Story of my Life

Recently, I went to the cinema to watch Disney Pixar’s newest movie, WALL-E. A bleak, post-apocalyptic tour-de-force, the movie depicts the gentle romance between two robots of the future: WALL-E, the not-so-bright and not-so-attractive ‘guy’ with the big heart and sweet personality, and EVE, the sleek, sexy, totally out-of-his-league babe.

The story goes like this: A hundred years into the future, Earth — over-polluted and overtaken by garbage — can no longer sustain life. So we flee to outer space, leaving the planet’s cleanup in the mechanical pincers of an army of stout, capable robots.

Seven hundred, entirely uneventful years pass and now, pillars of compacted trash line the city skies like towering skyscrapers. One day, WALL-E — now the sole surviving creature of his kind — meets EVE, a visitor from outer space with a mysterious mission.

However, Pixar designed these robots so that they’re — well, they’re human. We see them as human. We see them communicate, we see them think, act, understand, love. And we accept this. By the end of the movie, we’ve accepted WALL-E and EVE as equals and we may even shed a tear here and there for our newfound friends.

But what exactly is WALL-E? Is he pure fantasy and fiction?

Or is he — is Artificial Intelligence — simply the way of the future?

Alan Turing’s Vision

This prophecy, published in 1950 by English mathematician Alan Turing was a bold statement indeed. Remember, in that day and age, computers weren’t sleek, glossy, or available in a variety of neat colours; no, they where clunky, they weighed nearly 30 tons, and they took gaggles of people to operate.

Turing, however, saw past all that. He envisioned a day when digital computers programmed with rules and facts would possess the intelligence of man.

This boldness and guiding confidence was exactly what researchers needed and thus was borne the field of artificial intelligence (AI). In the 1950s and 1960s, the field would see enormous growth and popularity. It became the hot topic of students, researchers, writers, and even the movies.

In the 1960s, for example, when Stanley Kubrick directed his 2001: A Space Odyssey, starring HAL, the omniscient and omnipotent robot, he had taken care to directly consult MIT Professor and AI expert Marvin Minsky, who assured him that yes, by the end of the 20th century, robots like HAL would not only live among us, but they would exceed us in many capacities.

It no longer became a question of if machines would become intelligent, but when.

A Philosophical Fork in the Toaster

However in 1973, Berkeley philosophy professor, Hubert Dreyfus published his book, “What Computers Can’t Do”, in which he proposed the exact opposite of what was on everyone’s mind: Machines, he reasoned — as they were progressing now — would never, ever, reach the same intellectual capacities as a human.

There is a passage in Dreyfus’ book in which he recounts the results of a meeting among the top minds in computer science; here, his (early) report of A.I. was deemed to be “sinister”, “dishonest”, “hilariously funny”, and an “incredible misrepresentation of history”.

But of course, researchers in the A.I. community would be incensed. They would be, in fact, deeply, unapologetically pissed off.

After all, they’d just spent the last two decades of their lives telling the world what computers could and would do…only to have their fundamental beliefs and dreams attacked by — of all people — a philosophy scholar?

Hubert Dreyfus Criticises

The core of Dreyfus’ critique was about rules. See, a conventional machine is programmed to accept an input and apply a set of rules to produce an output. The idea is that any intellectual activity, whether it be adding numbers, playing chess, translating languages, or disposing of garbage, could be mimicked using a set of rules.

Dreyfus, however, argued that rules — by themselves — did not contain the necessary information for their application. Suppose we were to design a robot to process the following phrase:

What does “it” refer to, the puppy or the window?

But of course, even a child could tell you that it refers to the puppy. But how does a computer know? Does the computer know that puppies are furry, cute, and love to be hugged and touched by children? Can the computer understand that Mary probably doesn’t want a silly windowpane?

What if instead the phrase was:

Now, it refers to the window. But does the computer know that children enjoy pressing their noses against windows? Does the computer know that the puppy is out of Mary’s reach, separated by a layer of glass?

Not only does understanding the nature of the word “it” in these sentences require such obvious facts about dogs and windows, but it also requires a certain human element. It requires us to empathize with how Mary may feel. It requires us to understand the physical nature of Mary’s body and how she interacts with her surroundings.

Previously, many A.I. researchers believed that programming an understanding of language could be done syntactically – that is, by appealing only to the rules of grammar and dictionary definitions. But Dreyfus (and linguists such as Noam Chomsky) pointed out that the issue was much, much more complex. So much of what we do and say depends on context.

And they were right. A.I. researchers would begin having difficulty producing machines with the common-sense understanding of a mere four-year old. There were simply too many rules — too many rules and each rule leading to more and more rules so that even the most basic statements and stories could simply not be understood without appealing to millions of common-sense facts.

So…Is WALL-E Dead?

But what does this all mean for poor WALL-E? Did Hubert Dreyfus destroy the dream of ever producing a WALL-E? Is true Artificial Intelligence unlikely to ever happen?

No, no, and no!

Dreyfus never intended his original critique to be a crushing blow to Artificial Intelligence. The dream continues to live on, but today, researchers are older and wizen by his words. The field is no longer as naïve and wide-eyed as it was half-a-century ago.

For example, one possible avenue for modern AI research is provided by our own brains: Instead of programming a computer to abide by the traditional step-by-step rules approach, we model it like the neurons in the human brain where the results of the program depend on the ‘strengths’ of each particular neuron.

This radically different method of computing not only combines the work of psychologists and cognitive scientists in understanding how the human mind works, but also biologists and neuroscientists who study the physical brain, and finally, mathematicians and computer scientists, who work to develop the models for artificial neural networks.

If Artificial Intelligence is to succeed – if WALL-E is to ever exist – we know now that it is going to take the work of all of us — of mathematicians, computer scientists, cognitive scientists, philosophers, and psychologists. The dream of imbuing a machine with an intellect – if it is ever to happen – will be the crowning achievement of not any one discipline, but of humankind as a whole.

Today, I did the unthinkable.

I did something I said I’d never do.

I joined Facebook.

Yeha. I did. I can’t go back and undo it now.

facebook

“Suddenly, when all your friends have been reduced to teensy avatars, canned quotations, and endless ‘favourites’ lists, they don’t seem quite as special as you may have once remembered them.”

The problem with Facebook is that it’s sort of like having a relationship with a cheap hooker. Or at least, how I always imagined it to be. It’s cheap, quick, and I suppose, the overwhelming sense of satisfaction afterwards is enough to override any residual feelings of guilt you may have had going into the whole mess.

On the other hand, there’s nothing particularly special about it. In the long run, it’s just not that satisfying.

There’s an uncomfortable disconnect when you use Facebook. For one thing, the site is designed to shed light on people’s personal lives. It’s suppose to reveal everything you’d want to know about your friend, your friend’s friend, or (more likely) that girl you met the other night. It’s supposed to connect people.

But because the information is so effortless and so unkempt, it fights against the very purpose it was designed to do!

It becomes impersonal.

Suddenly, when all your friends have been reduced to teensy avatars, canned quotations, and endless ‘favourites’ lists, they don’t seem quite as special as you may have once remembered them.

So I’m updating my profile and I see several options about Current Relationships.

I frown very slightly, check ‘Single’ (because I am), and check all the boxes under ‘Looking for…’, which includes ‘Friends’, ‘Relationship’, ‘Dating’, ‘Random Play’ (play what?), and ‘Whatever I can get’ (what does that mean?).

Hey, I’m not picky.

Immediately, a cutesy heart shows up on my profile along with, ‘Phil is listed as single’.

What the hell?

It’s not that I’m not single (I am), nor is it that I’d be terribly disappointed if I were to catch the eye of say, a gorgeous, leggy girl that mommy would wildly approve of. It’s rather the fact I want to be able to say, “Phil is listed as single but…”

I need that ‘but’.

That ‘but’ is the story of my life. That ‘but’ is so I can tell riveting stories about my tragic singleness and my unyielding search for Ms. Right.

The ’single’ part — pssh — that’s just the title. The ‘but’ part, that my friend, that’s the journey.

The bottom line is, we all have our own wants and needs. We all have intriguing stories to tell and life-defining experiences to relive. But what’s important is that we should all aspire to tell it our way.

Facebook is like that girl who comes to the party dressed in the low cut blouse, skirt showing off everything, and well, wearing nothing much else. You know who I’m talking about.

She walks in. We all gape. Eyebrows hit the ceiling. Jaws hit the ground. And that’s about it.

Because, really, it’s just a turnoff. When someone goes to such lengths to bare all, there’s nothing left of interest. There has to be an air of mystery. There has to be room for imagination.

Facebook, with it’s cheap, fast, easy, and naked virtues is that kind of girl.

So why — why in the world — would I do it?

Why would I join Facebook?

Because I’m a fucking hypocrite, okay?

Oh, don’t look at me like that. I’ve totally searched all of y’all.

So I know that you know that I know that you’re on Facebook, too.

Now go ahead and add me so you can entertain my pet polar bear, Sprinkles.

‘Why on earth would you buy a $3500 watch?’

I get that a lot. From relatives, from friends, and even on a few occasions, from strangers. Purchasing expensive and unique timepieces are one of those things that some people will never get. That’s perfectly fine by me, because if the rest of the world was wearing Brietlings, Rolexes, Omegas, or Patek Philippes, then I probably wouldn’t have the luxury of writing this post.

timepieces

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that cheap watch you bought at Walmart or that Mickey Mouse timepiece you found in a box of cereal. For the price of a brand new Rolex, you can buy over a hundred plastic Timex watches. Does a Rolex keep better time than a Timex? Goodness, no.

What everybody wants to know is what’s wrong with their $50 Timex watch. It keeps track of time fine. It’s waterproof. Hey, there’s even a spiffy Indiglo function.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that cheap watch you bought at Walmart or that Mickey Mouse timepiece you found in a box of cereal. For the price of a brand new Rolex, you can buy over a hundred plastic Timex watches. Does a Rolex keep better time than a Timex? Goodness, no. A Timex is actually much more accurate than the most well made Rolex watches — which are often off by at least a handful of seconds a day.

Bet that took you by surprise.

Well, I’m not just going to just tell you why you should invest in an classy (though often expensive) mechanical timepiece. I’m going to show you.

The Omega Aqua Terra was my first real love and first expensive timepiece. She broke my heart and was stolen from my car during the summer of 2006, but was promptly — though expensively — replaced by my insurance company within weeks. The watch is subtle, yet powerful and a classic beauty. Appropriate for all occasions and nearly everything I wear, it’s a watch that isn’t met with too many incredulous stares, but deserves a second look.

The well known Invicta 9937 is an hommage (less eloquently, a copy) of the legendary Rolex Submariner/Sea Dweller. Although its design is almost a direct replica of the more expensive Rolex, the watch holds its ground, a testament to its rugged Swiss movement (an ETA 2824).

More hefty, less expensive, and less formal than my Omega, this watch has quickly become my standard day-to-day. A watch I can wear wherever and whenever, especially when I’m a bit timid of sporting the overly expensive Omega.

My love for mechanical watches was probably fueled by my father’s collection, which contains among other timepieces, a Rolex Datejust given to him by my grandmother…in 1963! Forty years later and after some restoration by Rolex, the watch is beating steadily and looks just as beautiful as ever.

Most watches mass produced by Timex, Seiko, Casio, or whatever, are composed of electronic gizmos. These watches have a teeny quartz crystal under the casing which resonates or beats at a very distinct and very fast frequency. In turn, this frequency is used by the electronic mainboard to count the seconds, the minutes, and eventually the hours.

So from the frantic beating of the quartz, you get the steady tick, tick, tick of your watch every second.

Here’s the beauty of some of the timepieces you might see made by Rolex or Omega: there’s not a single electronic component to be found. No quartz crystals vibrating at a billion beats per second. No batteries pulsing energy through the mass of electronic transistors, wires, and boards. Nada. Zip. Zero.

No, these watches are purely mechanical. Using nothing but teensy-weensy gears, springs, screws, rotors, and pallets, these watches are counting the very seconds of your day. Accurately and precisely. Now doesn’t that blow your fucking mind?

The concept is simple: The mechanical watch uses the energy from a wound spring and keeps track of time through the highly regulated release of that energy through a set of gears and an escapement. The escapement is the engine of the movement and like the quartz crystal, beats or swings at a very precise rate.

Automatic watches, which encompasses nearly all modern mechanical watches, are powered by a rotor or weight that swings with the motion of your wrist as you’re going through your mundane day-to-day routines. And here lies another difference between an automatic/mechanical watch like a Rolex and a quartz watch like a Timex: Automatic watches will only keep ticking if you wear them. Their power supply quickly depletes in one or two days, and so it’s not uncommon to have to rewind and resync your watch with the computer clock after having left it inert on your desk for the weekend.

Inconvenient? Perhaps. But that’s the beauty of a mechanical watch. It’s not some cold robotic clunker. It’s a watch with a heart that literally depends on your existance to continue beating.

What heart? Take a look at the below animation of a typical escapement of a watch.

The spinny oscillating thing is called the balance wheel and is considered to be the heart of the watch. The wheel spins left 280 degrees (one beat), and then right 280 degrees (another beat). These periodic beats are then transferred to other gears and components which are used to keep time forever ticking.

How often does it beat? About 28,800 beats per hour. That little wheel is swinging to and fro 28,800 times an hour. And let’s not forget that through all this time and through all this elaborate beating, the watch has to deal with changes in temperature, changes in position, inertial forces applied by the wearer, shock, and what not.

Should a pallet (the pink nibs) fail to engage properly on only one out of 1,000 cycles, the error in time-keeping would amount to hours per day. It’s amazing that the best mechanical watches are configured to lose or gain up to 2-5 seconds in even the most extreme conditions.

So now I hope you can understand my fascination with mechanical watches. In today’s cold and apathetic world fueled by things like instant messenging, mass produced electronics, downtown hustle and bustle, and of course the ubiquitous chains of fast food restaurants, we’re often left feeling tired and breathless.

A mechanical watch is a historical, cultural, and mechanical marvel — standing as one of mankind’s most ingenious and calculated inventions. It’s a watch that possesses a soul and a beating heart. It’s a constant companion through life and rewards the attention and energy you provide by keeping track of that elusive maiden known as Time.

We tend to forget and neglect things that are independent of our attention. This explains why we don’t think of toasters, gluesticks, or Lays Potato Chips as being our constant companions in life.

Besides, if you think your best friend in life is a toaster, you’ve got bigger issues than choosing between a Rolex or an Omega. You freak.