Siri not Jarvis

Where's my e-butler?

Advancing computing technology seems to have deviated from the speculative sci-fi books that I read as a child.   I haven't decided whether it's a positive or a negative thing.

I distinctly recall reading stories where households had servers with storage, computational power, etc.  Specifically, I'm thinking of those where middle-class families had an AI butler, or secretary.  They could be relied upon to accept verbal (voice) commands, questions, and possible conduct conversations.  

They'd do more than turn the lights on and off.  They might question whether you were accepting visitors if someone knocked on the door, and either allow them in or politely tell them you were indisposed.  They might accept standing instructions to deny all visitors/calls, but still be smart enough to pass through calls deemed to be emergencies.  The AI would take voice dictation memos (emails), send them off to their destinations, and search various databases (internet) for answers to questions, or research topics.  

It would be a like a butler/servant/personal-assistant, but without the moral baggage of being human. Rich aristocrats may have no problems ordering their "lesser" humans around, but us middle-class folks know that it's morally suspect... since all people should be equals socially.   The e-butler gets around this problem. They are nearly as smart/trainable as a person, but their whole purpose is to serve.  ...and because we made them, we can be sure they don't have their own pesky motivations.

Admittedly, we do have some of these now.  There's Amazon Alexa, Microsoft Cortana, Apple Siri, etc.  One could imagine that they are developing towards "good-enough" AI status.    But there's nothing private about the conversation one has with them.    I don't need to worry as much about a hacker/corporation/government surreptitiously interrogating my butler.   I could trust that they would be savvy enough to know when to guard my privacy, or inform me that they were getting questions.

With Alexa, I can be pretty sure that my inquiries about prenatal development are going to lead to more advertisements for diapers.  ...or that asking about the caribbean will lead to advertisements for vacation packages.  More nefariously, one could imagine that questions relating to politics might prompt a visit from the authorities in a police state

So instead of getting a personal assistant that might have some kind of loyalty to us, we get a communal 'public' assistant who is helpful, but likely has loyalties to someone else.

I suppose this is part of a larger trend towards everything becoming "a service" rather than a thing.

Edit:

Related articles:

• https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/31/viv-artificial-intelligence-wants-to-run-your-life-siri-personal-assistants
• 
  

Learning about Docker

Trying to setup Docker running locally on my MacBook. My eventual target is a web service built from python+flask+apache.   I played around trying to download some images, and create my own.

Apparently, Docker is working on a MacOS specific version.  (Looks like it's a little more integrated into the OS, with a status menu/icon in the top menu bar. )

• Started with this page: https://docs.docker.com/docker-for-mac
• Did an experimental install of conda: https://docs.continuum.io/anaconda/docker
• And found a good docker conceptual overview here: https://michael.bouvy.net/blog/en/2014/02/01/what-is-docker-and-how-to-use-it-lxc-openvz
• Created a CentOS image that runs an ssh server modeled off of this github: https://github.com/tutumcloud/tutum-centos

What I Learned

• There are many pre-made docker-images available for download.  
• Basic ones like debian or centos.
• Specific applications like apache, or jenkins.
• Docker has commands for managing these images.
• docker search - Searches docker hub for published images.
• docker images - Displays the images present locally.
• docker pull - Pulls an image from a registry (default docker-hub) to local machine.
• docker rmi - Deletes a local image.
• Docker images are "instantiated" into Docker-containers.
• Containers may be interactive or not.
• They may run in the background "detached" or foreground.
• The commands:
• docker run - Starts up an image as a container.
• docker ps - Lists active containers.  (use -a for inactive as well)
• docker start - Reactivates a stopped container.
• docker attach - Attaches to a running a backgrounded container
• docker rm - Deletes a container.
• Containers will normally run to completion and exit, becoming deactive.
• Interactive containers will typically run /bin/bash or another interactive environment.
• When the user exits, the container becomes inactive.
• Non-interactive containers can be used to run services like sshd, or httpd.
• Internal to the container, the service is often run in non-backgrounded mode.  This prevents the process from completing and the container from deactivating.
• The start command is good for re-attaching to a container that was just a shell.  Using the run command will create a new container.
• Don't try to attach to a running container if it's running something other than a shell.  The CTRL-C interrupts don't work unless certain flags are passed to the attach command.
• New docker images can be made using a Dockerfile.
• It's a series of instructions that when complete, leaves an image in the state of the last instruction.
• Intermediate images are constructed, so it doesn't re-run the entire docker-file each time.
• The Dockerfile can 
• ADD local files _into_ the docker image.
• RUN commands that change the state of the image.
• CMD is the final command that is the main entry point when the image is run.
• The command:
• docker build - Builds the local Dockerfile
• Names!
• If an image isn't given a tag, it is only identified by an awkward hashcode.
• If a container isn't given a name, it is provided a fun random name, like "evil_davinci", or "sad_minsky".

Thoughts on Proposition 1

I'm referring to the proposition that was on the ballot in Austin on May 7th.

Personally, I was (and still am) against it.  In that sense, I suppose I should be happy that it failed.  Instead, I am mostly curious as to how this will play out in the long run.

I expect that either Uber and Lyft will return, or some other similar service will become popular here in town.  I'm looking to what has happened in other cities as a model.  For instance, in San Antonio it appears that Uber was able to successfully extract concessions from the city.  Although Lyft left Houston over it's regulations, Uber did not... yet.

I'm also curious as to why they are fighting the regulations so hard.  In Austin they were wanting to reverse a couple of points.  Among others:

• The city wanted background checks to involve fingerprinting.
• The city didn't want them stopping in the middle of the road to pick up passengers.
• The city wanted the cars marked, and identifiable as Uber or Lyft or whatever.

It's not clear why they wanted to avoid those so badly.  I have a hard time believing that it was because of the money.   They could have easily purchased all of the background checks with the money spend on political advertising.  

I'm inclined to believe that it has to do with each companies relationship with their drivers.  They want their drivers to remain "independent contractors" and not employees.  However, I don't see how any of the regulations required by the city really push them towards the 'employee' category.

Maybe some more research on my part will illuminate this for me.

---

As an aside... I don't think that the proposition did actually failed on its merits.  It seems more like it failed due to a botched advertising campaign.  Personally, I received two pieces of mail per day in the week or so before the vote.  That, in addition to the online advertisements, made me wonder why they were pushing so hard.  I could see why it would swing anyone who was undecided into the 'against' category.