Net Neutrality Revived

Net neutrality is a topic I wrote about frequently some years ago. If required, net neutrality would be a policy required by the FCC that ISPs (Internet Service Providers) would have to carry all content at the same speed. The original concern was that ISPs might prioritize their own content (a common situation would be a cable service that provides Internet and cable who might prioritize their own subscription video over video such as YouTube content) or offer a special speed priority for content providers who would pay the ISPs for such service. The concept was that the companies that carry content to consumers would function as common carriers.

Movement on the provision was stopped during the Trump administration and when Biden was elected his nomination to the FCC was blocked. The FCC decisions are made by a 5 person committee with 2 individuals affiliated with each party and the fifth by the party in power. A new individual has just been and the now Democratic-controlled committee is again intended to move on net neutrality. 

While it is true that ISPs did not ever take advantage of their opportunity to take advantage of their freedom, it is argued to be a positive development for consumers that the Internet would be run as a common carrier

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Net Neutrality Revived

Is Brave in trouble?

Brave is my browser of choice and I have used it now for a couple of years. I used to write about it frequently, but I have neglected constantly explaining why I think it is until I read the news I will describe shortly. For the uninitiated, Brave is based on nearly the same basic code as Chrome which means it can run the same extensions. What makes Brave my choice is the system it provides for compensating content creators while maintaining security against cookies. I object to ad blockers because while they provide protection of personal data collection, view traditional ads also provide a way to compensate those who provide online content and the services we all use online. Simply put, it seems unethical to block ads while taking advantage of the work and creativity of others.

Brave does offer an option for viewing ads, but the selection is not based on personal data sent back to an ad company.

This article from TechCrunch indicates that Brave is having revenue problems and is laying off 9% of its workforce. I admit this situation does not surprise me. The ads I see are nearly all related to cryptocurrencies and security products and services. I consider these niche markets and not the type of information likely to interest most users. My guess is that Brave is struggling to attract the type of advertisers that would be making use of Google ad services. This almost seems a classic chicken and egg problem. If Brave is not regarded as a productive advertising environment, it will not attract ad money. If Brave cannot attract ad money, it will not be displaying ads a large proportion of Internet users would click.

I am not immediately impacted because Brave works just fine. It is just the company’s financial situation that concerns me. Give Brave a try, it works great and provides an approach I believe provides an ethical compromise between personal security and the legitimate needs of content and service providers.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on Is Brave in trouble?

AI Masters Breakout

Communicating the creative potential of AI can be a challenge. Stories (examples) offer an approach if your listener understands the example you use. One story about AI that first impressed me was based on the game of chess. Most know that AI can defeat a chess master. This did not impress me. I assumed that a computer has far better memory than a human and I had always assumed that Chess Masters had so much experience that they recognized the arrangement of the pieces on the board by way of pattern recognition and could use this knowledge to call up appropriate ways to attack. I thought I knew that experienced chess players are no better than amateurs should they be asked to recall the placement of chess pieces on a board that appeared in locations that are random and not the result of a game. 

My way of understanding was challenged when told that AI had “discovered” strategies that were unique and unexpected even by experts. This would seem a form of creativity.

I understand chess at a very basic level so I take all of this on faith. I don’t really understand references to specific arrangements and named attacks and defenses. I did not really understand what a strategy undiscovered or used by experts might look like 

I do understand Breakout. Most folks of my generation and younger have played some version of Atari’s Breakout. In this simple game, a player moves a paddle at the bottom of the screen to bounce a ball upward against rows of bricks. Bricks disappear when struck by the ball. The idea is to eliminate all of the rows of bricks without missing the ball as it falls back down. 

DeepMind is an AI company. In his book “The Coming Wave”, AI pioneer Mustafa Suleyman describes when he first understood the power of the AI he was working on. The company was developing its DeepMind AI by taking on Atari games. It took a while through trial and error for the system to “understand” moving the paddle to bounce the ball to break bricks and increase the score. However, DeepMind did improve and at some point seemed to generate a strategy employed by very few human players. Instead of just keeping the ball in play and gradually working its way through the rows of bricks, DeepMind kept targeting a single row of bricks until it had created a tunnel through the rows. If you have played Breakout, you probably know what happens next. When a ball makes it through the rows of bricks it begins to bounce back and forth against the top of the screen rapidly chewing through the rows of bricks from above. By generating a tunnel through the bricks rather than chewing gradually through the rows creating a wide opening this ping-pong effect against the top before falling back continues much longer running up the score toward the end of the game at a rapid pace. Suleyman recognized that few players adopted or seemed to take this approach realizing there was something unique about how DeepMind had come to attack the game.

This story helps me understand.

BTW – Sulayman’s book is worth a read. It takes on the challenges of AI and BioTech as threats that need to be appreciated and controlled. Once a wave starts and takes form, it becomes impossible to control. With widespread adoption, there will always be bad actors who see opportunities for evil and who will be able to direct a technology toward bad ends even though positive opportunities in the technology are the most common application. 

Sulayman, M. (2023). The coming wave: Technology, power, and the twenty-first century’s greatest dilemma.  ISBN 9780593593950

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on AI Masters Breakout

Dr. Seuss Smart Notes

Smart notes represent one of the most valuable concepts I discovered in my exploration of personal knowledge management. A smart note is a note that can stand alone at a future day as providing sufficient information that you or someone else does not have to have access to the original source. For a writer, I like to describe the idea as doing some of your writing early to make later writing more efficient.

Examples can help. The following is a smart note I generated while reading a book about the reading wars. I hope you can see what I mean by containing the context necessary to be useful at a later time. I thought others might find this note interesting. The citation is included and I do this because I make use of citations in most of the things I write.

Johns, A. (2023). The science of reading: Information, media, and mind in modern America. In The Science of Reading. University of Chicago Press.

Interesting story from this author. Following the release of Flesch’s “Why Johnny Can’t Read”, there was a backlash against textbook publishers not focusing their materials on a phonics-based approach. In 1955, William Spalding the head of the education division of Houghton Mifflin turned to an old army buddy for help because he was concerned for the public image of his materials. Ted Geisel had an interest in rhyming material for children. Spalding wanted reading materials that took advantage of rhymes, would be of great interest, and were based on a limited word list. He developed a 225 list he gave to Geisel. Geisel tried for some time to come up with an approach. Finally, he took the first two words from the list “Cat” and “Hat” and started from there. Of course, Geisel is better known as Dr. Seuss and the book he produced was “The cat in the hat”. The author claims the Cat in the hat is possibly the most impactful poem of the 20th century.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on Dr. Seuss Smart Notes

The Coming Cost of Convenience: AI Automation and Personal Services

I have reached the point that I am convinced AI tools will play a significant role in education and in our daily lives. The amounts of money companies are investing to develop and attract interest in their AI services is substantial and we have yet to recognize that we all will soon pay for these businesses in one way or another. It’s easy to forget that “free” services come with a cost, even if we don’t directly pay for them. Companies like Google and Amazon invest heavily in developing AI technology. By offering free services, they offset these investments through the data collected and opportunities to promote their other offerings. As AI progresses, developing and maintaining these complex systems will become more expensive. Companies will look to monetize AI directly to sustain continued innovation.

Some examples provide insights into what we might anticipate. Kahnmigo (the AI tutor now available to some users of the Kahn Academy) is presently priced at $9 per student per month. ChatGPT offers its best AI tool at $20 per month. I pay OpenAI for use of its API on a pay as I consume plan and pay significantly less than the $20 per month level, by using a lower-level system and paying based on the amount of use. Some tools I have recommended in the past (e.g., ChatPDF) as free up to a point and then expects payment if used extensively. So, the costs will likely vary based on the complexity of the AI system and extent of customization. Twenty dollars a month seems a reasonable estimate for individual services at this point. 

As with any new technology, finding the right balance between innovation and accessibility will be key. Through thoughtful regulation and competition within the marketplace, hopefully AI capabilities can remain affordable and available to all income levels. If companies get pricing right, AI services could enhance people’s lives in so many ways. Consumers may gripe about new fees, but ultimately may find the benefits outweigh the costs.

As an educator, I am concerned about equity issues schools will face in providing access to what I anticipate will become increasing use of AI. Consider the cost of Kahnmigo as an example. What are present investments in technology and what would be the consequence of adding another $100 per year per student fee. With all of the interest in AI, it is probably time to begin to consider the costs that will eventually become real. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on The Coming Cost of Convenience: AI Automation and Personal Services

Is Big Testing driving secondary reading instruction?

I just read a Forbes article arguing that standardized testing companies have driven secondary English educators to abandon a focus on book-length literature in favor of short documents. Forbes is not exactly a scientific journal focused on careful research methods, but it is a source many would regard as credible so the article was worth a look.

Forbes describes the switch in focus I have just described as focusing on the “atomization of literature”. It acknowledges that a single book (Moby Dick was the example) might take a third or fourth of a year of instructional time, but argued that dealing with lengthy material develops important skills not satisfied by short content.

I must admit that when I first encountered this article I would have thought the focus would have been on the online reading experiences of adolescents which do mostly involve short posts. Adolescent reading habits were not mentioned by the author.

The logic for the author holding standardized testing companies responsible goes something like this. Standardized comprehension assessments rely on the understanding of short text segments – read this and then answer the following question. This is obviously true. The article then contends teachers want their students to score well on these tests and hence adjust their instruction to focus on the reading of short documents.

First, I don’t know that teachers prioritize short document comprehension or that assignments have changed. Second, I do not think it has been established that teachers make a connection between standardized reading comprehension tests and the type of tasks they assign.

I can certainly agree that different skills are required in the reading of lengthy documents or in the integration of ideas from multiple documents from those that are required to comprehend short passages. I also assume educators assign longer documents and evaluate the processing of such material through writing or other means. Whatever issues exist in relationship to the use of standardized testing and the testing industry, the complaint I have described here seems a stretch.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Is Big Testing driving secondary reading instruction?