domingo, 21 de junio de 2015

How good can computers get at predicting events?



 2012, when Cuba suffered its first outbreak of cholera in 130 years, the government and medical experts there were shocked. But software created by Kira Radinsky had predicted it months earlier.

Radinsky’s software had essentially read 150 years of news reports and huge amounts of data from sources such as Wikipedia, and spotted a pattern in poor countries: floods that occurred about a year after a drought in the same area often led to cholera outbreaks.

The predictions made by Radinsky’s software are about as accurate as those made by humans.

That digital prognostication ability would be extremely useful in automating many kinds of services.

Radinsky was born in Ukraine and immigrated to Israel with her parents as a preschooler.

She developed the software with Eric Horvitz, co-director at Microsoft Research in Redmond, Washington, where she spent three months as an intern while studying for her PhD at the Technion-Israel Insitute of Technology.

Radinsky then started SalesPredict, to advise salespeople on how to identify and handle promising leads.

“My true passion,” she says, “is arming humanity with scientific capabilities to automatically anticipate, and ultimately affect, future outcomes based on lessons from the past.”

—Matthew Kalman

technologyreview.com


domingo, 14 de abril de 2013

Has An Iranian Scientist Named Ali Razeghi Invented A 'Time Machine'?




An Iranian inventor recently claimed he created a "time machine," according to reports. But the Internet is skeptical, and with good reason.
The Telegraph caused a stir Wednesday with a story about a young Tehran-based scientist, Ali Razeghi, and an invention he calls "The Aryayek Time Traveling Machine." 
Reportedly something of a mad scientist, Razeghi claimed the device, which "easily fits into the size of a personal computer case," can predict with 98-percent accuracy the future five to eight years of an individual's life.
The Telegraph cited an earlier story, in Farsi, by Iranian news agency Fars
However, The Washington Post reports that Fars quietly deleted the story, even as it began to go viral among Western media outlets. (Fars' link is now dead.) 
The Atlantic Wire points out that the story never even made it to the Science section on the site's English-language side.
A separate interview with Razeghi was published in Farsi by Iranian news site Entekhab. 
The story says Razeghi is a supervisor at Iran's Center for Strategic Inventions and Inventors and claims that his baffling invention won't be available for another few years, at least. 
"We're waiting for conditions to improve in Iran," Razeghi told the outlet, according to a translation by The Huffington Post.
Razeghi was coy during the interview, refusing to give out many details because he was worried his idea would be stolen and reproduced by China. 
He did say, however, that his device incorporates both hardware and software components, and that it cost roughly 500,000 Iranian tomans (about $400). 
When asked whether he was worried the machine might cause problems, he said he envisions it used selectively, to tell a couple the future sex of their child, for example.
Neither Iran nor Razeghi have publicly responded to the report.
Radio Free Europe writes that "most Iran watchers will be treating his announcement with a certain amount of skepticism," in light of a recent flap that involved a Photoshopped picture of Iran's Qaher-313 stealth fighter jet.
Scientists around the world have made previous claims (some dubious, some less so) about their own "time machine" inventions. 
In 2009, a man named Steve Gibbs, of Clearwater, Neb., said he had invented a "hyperdimensional resonator," which he claimed could be used for "out-of-body time travel," according to the Examiner.
More recently, in 2011, physicists from Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., announced they had developed a "time cloak" that they say can hide events for trillionths of a second.

huffingtonpost.com

sábado, 12 de mayo de 2012

Imagining the Future Invokes Your Memory


I remember my retirement like it was yesterday. 
As I recall, I am still working, though not as hard as I did when I was younger. 
My wife and I still live in the city, where we bicycle a fair amount and stay fit. We have a favorite coffee shop where we read the morning papers and say hello to the other regulars. We don’t play golf.
In reality, I’m not even close to retirement. 
This is just a scenario I must have spun out at some point in the past. 
There are other future scenarios, but the details aren’t all that important. Notably, all of my futures have a peaceful and contented feel to them. 
They don’t include any financial or health problems, nor do they include boredom—not for me or anyone else I know.
A new study from the January issue of Psychological Science may explain why we are all so optimistic about what’s to come.

The authors report that people tend to remember imagined future scenarios that are happy better than they recall the unhappy ones.
Cognitive scientists are very interested in people’s “remembered futures.” 
The whole idea seems contradictory in a way, as we tend to think of memory in connection with the past—recollections of people and things gone by. 
The fact is that we all imagine the future, and from time to time we recall those imaginary scenarios. 
Recent research has shown that the same brain areas are active when we remember past events and when we think about the future. 
Indeed, some scientists believe that these “memories” are highly adaptive, allowing us to plan and better prepare ourselves for whatever lies in store.

If we can remember the actions and reactions we thought about in the past, our future behavior will be more efficient.
Still, very little was known until recently about how these simulations work. 
Are all future memories equally beneficial? Which scenarios do we recall best? 
Are most people’s forecasts as rosy as mine? Or do we also spin out less optimistic simulations of the years to come, ones that we tend to forget over time?
These are very difficult questions to study in a laboratory—or at least they were until now. 
A team of psychological scientists, headed by Karl K. Szpunar of Harvard University, devised a novel method for generating authentic future simulations, which he then used to study their characteristics and staying power.
Recalling Tomorrow
Szpunar and his colleagues began by collecting a lot of biographical detail from volunteers’ actual memories. 
This information included people they had known, places they had been and the ordinary things surrounding them. 
I might, for example, tell the researchers about having a beer with my cousin Karen at a bar in Baltimore; buying a television at Best Buy with my wife; and borrowing $10 from my college roommate Roger at the bookstore. 
Szpunar’s team asked for more than 100 of these specific event memories from each of the 48 volunteers in their study.
A week later the researchers took each person’s raw material—all those people, places and things from near and distant pasts—and jumbled it all together. 
They presented the students with random combinations and instructed them to generate imaginary future scenarios for each one. 
For me the random set might have been my roommate Roger, the Baltimore bar and the TV. 
Sometimes the volunteers were instructed to imagine a positive future, sometimes a negative one and others times neutral. 
So I might envisage Roger and me having a terrific time cheering on the Orioles at that Baltimore bar, or I could imagine the two of us falling into a bitter argument at the same bar, while the news played on the TV in the background.
Later, the researchers tested the volunteers’ memories of these future scenarios by giving them two of the three details—the bar and Roger, say—and asking them to fill in the missing detail (the TV, in this case) to re-create the simulated future scene. 
The scientists tested some of the volunteers 10 minutes after they had generated the imaginary future scenarios, and they tested others a day later. 
The idea was to see if the emotional content of the imagined futures—positive, negative or neutral—made them more or less memorable.
Wray Herbert