Lilypie 1st Birthday Ticker

Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Are Computers Still A Bicycle For The Mind?

Steve Jobs had an enormous appreciation for the computer, believing it was the greatest human invention, and he commonly likened it to a bicycle for our minds. Here he is in one such explanation of this analogy:


He refined his delivery over the years, but the underlying analogy was always the same. The bicycle dramatically increases the efficiency of human locomotion, and likewise the computer dramatically increases the efficiency of human thought. While that is still the case when computers, the Internet, and increasingly Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning are used as tools to leverage our innate abilities to solve huge, complex problems, they can also become other things for the mind that are not so useful. We are seeing it happen more and more that as computers proliferate, shrink in size, and become more convenient and ubiquitous, they stop being treated as a tool and start being treated as a toy or simply as a distraction. Maybe computers are becoming less like a bicycle for the mind and more like something else.

For decades the computer has been an essential tool for transforming and advancing our civilization. We use computers for nearly everything we build and do now: manufacturing, design, construction, finance, banking, communication, supply chain management, retail, medicine, research, exploration, and on and on. We use computers to design and develop newer and faster computers—a profound use for a tool—and we've been using them in this way since they were first capable of doing the job. It's the ultimate tool that can be used to make anything more advanced, even itself. The computer is the driving force behind its own exponential improvement. That characteristic makes it unique among all of the technological tools we've invented.

As computers have gotten more powerful, we have also designed them to be smaller and more capable to the point where now we can carry around a supercomputer in our pocket that is always connected to even more powerful supercomputers in the cloud. This supercomputer can run for hours on a small battery and connect us to nearly the entirety of human knowledge with a touch of the screen. Having such an incredibly powerful tool at our fingertips should enable us to do amazingly advanced things, and in most cases it does.

However, the smartphone in particular was not designed to create amazing new things, at least in the physical world. Sure, it can definitely be used to create in the virtual world: YouTube videos, Instagram pictures, or stories that can go viral and spread through the Internet in a millisecond, but it isn't normally used to design and build real new things like the next interplanetary rocket engine or distributed renewable energy system. These tasks are left to its more powerful and capable predecessor—the computer workstation. The smartphone was simply not designed for complex design tasks because it lacks the complex inputs that such tasks require. It was designed for something else.

The smartphone was designed to hold our attention. Maybe not at first. The first smartphones needed to serve a useful purpose to justify their existence and sale to a willing consumer. Being able to take a quick picture, check your email, or look up the nearest restaurant while away from your desktop computer was a reasonable value proposition for a lot of people (or holding your entire music collection, that was a major selling point for the original iPhone). Those first entries in useful, need-fulfilling apps quickly expanded into a sea of attention grabbing apps and features that are constantly vying for our attention with notifications, badge app icons, and never-ending feeds.

Holding as many people's attention for as long and as often as possible is definitely the name of the game for smartphones now. The companies that have figured out how to do this best have grown the largest with Apple, Google, and Facebook at the top of the list. Amazon is right up there, too, but they deal as much in selling physical goods and providing the computing infrastructure that most other companies use to build their businesses as they do in providing entertainment. Twitter would be up there as well, if they could only figure out how to monetize their users' attention as effectively as the other companies do.

Where does all of this attention seeking get us? We're not using this feat of human ingenuity to create even more useful things. We're using it to burn our time playing simple repetitive games with in-app purchases, trolling other people on Twitter, and reading all about the latest scandals and horrible fear-inducing news on our Facebook news feeds. We've even reached the point where journalists routinely write entire news articles about what people said and how other people responded on Twitter. Who had the best burn? Who made the best meme? How is this news?! This civilization advancing technology, this bicycle for the mind is no longer being used to take us to new places. We're now using it to go in circles, just wasting time, without making any progress. We've created a technology carousel.

We haven't just created and unleashed this time-wasting carousel, we can't get off of it. We keep going round and round, checking notifications, scrolling feeds, and searching and searching and searching. We're searching for approval if friends and acquaintances liked our post. We're searching for responses to DMs. We're searching for that next inspiring post or cute pet pic. Studies are showing that the average person now spends two hours a day on social media (careful, it seems like a spammy website, and of course I couldn't find the actual source). A report from Morgan Stanley in The Atlantic says that "depending on which study you choose to look at, adults on average check their smartphones as many as 80 or even 200 times each day." According to a report on a study in The Washington Post, teens are on different forms of media for nearly nine hours a day, including online music and videos.

The number of hours taken from our lives and handed over to social media companies for advertising dollars is simply astonishing. We trade our precious time for the next dopamine hit again and again because we're addicted to the artificial sense of connection we feel when we send and receive these virtual messages out over the ether. We're not making real connections with other human beings, though. We're making stronger connections with our phones, which is exactly what was intended to happen by design. We may try to convince ourselves that all of this checking and searching is accomplishing something important or filling a need, but most of the time what we're accomplishing for ourselves is further isolation and distraction.

We are succeeding in reducing our attention span and destroying our ability to focus. If we're obsessively needing to check our phone every few minutes, that doesn't leave much mental capacity for deep, creative thought. As Nicholas Carr, author of The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains describes, our mental functions end up fragmented and shallow, and we're unable to follow complex lines of thought to more innovative solutions to our problems. When we can no longer function without our phones, they may not be just a technology carousel, but a technology crutch that we depend on to hold us up.

One would think that with all of the talk about how quickly technology is advancing, and how we're all walking around with supercomputers in our pockets, we would be having a cultural renaissance. One would expect that with that kind of technical leverage, productivity would be accelerating through the roof, but that's not what we're seeing. The following plot shows total factor productivity in the US up to 2014.

Plot of Total Factor Productivity 1950-2014

Productivity clearly stalled out in the 70s and picked up again in the 80s and 90s, but it is definitely decelerating again in the 2000s. Unfortunately, we can't see what has happened in the last four years in this graph, but what we do see is still disconcerting. The 2000s and beyond should have seen accelerating productivity, according to the technology evangelists, because that's when computers really came into their own and smartphones and apps started penetrating the market and eating the world.

I'm not claiming that smartphones and social media are the cause of this productivity slowdown. I'm not an economist, and even the experts don't seem to have a great handle on why this is happening. But these newest technology entrants certainly aren't helping productivity, and there are a number of reasons why that may be, beyond distracting us with the technology carousel.

First, digital recording technologies—embodied in many ways by a smartphone—seem to be replacing our memories. In another report in The Atlantic going by the provocative title Is Technology Making Us Dumb?, studies show that if you record something, whether by audio, images, or video, you remember it less. Beyond recording our memories instead of remembering them, we have become better at finding information, but worse at retaining it because Google is just a click away. We don't have to remember how to do things anymore. We can just look it up whenever we need to, so as soon as we've accomplished whatever goal we had, the information is jettisoned and we get back on the carousel.

That behavior of always looking things up also has another side effect. We practice skills less. Without sufficient practice, we can't develop fundamental skills into more complex problem-solving abilities. So many useful skills are of the use-it-or-lose-it variety, and always looking things up instead of practicing has the nasty side effect of losing it. Google Maps is a great example. Before Google Maps we needed to do route-planning and navigation with an actual map. Even folding up the map after using it was its own problem solving exercise. Now we just follow the directions fed to us from the Google Assistant in the phone stuck to the dashboard. That Atlantic article had some great words on this subject specifically:
Using your GPS for all navigation is also damaging to your brain. A series of studies showed that people who rely on GPS to get around have less activity in the hippocampus, an area of the brain involved in both memory and navigation, than those who use maps and learn to navigate based on landscape indicators. Your spatial memory develops far less when you are on GPS autopilot than when you need to observe what is around you to determine where you are going and how to get back.
GPS is certainly easy and convenient, but it's not doing us any favors in the mental health department. After using navigation for a few months, most people will be lost without it. It quickly becomes a technological crutch.

Google Assistant is gaining new abilities every year, too. Now it can be your personal secretary, making appointments and ordering food for you, as seen at Google I/O:


This AI performance is incredibly cool, no denying it, but what is it taking away from us? Will we start losing the skill of human interaction as these AIs do more and more of these types of things for us? People are already horrible to each other on Twitter and Facebook because they've stopped appreciating that there's another human being on the other end of the conversation instead of boxes of black and white text. How is Google Assistant going to change our culture as we interact with less and less different people on a daily basis?

Driving is another skill that we probably won't be commonly doing in the near future. Of course, I, as much as anyone, look forward to the day my car can drive itself because it's so boring and tedious and humans have consistently shown how bad they are at it, but we should still acknowledge what we're giving up. Even though traffic deaths would be significantly reduced, driving is a reasonably complex task, and if we're not doing that, what are we replacing it with? Another spin on the carousel?

The problem here is that a small fraction of people are permanently solving the problems that we used to routinely solve for ourselves everyday. Then they package it up in an AI and distribute it to everyone, so we no longer have to solve that problem on a daily basis. Each individual problem may seem trivial, but they all add up. As Google Assistant, Siri, and Alexa gain more skills, we stop using those same skills, and we lose them. We become dependent on the AI crutch.

We're making such progress on solving all of these tedious day-to-day problems that people have started making solutions for problems that don't even exist. Case in point: Bitcoin. Digital currencies and the blockchain are solutions looking for a problem and coming up short. They don't seem to solve any pressing problem that isn't already solved with the existing monetary system, unless you're a drug dealer or financial speculator. They do, however, consume an inordinate amount of electricity.

Instead of putting more energy and effort into solved problems or finding more ways to distract and entertain everyone, we should look at some of the most pressing problems and exploratory frontiers staring us in the face. We could be developing renewable energy systems much more rapidly than we are. We could be pouring resources into educating the world's population and elevating it out of poverty. We could be building advanced space probes, spaceships, and telescopes to explore the universe and learn more about how it all works. There are incredibly challenging and fascinating problems all around us. Just take a look at drawdown.org for a list of problems that need solving to combat the existential threat of global warming.

New, advanced technologies can play an essential role in solving all of these problems and more. Using the vast computer power at our disposal to make progress towards solutions in these spaces would truly be using the computer as a bicycle. With all of the time we're freeing up by offloading those tedious tasks to our digital assistants, we should have plenty of time and creative energy to tackle the real, complex problems ahead of us. If we could only redirect all of the energy and attention we're spending on using computers as a carousel or a crutch, we could get back on that bike and go somewhere.

Playing Grim2/Madrak2 In The July Scrum (Plus Match Report)




My wife was kind enough to allow me to play in the local Scrum League taking place this month. For those that don't know, the Scrum is a Steam Roller event that takes place over the course of a month, one game a week. 

My Pairing

I've only started to get back into the WM swing of things and as such I don't feel I have enough games to really expect to actually win the Scrum. So my main goal for the event is to simply enjoy it and frankly, learn my way around playing competitively again.  We've got the new Steamroller 2018 Scenarios to play with, and simply learning to deal with that is going to be an adventure all its own.

As such I was faced with a choice on what to run: use well established "strong lists" or to play something off the wall that I've cooked up.  The established "Strong Lists" were going to be stealing Tim Banky's Madrak1 Band of Heroes list (Champs, min Long Riders, Fenns + UA) and Borka2 Power of Dhunia list.

Given that I was also in the process of being tempted to play Convergence soon, I didn't want to just grind games with a strong pair to get competitive with it especially since when I was last playing WM I had ground out a lot of Madrak1 games already.

So I went with some off beat choices with old favorites from MK2, to try and continue a Tour of Trolls: Grim2 and Madrak2.


Trollblood - Grim2 WW

Theme: Kriel Company
3 / 3 Free Cards     75 / 75 Army

Hunters Grim - WB: +25
-    Muggs & Krump
-    Trollkin Runebearer - PC: 0
-    Dire Troll Bomber - PC: 19 (Battlegroup Points Used: 19)
-    Dire Troll Bomber - PC: 19 (Battlegroup Points Used: 6)

War Wagon - PC: 16

Fell Caller Hero - PC: 0
Feralgeist - PC: 2

Krielstone Bearer & Stone Scribes - Leader & 5 Grunts: 9
-    Stone Scribe Elder - PC: 3
Northkin Raiders - Leader & 9 Grunts: 15
Greygore Boomhowler & Co. - Boomhowler & 9 Grunts: 17
Thumper Crew - Gunner & 2 Grunts: 0

For Grim2 I really wanted to get games in with the War Wagon more than anything, and I figured both Raiders and Boomhowlers of all things would actually pack a sufficient melee punch as well for the normally shooty oriented Kriel Company.  I also opted for double Bomber vs. a Glacier King in order to maximize shooting output and having access to Far Strike on Grim for non-feat turns.

The Madrak2 list is one I have played previously and discussed here.

Trollblood - Madrak2 Toughallo

Theme: Band of Heroes
3 / 3 Free Cards     74 / 75 Army

Madrak Ironhide, World Ender - WB: +28
-    Trollkin Runebearer - PC: 0
-    Dire Troll Mauler - PC: 15 (Battlegroup Points Used: 15)
-    Dire Troll Bomber - PC: 19 (Battlegroup Points Used: 13)

Fell Caller Hero - PC: 0
Fell Caller Hero - PC: 0
Eilish Garrity, the Occultist - PC: 5

Krielstone Bearer & Stone Scribes - Leader & 5 Grunts: 9
-    Stone Scribe Elder - PC: 3
Trollkin Long Riders - Leader & 4 Grunts: 20
Trollkin Long Riders - Leader & 4 Grunts: 20
Kriel Warriors - Leader & 9 Grunts: 11

Match Report 1

My first matchup was vs. the Scrum Overlord himself, Mark.  He's our resident Convergence player, so I was quite excited about the matchup since I'd get to see how Convergence would play.  His lists were:

Axis – Destruction Initiative

Axis
-Corollary
-Diffuser
-Galvanizer
-Inverter
-Inverter
-Inverter
-Inverter

Attunement Servitors
Ellish Garrity
Elimination Servitors
Elimination Servitors
Reflex Servitors
Optifex Directive
Transfinite Emergence Projector

Iron Mother – Destruction Initiative

Iron Mother
-Exponent Servitors
-Corollary
-Mitigator
-Prime Axiom

Algorithmic Dispersion Optifex
Algorithmic Dispersion Optifex
Ellish Garity
Attunement Servitors
Elimination Servitors
Elimination Servitors
Elimination Servitors
Optifex Directive
Transfinite Emergence Projector
Transfinite Emergence Projector

My matchup analysis for this was correct, even though my conclusions weren't particularly great for my chances.  

Axis had enough juice to push through Madrak2 to the point where I wasn't going to be able to kill enough to get through the feat before attrition swung too hard on me.   Mother would eat Grim2 alive, but Madrak2 would run right over her list.  This left Grim2 into Axis as probably the closest to a 50/50 for me, despite the fact that Destruction Initiative brings tons of shield guards. My Grim2 list brings an incredible number of shots to the table and should theoretically push through them. 

There was also the idea that with the Axis/Mother pairing in CoC, Axis handles Hordes while Mother handles Warmachine. I went in dropping Grim2 and expecting Axis and that's exactly what happened. 

Our scenario was Spread the Net, which I didn't have nearly enough playtime on. 

At the roll off my +1 to go first failed me, but Mark decided he wanted me to go first anyway, preferring to be able to score first.  Initially I thought Mark was making a huge mistake here, but in hindsight he was being rather brilliant. Spoiler Alert: I lost the game. 

Apologies for my lack of pictures here, but I was under clock pressure. I will attempt to rectify this for the next games in the Scrum.

What ended up happening was that by making me deploy first, Mark was able to counter deploy his TEP so that he would be able to get shots into me more easily where if I deployed second I could have mitigated the TEP's influence somewhat. 

At the top of turn two I burned way too much clock thinking about taking an assassination, only to realize that it would be impossible because the CoC walking vectors all have steady.  As such I was under clock pressure from the get go. 

Instead I feated and shot an Inverter off the table, positioned to score my flag and zone, and tried to mitigate the incoming TEP damage to my two units. 

Mark was able to shoot the Feralgeist off my flag (yay Optifex Directives) and run a servitor to contest my zone, conversely he killed what I was contesting his zone with (I didn't put enough in) and feated on most of my army.  Between Jacks and the TEP I lost nearly all of my Raiders but Boomhowlers were largely intact, with some being out of the feat and they had Mirage on them.   Mark is able to score his zone and flag, while also leaving two Inverters staring down my beasts and Grim.

Turn 3 is where everything went off the rails. I had 4 Boomhowlers in charge range after Mirage of the TEP, as well as a Raider who could walk and punch it under the Feat.  I landed the Mortality on the TEP from the Runebearer and started activating the units to hopefully punch it to death, but I was low enough on time that I wasn't smart enough to use the Stone for strength. DOH!

Here my dice did come up rather short, with two charges putting only 1-2 points on the TEP and the Raider doing next to nothing.  All plans swapped to killing the TEP so it doesn't wreck the rest of my lines, which was largely a mistake. I had a plan with the War Wagon to kill the servitor contesting my zone, then shoot/kill the servitor on Mark's flag and moving into contesting range while also scoring my zone with it. This diverted to get what shots I had left into the TEP and to burn shield guards.  This also meant my bombers and Grim2 were shooting at the TEP to finish it instead of killing at least one of the Inverters in my face. 

In all my haste I neglected to move part of Grim's unit to contest my zone and I left his inverters alive in the middle, although jammed by the War Wagon.  Mark scored his flag while I scored my own with the Fell Caller. 

Here Mark arguably had a workable assassination on Grim, though he was able to get a much easier path to victory.  Mark cleared out what I had in his friendly zone and scored with a Galvanizer, his solo scored his flag again, and since I had nothing in my zone he was able to run one Inverter in to score that, and then all he had to do was get the other Inverter from the middle to contest my flag and he wins. Mark tries to kill the Boomhowler in the way, missing all his servitor shots, Axis's spell, and a Diffuser shot, forgetting he can just cast the Bulldoze spell to avoid taking any free strikes at all.  I had Mortality on the Inverter, and so I was able to take two boosted POW15's on the jack, with one damage roll hitting triple 6's, but it wasn't enough and he's able to run to contest my flag – ending the game. 

Conclusions

Man the rust from not playing for a few months and not having played Grim2 since MK2 really was noticeable.  I also didn't read the TEP card close enough when investigating convergence, thinking that it lost the ability to put servitors in the back arc to get extra shots, when PP just moved the rule for that to the permutation servitors section.  Also forgetting Steady on the jacks was a major issue which caused me to burn too much clock.  I also simply made a lot of positioning mistakes that Mark was able to capitalize on very effectively.

After the game Mark asked why I didn't attempt an assassination on Axis during turn 3 while under his feat, despite his 5 camp he only had 2 shield guards I arguably had enough guns to get the job done.

In truth I saw the shield guards and camp and decided to avoid it, not realizing exactly how dicey my chances were getting.  I could have used Grim's unit to gum up the Inverters to stop counter charge, or at least partially done so, stuck a mortality and then powered through as much as possible into Axis.

Overall I'm looking forward to trying more games with Grim2, but we will have to see what this week brings.   

From the Convergence side of things, I'm definitely intrigued by Mark's list and while I would probably swap one Inverter for another jack (I only own 3), I like the idea of 1 TEP in Axis. It certainly looked fun to play.