves Bigger and Harder Rubik's Cubes (video)

May Griffith's collagen based synthetic cornea has been successful in trial patients for two years.

Researchers in Canada and Sweden have successfully treated corneal damage by implanting human collagen into patient’s eyes. According to results recently published in Science Translational Medicine, 10 Swedish patients received biosynthetic corneas crafted from collagen and were monitored for 24 months as part of a phase I clinical trial. Cells from the patients (including nerve cells) grew onto the collagen, allowing for natural tearing, and 6 saw noticeable improvements in vision. The work was spear headed by May Griffith of the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and surgery was led by Per Fagerholm of Linkoping University in Sweden. Millions of people around the world could have their vision restored by this new material, and it represents a significant step towards regenerating the eye.

For the millions who have lost vision due to corneal damage, transplants are generally the most successful solution. Yet we have a severe shortage of available corneas as they are typically only harvested from recently deceased patients and require matching between donor and recipient. A synthetic cornea is needed until we can find a non-surgical solution. In the beginning of the summer we discussed a remarkable new polymer cornea developed in Germany that will soon be available to patients in the EU. That completely artificial cornea is set to help thousands in the next year, while this collagen cornea from Canada is still in clinical trials. Why then should we be interested in this biosynthetic version?

Natural cell growth. While the polymer cornea allows cells to grow into its edges (this is one of its very useful properties) it does not allow cells into its center. This would cloud the device. The collagen cornea, in contrast, acts as a sort of scaffold so that the patients cells can grow into and on it, forming a quasi-natural corneal tissue layer. In other words, the polymer cornea is a cool piece of plastic that the eye accepts, while the collagen cornea more actively integrates itself into the eye. Griffith and Fagerholm’s work shows that blood vessel and nerve cells move onto the collagen. This allows the biosynthetic cornea to become sensitive to touch. Tears form naturally. I should mention that both materials (polymer and collagen) do not require donor/recipient matching. The polymer is a plastic not rejected by the body. The collagen, though human in origin, doesn’t invoke an immune response.

A patient's eye after operation: (A) 1 day, (B) 1 week, (C) 2 weeks, (D) 1 month, (E) 2 months, (F) 3.5 months, (G) 6 months, (H) 24 months. Arrows in (C) and (D) show the growth of cells. (E) and (F) shows some growth was irregular until later (G and H).

I don’t want to underplay the significance of the polymer cornea. It a viable means of restoring vision to thousands that’s here today (more or less). Nor do I want to over-hype the collagen cornea – cell integration is far from perfect. In fact, we should still be skeptical at this point because trial size was small (as normal for phase I) and results were good but not great – 60% success rate for improved vision.

Instead I would like to place these two projects in a spectrum of synthetic corneas. The polymer is an immediate solution that is likely to remain cutting edge for years to come. Then it is likely the collagen technology will be ready and will provide a more complete healing solution that relies more on the eye’s own cells. Finally we’ll want a means to have the eye completely regenerate itself, likely through the use of stem cells (we’ve seen work in this area already). Each of these technologies is a valuable part of that spectrum of cures for corneal blindness.

The use of collagen scaffolding is a very promising technology. We’ve seen it used to promote stem cell growth for complex organs in rodents, and it’s enabled a child to grow a new trachea in his throat! Now we’re seeing a similar technique applied to eye repair. I’m very excited to see how this concept can be adapted to other areas of the body. Eventually it may be part of the system used to encourage our bodies to regenerate themselves by promoting natural stem cell growth. It is likely to take years before the collagen cornea becomes a widespread means for restoring sight, but it’s already hinting at the potential for new technique that could help return vision to millions.

[image credits: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Fagerholm et al Sci. Transl. Med. 2010]
[source: OHRI News, Fagerholm et al Sci. Transl. Med. 2010, Fagerholm et al Clinical and Translational Science 2009]

• Germany's Artificial Cornea Ready To Restore Sight To Thousands
• Report: Stem Cells Have Cured Blindness In Patients For Ten Years And Counting
• Stem Cell Therapy Cures Corneal Blindness
• Implantable Eye Telescope That Treats AMD Now FDA Approved
• New Livers Grown on Scaffolds In Rats

Nao registers for RoboCup.

Robots aren’t just copying human athletes, they’re copying human sportsmanship. At RoboCup 2010 in Singapore, a Nao robot was programmed to register itself for the competition. The robot was able to enter a room and present the appropriate forms which it carried rolled up as a scroll. You know a robot has heart when it asks to be let in the game. The Nao, part of a team from France, competed in the Standard Platform league of the soccer tournament. Check out a test run of the scroll presentation in the video below.

The programmed ceremony for the Nao registration was mostly for show, but it does highlight how robots are increasingly able to integrate into human activities; if only for short periods of time. RT-Corp, one of the promoters of Aldebaran’s Nao in Japan, has released other videos of Nao robots in real world locations. These ‘Nao about town’ video clips, seen below, are further evidence that well programmed bots can navigate complex environments in limited ways. In this case, the robots autonomously handle difficult terrain such as uneven inclines and grass – not easy for bipedal bots. Clearly their performances seem relatively simple at the moment, but the programming and the hardware are improving every year. Given enough time, the Nao may be able to navigate and interact in human environments with an ease and autonomy that will be more impressive. At some point robots may develop into athletes with all the determination and spunk of Rudy. Let the Nao play, coach. Let him play!

[screen capture and video credits: RT-Corp]
[source: RT-Corp (translated via Google)]

• Nao Robot - The Next Generation in Commercial Robots
• Robot Soccer Keeps Getting Better - RoboCup 2010 in Singapore (video)
• Robot Soccer (Football) Getting Better, Goes Global
• A-Star's Social Robots Make a Splash in Singapore (Video)
• RoboCup Takes Place in Graz, Austria: Robots Play Soccer and Search for Survivors

Endiran, The Robot, hits India in September. Prepare yourself for the awesome insanity.

Get ready for another blockbuster science fiction flick, but this time it’s gonna be Bollywood* style. September 3, 2010 will see the release of Endhiran (English title: The Robot), a science fiction epic from India that looks to be about love, vengeance, dancing and robots. Directed by S. Shankar, who is known for his mammoth budgets, Endhiran is rumored to have well surpassed 200 Crores ( ~43 million USD) in its production. This might be the biggest Indian movie of all time, and it’s all about robots and robot-human interactions. We’ve got the trailer (along with some music videos and other promo material) for your below, but unfortunately it’s only available in Tamil. I’m not sure what the actors are saying but this looks like a spectacularly crazy movie. Did they just rip-off I, Robot?  Are those android tigers I saw? Why is everyone dancing? …I can’t wait until this thing hits US shores.

Big budget science fiction films are nothing new to Hollywood, and we’ve seen some really big success stories coming out of the genre lately. Avatar was huge, Inception is doing very well, and Tron Legacy looks like it might be awesome. Yet all of these give a very Americentric take on science and the future. India is one of the biggest and fastest growing economies on the planet and looks to be a major player in the development of global technology in the years ahead. It’s about time for an Indian-made scifi flick to make a splash in the US. Hopefully Endhiran will provide some insight into how the robot culture has spread to other parts of the world.

*Note: Technically I probably shouldn’t refer to a Tamil movie as Bollywood…but I did anyway. Blame the robots, not me.

[image credit: Sun Pictures via WikiCommons]
[video credit: TamilRelease]
[source: Endhiran official website]

• AVATAR Official Movie Trailer Released
• Tron Legacy Trailer Released With Daft Punk Sound Score
• The Growing Robot Culture: China Builds Giant Optimus Prime Out of Junk (video)
• Titan Robot Wows, Frightens...But Its Fake
• Avatar Movie Thrills In London Premier, Portends Future

NTT's t-Room uses augmented reality to put everyone in the same virtual space.

Get ready for teleconferencing in the round. NTT, the world’s second largest telecomm, has developed a new video room that allows users to share an overlapping virtual environment. Dubbed the t-Room, NTT’s next generation conferencing solution takes real time video of your friends and displays them on tall window-like screens surrounding you. Your image, in turn, is shown in a window in your friend’s t-Room. When you overlap in the same window you can see the other person ‘behind you’ in the screen. It’s a sort of shared augmented reality. As each person moves, the window they are displayed in changes as well. This gives the t-Room a sense of a three-dimensional space. Multiple users in multiple locations can participate in the same conversation, a background image can be projected behind the users, and documents or other files can displayed in one of the windows. Everything can be recorded for later playback in case someone shows up late. Watch the t-Room put a new twist on teleconferencing in the videos below.

We’ve seen how businesses are shifting funds from travel to video conferencing. The traditional teleconference room generally has screens only along one wall, giving users the feeling of talking along a long table that extends into the remote location. NTT’s t-Room is a more dynamic and interactive space, letting users move around and share input on the same files at the same time. As far as teleconferencing rooms go, adding an augmented reality feel is a nice improvement.

In the first video below you’ll notice that users seem to have a fairly intuitive sense of each other’s position. The second video (only in Japanese, though the English version is available here) gives a step by step look at the system’s capabilities. The use of multiple layers (background, people, files) seems to be a great tool for giving killer presentation. The final video is a demo of Google Earth in the panaromic space. Pretty cool looking.

Of course, as neat as the t-Room may be I’m not sure this kind of video conferencing is the long term solution that businesses will want. In the first place, there’s no mobility. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to step into a boardroom every time you talk to associates in a remote location. Instead, telepresence robots can be used to bring the associate to you and thereby allow for impromptu meetings and casual conversations. We’ve discussed the difficulty with selling telerobotics, but I still think a mobile physical presence is probably going to make more sense in many offices than a dedicated teleconferencing room. Then there’s price. There’s no word yet on costs or availability for the t-Room, but I doubt it will be cheaper than free. Skype and Google are going to dominate the low-end of video conferencing, and for many businesses, that level of communication is likely to work just fine.

Where then might the t-Room really shine? In very specialized expert applications, like telemedicine. For years NTT has been developing an all optical fiber network in Japan that will allow for super high bandwidth connections. By the end of the year they’re projected to have more than 30 million users. NTT’s network will allow for low latency on video conference calls making them more reliable even in cheaper systems. That sort of reliability matches up well with telemedicine applications. Each t-Room could be like a room at the doctor’s office, only the doctor can be commuting in from anywhere in the country (or world, eventually). Likewise multiple specialists could interact with the same patient at the same time. There are likely to be similar cases for engineering and other expert dependent scenarios.

But maybe I’m grasping at straws because I like the technology. The truth is that I’m really not sure if video conferencing solutions like the t-Room have any long term viability. It’s great to have a shared augmented reality space, but why not take the plunge and go full VR? Do we really need to have a dedicated room for conferencing when we’ll all have 3D webcams, video goggles, or some new human computer interface to work with? I like the t-Room, I really want to play around in one, but I don’t know if I’d invest in one for business. We’ll have to wait until NTT starts aggressively marketing the technology before we know if Japan and the rest of the world agree.

[image credit: NTT]
[video credits: NTT, Crunch Gear, Communisense]
[source: NTT, Hirata et al (PDF)]

• Business Travel Declines With Telepresence Conference Calls
• Vu Tries to Undercut Cisco with Cheaper Telepresence
• HARK! Sound Separation Software for Telepresence Robots (Video)
• Tony Robbins, Sergey Brin Become Robots - The Telepresence Revolution
• Old Trick Enhances Modern 3D Video Teleconferencing

Kurzweil talks human enhancement with Religion and Ethics News Weekly.

The Religion and Ethics News Weekly program on PBS recently interviewed Ray Kurzweil about his predictions for how humanity will change in the years ahead. The segment, entitled “Ethics of Human Enchancement” uses Kurzweil as its centerpiece. It even includes footage from Transcendent Man and The Singularity Is Near – full length documentaries about Kurzweil and his work. More important than the futurist’s involvement, however, is the questions that the program raises: will we augment our biology? If we do, what problems will it cause or solve? I’m not particularly satisfied with the answers presented in the video, but I am glad that national media programs are taking such discussions seriously. You can watch PBS’ presentation in its entirety in the video below.

For those familiar with concepts like exponential growth in intelligence, the Technological Singularity, and human enhancement, nothing in PBS’s program is particularly new. Viewers may recognize projects like Braingate, and brain implants that treat Parkinson’s from previous articles appearing on the Hub. Anyone who’s watched Transcendent Man, or read/watched The Singularity is Near knows considerably more about Kurzweil than is covered in these ten minutes. Why then, should we care about this news segment? Mostly because it’s on PBS.

Watch the full episode. See more Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly.

“Ray Kurzweil may not be a household name…” The opening line really sums it up, and you can plug many different things in place of Ray Kurzweil’s name. The Singularity. Accelerating technology. Exponential growth. These topics simply aren’t part of the mainstream media discussion. It’s pretty revealing that we’re still relying on a science fiction film from 1999, The Matrix, to introduce audiences to the concept that we could eventually produce non-human intelligence. Referencing a decade old movie for explaining cutting edge science? Pretty lame if you think about it (of course I did it myself just a few weeks ago). Still, that’s where the national discussion is at the moment.

Thank goodness then that bio-ethics and human enhancement are getting more of a platform. This probably isn’t the most exposure the concepts have ever received, but it’s certainly a step in the right direction. The choices we make today about implants (or genetic treatments) that augment humanity will have far reaching implications for years to come.

Which is why I’m a bit wary of these topics appearing in a forum like Religion and Ethics News Weekly. Don’t get me wrong, the program is great – 115 awards and counting – but it does place the debate in the tired old Science vs. Religion framework (just look at the way they juxtapose Kurzweil to Christian Brugger). The ethical issues surrounding human augmentation should concern you no matter what belief system you follow. Likewise, the very real dangers presented by augmenting technologies (whether they be nanotech, biotech, and/or machine) are something that need to be studied whether or not we think of such advancements as progress or witchcraft.

Ultimately I do believe that humans will create, or help give rise to, intelligence that matches or exceeds our own. I’m also pretty sure that we’ll find ways to enhance ourselves, and that the allure of doing so will encourage many to take advantage of such enhancements. I’m not sure what either of these implies about souls and spirituality and I’m very happy leaving such questions to philosophers and theologians. What I am concerned with is whether such creations will aid or injure humanity. I think either is a possibility and I suspect that which outcome occurs will depend greatly on how much time and effort we spend in preparing ourselves for such an event. To that end I hope we see many more of these discussions on PBS and other major networks. The effects of advancing technology will effect the entire world, and we may need the attention of the entire world to ensure that effect is a positive one.

The Religion and Ethics News Weekly has provided a transcript of the news segment above as well as videos for extended interviews for Ray Kurzweil and Christian Brugger.
[image and video credit: RE News Weekly]
[source: PBS]

• Video of Kurzweil's Latest Talk at Google
• Kurzweil's Next Book: Creating An Artificial Mind
• Kurzweil Keynote at Singularity University Exec Program (Video)
• Ray Kurzweil Speaks at Singularity University 2010 Opening Ceremony
• Singularity University Officially Launches At NASA Ames

The Internet: portal to the collective conscious or mindless distraction?

My smart phone can let me access the collective knowledge of humanity from almost anywhere, but is that access making me smarter or simply less focused? Every day I see people texting while in line at a store, using their laptops in parks, or chatting on the phone to loved ones while they walk. No matter where we go, we seem to stay plugged in. And while plugged in, we consume. According to the New York Times, Americans took in three times as much data in 2008 as they did in 1960. We multitask, trying to absorb different media streams (Twitter, email, Facebook, etc) at once, and new evidence shows that multitasking isn’t simply making us more efficient, it’s also making us more stressed, and less discerning. It seems possible our brains may have a practical restriction to how much data they can and should process. Is the growing digital age doomed to fail due to our own mental limits? No, but we need to acknowledge the necessity and benefits of unplugging.

I’ve been having an ongoing debate with a good friend about modern information overload. Should we be concerned, he asks, that we’re exposing our brains to such large volumes of data? No more, I replied, than we should have been concerned with the advent of the printing press, or the radio, or the TV. Each new advance in media brings about a concern about the loss of social interactions, the decaying of our brains, but on whole we have learned more and grown in technological strength and understanding. Ignore the Luddites and learn to love being plugged in.

Then I was pointed to Matt Richtel’s excellent Pulitzer Prize winning series in the NY Times, “Your Brains on Computers” which explores how our minds are shaped by the data stream. Richtel and his colleagues talk with scientists and scholars about the way in which we respond to multitasking and a glut of information. He points out research at Adam Gazzaley’s Lab at UCSF that indicates multitaskers have a harder time ignoring irrelevant information. Other scientists have found that anticipating incoming messages keeps you stressed even while not working. Checking emails can literally be addictive complete with associated chemical changes in our brain. A NY Times poll found that 30% of younger Americans think that technology makes it harder for them to focus, that 1 in 10 Americans find technology makes them less likely to interact with their children, 1 in 7 say it makes them less likely to spend time with their spouse, and 1 in 3 think they can’t live without being plugged in.

The history of techno-optimism versus techno-pessimism is long, probably dating back to those who feared the wheel would lead to less time spent in the cave with the family. Yet modern concerns have been matched with increased insight from neurology and behavioral science. You can get an interesting overview of that recent history in this article by Adam Thierer. The plasticity of the brain is impressive, we are creatures designed to adapt. Adjusting to new levels of technology isn’t always easy, but it can be done.

Recently Richtel discussed his NY Times series with NPR. He brought up an analogy, not originally his, that I think serves us well. Information flow is like food. If you think all food is good, if you consume indiscriminately, then you will likely have health problems. Just as we need to learn how to eat healthy, we also need to learn how to manage our data streams in healthy ways. Because our understanding of how the brain processes data is still being developed we may not be able to form definitive guides to the modern information age. No one can really tell you that X hours of email per day is ok, but Y minutes on Facebook leads to poor reasoning skills. It is apparent, however, that unplugging from the internet, removing yourself from all distractions, is beneficial. Richtel took a team of scientists on a rafting trip away from all connectivity. Even the skeptics noticed a profound difference in their own behavior after a few days unplugged. We seem to have a finite amount of ‘working memory’ in our brains, removing distractions may allow deeper thoughts and reasoning to use working memory taken up by information overload.

In his NPR interview, Richtel is quick to point out that the increased consumption of information isn’t a bad thing. No, it’s an essential tool in our developing world. He doesn’t think we should end our hunger for new data, just manage it.

I agree. We recently ran a story on how exercise boosts your brain’s health. Going out for a jog is good for your mind. So too, it seems, is unplugging from the internet. I propose, and I am far from the first to do so, that we include ‘removing distractions’ alongside exercise as a fundamental component of our mental health. Are you giving yourself an hour each day to go out and run around? Why not include an hour when you turn off all your media (phones, computers, TV, etc) and relax. Don’t sleep, don’t read a book, just look around, think, and talk to people. Every once in a while, go on vacation and do the same thing, but for a few days. Does it sound completely boring? Well, boring can be a good thing.

We need to figure out how to maximize our adaption to new technology because that technology is growing in scale quickly. Many of us are already part of at least one social network, and those come complete with their own series of alerts, updates, and reminders. Imagine the information you’ll have to absorb as billions of people around the world start to go online in the upcoming decades. Think of how much we’ll have to process as our homes, cars, and offices start to create their own data streams. If we don’t learn how to interface properly with that new flow of content then we’ll end up nervous wrecks – constantly waiting for the next email or poke or tweet, unable to focus on our work or our personal lives. We could become people too distracted to function.

Yet the other possibility is equally powerful: if we learn how to manage data well, we could become enhanced beyond anything humans have ever experienced before. Imagine a time when an answer, any answer, can be found in seconds no matter where you are. Think of a time when you can interact with anything you own, or anyone you know, as easily as you can speak. With smart phones we seem to be halfway there already. The massive flow of data I’ve been discussing is a necessary byproduct of interconnectivity. If we can manage the data well then we’ll be able to link humanity together in ways that will increase productivity, understanding, and creativity.

Doing so means adjusting to the new onslaught of data. Right now the recipe for adjusting is unclear but probably includes “eat well, exercise well, and relax often.” Perhaps unsurprisingly that’s pretty much the recipe for longevity as well. As neuroscientists explore the brain we may be able to better design the flow of data to optimize our mental performance. We may find that productivity is maximized when we check emails three times a day, when we only have four windows open on our screens at once, or if we limit texting to times when we’re not driving. Until we have that precision guiding our online behavior, it’s up to each of us to figure out how best to plug into information technology. But take my advice: prioritize down time. Enhancing your mind sometimes means knowing when to give it a break.

[image credit: Gazzaley Lab, New Yorker]
[video credit: New York Times]
[source: NPR, NY Times, Tech Liberation]

• Exercise Boosts Your Brain – Here’s How
• New York Times Hearts Singularity, Hub Featured
• NY Times Interviews Replicant While Its Owners Prepare for Digital Resurrection
• Kevin Kelly: Predicting The Next 5000 Days Of The Web
• New York Times Has Sweet Modular Robot Media

A new gripper could be a key ingredient in iRobot's entry into elderly care.

Colin Angle’s presentation at TEDMED this past year has me wondering about the future of home healthcare. According to the CEO of iRobot, makers of the Roomba vacuuum, robots are the solution to extending the time in which the elderly can live independently in their own homes. Robots could allow caregivers to monitor patients from afar, they could remind people to take their medications on time, lift simple objects, or even transport heavy items. I totally agree with Angle’s assessment, but I’m not sure he does a good job of pitching iRobot as the company to make these solutions happen. Check out Angle’s TEDMED presentation in the video below and judge for yourself. Does it seem like iRobot is close to putting medical bots in our homes?

iRobot created a whole new unit of their company to deal with medical applications. When I first heard about Angle’s aspirations for home care robots I was picturing something more advanced. Certainly the compliant manipulator Angle demos around 14:22 in the video is cool but we’ve already seen the ‘jammable material’ in action before with their BlobBot prototype. Most of the rest of Angle’s talk seems just that – talk. We hear a lot about the necessity of robots in the home, and he shows how iRobot platforms like the SugV (at 10:50) and Warrior (16:35) could be remodeled for caregiver applications, but he doesn’t show a finished product, or even a truly innovative prototype. Compare this with the healthcare robots we’ve seen from Panasonic. Sure, those are still in the early phases of development, but they already seem more polished and applicable than what Angle demonstrates.

I have a lot respect for iRobot. They created and conquered the robot vacuum market. They’ve used that success to fuel some great research and create a host of other robots that most consumers probably don’t know about. Angle and his team have taken huge steps towards making robots a beneficial part of our daily lives.

However, they’ve fallen behind in the vacuum market (see our review on next generation of vacuum-bot, the XV-11 from Neato). And now when I watch Angle’s presentation on medical bots I feel very disappointed. This is what you bring to TEDMED? A few seconds of robot demos that we could have already seen years ago, and a brief look at an interesting new gripper? That’s totally lame. Admittedly Angle’s approach to the topic is emotional and moving, and this presentation is a year old, but I still expect better. I think the crowd at TEDMED did too.

Elder care is going to be huge in upcoming decades. It seems undeniable that we will spend larger portions of our economic and social might tackling that problem. Robots are a way of mediating the effect of the boom in the number of elderly, and could provide meaningful improvements in quality of life to our aging loved ones. But it’s going to take a lot of innovation to make robotics ready for that task. iRobot is a good robotics company, but I think they’re progress is trailing their vision. We need better robots, and soon.

[screen capture and video credit: TEDMED]
[source: TEDMED, iRobot Press Release]

• iRobot Announces Healthcare Bot
• Nothing Can Stop the Blob Bot
• Rodney Brooks Leaves MIT, Is Heartland Robotics About To Take Off?
• Toyota's Robot Violinist Wows Crowd At Shanghai Expo 2010 (Video)
• Rodney Brooks, Co-Founder of iRobot, on to New Company