Keepon Redux: From the Robot Film Fest

Ok. So you like Keepon too? I recently posted about the little robot, which made it to #1 on a top 10 list of best robots of all time. I also told you about the Robot Film Festival in New York last weekend.

Well, it turns out the makers of Keepon entered a great updated video of Keepon dancing to all new beats by Spoon! And it’s fantastic!

Keepon dancing to Spoon’s “Don’t You Evah” from BeatBots on Vimeo.

The other entries for the Robot Film Festival can be found at the IEEE Automaton Blog here.

Hope you enjoy!

The Ethics of Klout – Should We Trust In the Almighty Algorithm?

In recent months companies like Klout and PeerIndex have captured the imagination of the media by promising to deliver meaningful measurements of peoples’ online influence. But there’s a problem with measuring influence the way Klout promises to, and it has to do with the algorithms that scour the web to determine an individuals influence rating (or “Klout Score”, or “PeerIndex”).

The problem? The algorithms are secret.

(Of course there’s another problem, which is that Klout and PeerIndex don’t seem to spend a lot of effort trying to define “influence”, nor do they seem to get it right in their scores, see this video of a “Klout identified sheep expert” being interviewed. I’m not interested in getting into the nuts and bolts of measuring influence just now, although I have spent some time trying to twist my brain around how it might be accomplished. My argument is more basic, and it would stand even if it turned out that we could agree that online influence were measurable.)

If you’ve never heard of Klout, or haven’t gone through the process of setting up an account, here’s the gist of it. Anyone can create an account on these websites, link it to their Twitter and Facebook accounts (and other social media sites, though no Google+ or Blogs yet), and receive their influence score. Presumably, Klout and PeerIndex scour your tweets, retweets, mentions, direct messages, Facebook likes, and so on, in an attempt to see how many other people (and which people) are interested in what you have to say online. But at the end of the day, you are given a score that is meant to indicate how influential a person you are online. The score is visible to anyone who decides to look, and is even served up alongside every Twitter users’ avatar if you decide to turn that feature on.

These sites also suggest areas of knowledge that people are influential in. So you might turn out to have a Klout score of 45, and be told that you are influential when it comes to “medicine”, “privacy” and “cookies”.

When discussing the scoring algorithms each company has an offering. According to PeerIndex:

The PeerIndex algorithm recognizes the importance of speed and quantity by which we spot, share (and thus approve) content on any specific topic. Our choice of content recommendations can thus be used as a proxy to measure our knowledge, or authority, in a specific subject area.

Klout uses slightly more abstract language in describing their scoring algorithm:

We believe that influence is the ability to drive people to action — “action” might be defined as a reply, a retweet, a comment, or a click. We perform significant testing to ensure that the average click-through rate on links shared is highly correlated with a person’s Klout Score. The 25+ variables used to generate scores for each of these categories are normalized across the whole data set and run through our analytics engine. After the first pass of analytics, we apply a specific weight to each data point. We then run the factors through our machine-learning analysis and calculate the final Klout Score. The final Klout Score is a representation of how successful a person is at engaging their audience and how big of an impact their messages have on people.

Klout and PeerIndex are banking (literally) on the belief that these scores will translate into sales. How? By convincing people that Klout scores measure online influence, and translating that into a large membership.

For now, those sales seem to be driven through advertising partnerships. Klout offers its members Klout Perks, special offers for people who are influential. According to their website, “Klout believes that influencers deserve to be treated special.” For example, recently Klout members were offered exclusive “invites” to the highly anticipated new music streaming web service Spotify.

For now it also seems that all Klout users are equal in the eyes of the advertisers, but you can imagine a future where web influence, meted out by the Klouts and PeerIndexes of the world, translate into tiered perks: 50% off coupons for the low scorers, free iPads for the big influencers.

That’s the one side of measuring web influence, you can treat it as a means of building membership and selling stuff. It’s the side of influence that might bother some, but that most of us are used to. Influential people just get more free stuff. Nothing new there.

What is new, and problematic, is the way that influence a la Klout, is measured by an algorithm that only insiders get to tinker with.

Today, influence is quite a tricky thing to pin down, but mostly, influence has to do (or ought to do) with the fact that some people have demonstrated, usually publicly, that they are actually influential. That can mean that they are successful writers, actors, business people, or thinkers, who have proven that they have knowledge that is meaningful, and useful, to groups who then confer a certain authority in the form of influence onto them. Those groups might be peers or colleagues, or an audience that has access to the person’s activities that make him or her influential. The onlookers get to decide who is influential and who is not, and each new person has to decide, based on word of mouth from an other, whether or not to agree with the claim to influence. In deciding on influence in this way, open and socially, we can trust that the influence is deserved or not.

With online influence measurements like Klout, the power to confer influence is artificially concentrated in a secret algorithm. There is no word of mouth, no public display, no real point at which an individual, say you or I, can decide whether or not to confer influence onto another. The score is simply delivered.

By measuring influence this way, Klout is asking you to trust the Klout Score. But what reason do they offer for you to trust them? None as far as I can see. They claim to have sophisticated mathematical formulae at work, sure. But this is not a reason, it’s a way of trying to convince that the people at Klout are smart, and know what they are doing. It’s a way of saying, “just trust us” without actually explaining why we should.

If Klout were just about selling stuff then, like I said, it might not be such a big deal. But the other side of measuring online influence has to do with the influence. There is a real possibility that people’s Klout Scores will be taken seriously and treated (to Klout’s or PeerIndex’s joy) as an actual indication of their online influence, or even an indication of their professional abilities in general.

If you think this prospect is crazy, think again. Forbes recently interviewed a recruiter who suggested Klout scores could be used in hiring decisions. Microsoft also published a study that drew similar conclusions, finding that 89% of HR professionals consider online reputation when deciding on job candidates. Numbers have a way of becoming useful, even if they’re not meaningful. What could seem useful about Klout is that it gives the appearance of filtering through all the noise in people’s online lives to deliver up a nicely packaged report on that individual in the form of a number and some knowledge areas. Klout scores could be used as tie-breakers in situations where all other things about two individuals seem equal. In short, Klout Scores and PeerIndexes have the potential of benefiting some people over others in ways that go beyond the simple, trivial, benefits (coupons and what nots) of membership in a club.

There are predictable consequences if Klout Scores and PeerIndexes become useful as means of benefiting individuals in non-trivial ways. One of those is the potential for abuse, and corruption. Being in control of an influence measure, one that is somewhat impervious to scrutiny given its proprietary nature, will tempt a corporation and the individuals in it to trade in influence. (I say “will” instead of “could” for what should be obvious reasons to anyone.) Another is the potential for hacking the algorithm. Anyone successful in finding ways of artificially increasing their scores will appear instantly influential, and could receive benefits accordingly.

We need not jettison the idea of measuring online influence. But we ought to proceed slowly, and cautiously, before adopting any measure as meaningful. If online influence turns out to be important, and it may well be given the increasingly central role that online communications play in our lives, then we will want to set standards for measuring it. Klout cannot be that standard. Standards for measuring online influence can’t be determined behind the closed doors of corporations. They need to be transparent and open to criticism and debate. Without transparency, we have no reason to trust online influence scores, and less reason to use them other than in the most trivial of ways.

Keepon Keeps On Rockin’ as the #1 Robot

Make Magazine has voted Keepon the #1 Robot on their top 10 favourite robot list. It’s no secret that I love Keepon. There’s something about the simplicity of the idea that makes me smile every time I see him.

Here’s the breakdown of the top 5/10 (for a complete list see the original post):

That’s right, Keepon beat R2-D2, a laudable achievement. But then, Keepon is a real robot.

If you haven’t had a chance to see Keepon in action, check out this video (I use it in my Roboethics course, it’s so good):

Check out the rest of the Make Magazine post to see more videos on the top ten list.

Robots like Keepon are designed to engage our emotions and cause us to form relationships with them as a result. For anyone interested the field of robotics/computing that deals with this kind of design is affective computing. I posted about IBM’s Watson not long ago, which is another example of affective computing in action.

Though Keepon seems harmless, there are some interesting ethical issues that are worth keeping in mind with respect to affective computing. One of the main ones is asking in what circumstances it might be problematic to coax people into emotive responses to robots/machines. It may be harmless with Keepon, but with more complex computers like Watson, getting us to “like” the machine might be a way of getting us to ignore the motives designed into the system, such as profit.

It’s a conversation worth having sooner rather than later, given that Watson and Keepon are hitting the shelves (albeit different shelves) very soon.

Roboethics, Drones, and the Trolley Problem

I came across a great post about the Trolley Problem and Warfare at a Distance over at the Neuroethics at the Core blog. Peter B. Reiner gives a great overview of the classic “trolley problem” (a fun party conversation piece if ever there was one), and ties neuroethics and moral psychology into it very nicely. His conclusions are spot on.

Here’s an excerpt of his post:

While the developers of the drones were clearly interested in sparing the lives of soldiers (at least allied soldiers), it seems unlikely that they ever considered the psychological effects that the distance has upon their responsiveness. If trolleyology has any predictive power, it would predict this: it is far easier to pull the trigger in North Dakota than if the pilot was closer to the battlefield. But that is still a bit like pulling the switch to move the train from one track to the other. At level of decision makers, the distance between trigger and killing machine grows yet again, and the data would predict that utilitarian judgements – cold, hard calculations devoid of what are often described as moral sentiments – will become even stronger.

I commented over at the blog so I won’t go into details here, except to say that the emergence of autonomous robots will add new dimensions to the ethical debate over robots, the trolley problem, and moral psychology. I would encourage you to check out the Neuroethics at the Core blog. There’s a ton of interesting work going on in that group.

Facebook Increases Digital Lock-In Strategy Against Google+

Lat week I wrote about Facebook‘s response to tools that allow users to export their FB contact list to Google+. Facebook responded by blocking those tools. This week Facebook has redoubled its efforts by blocking yet another tool designed for similar purposes. In an excerpt from the article:

Fundamentally…there’s nothing stopping people from copying each e-mail address manually from Facebook. The problem crops up when such extraction is automated.

Which is why the Yahoo position is so peculiar. Anyone with a Yahoo Mail account can easily extract not only the names but the e-mail addresses of their Facebook friends. If you want to try this method, first open a fresh e-mail account at Yahoo. As soon as it’s created, you’ll get an option to import contacts from elsewhere, including Facebook. Choose that option, authorize the tool, and it’ll import the contacts.

 

Robot Film Festival – NYC

For anyone who is lucky enough to be in New York City this weekend (July 16-17, 2011) you should definitely check out the Robot Film Festival. I wish I could be there, but life being what it is, I’ll be far away from NYC.

According to the organizers, the goals of the festival are to:

-Encourage interdisciplinary collaboration
-Harness the creativity of non-roboticists to expose new insights about robot character, behavior systems and impactful physical design
-Make engineering and robotics intriguing and assessable
-Enable technologists to explore the downstream effects of their innovations through storytelling
-Help explore the ethical and sociological issues everyday robots could have on society
-Make engineering fun
-Start a community that can build on itself
-Provide guidance through curation of content, framing, and followup
-Pilot an intersection between narrative and robotics, using film making, that could enable future explorations
-Provide opportunity for researchers to translate their work to the general population
-Gain practice for technologists to display their research in engaging video form
-Showcase awesome robots
-Display the breadth of work possible with robots
-Entice individuals that might not be intrigued by standard robot competitions
-Expose positive memes about robotics that answer to the Terminator myths
-Celebrate the big ideas behind it all!

It looks like it will be a really fun event. According to the website there are still tickets available. I really hope someone posts some videos after the festival. Let me know if you find any!

Privacy on Google+ Part 1: Circles

By far the biggest difference between Facebook and Google+ in terms of privacy promises to be Google+ Circles. In this post I’ll describe the first login experience on Google+, and I will focus on my first impressions of Google+ Circles, sticking mainly to the privacy aspects of Circles.

The first time you log into Google+ you are greeted with a Welcome screen (I’ve cropped the right hand section of the screenshot to protect the privacy of my contacts who were “suggested” for inclusion in my Circles by Google):

Google+ Welcome Screen

Google+ Welcome Screen

At the top of the screen you see quick links for (from left to right) “Home”, “Photos”, “Profile”, and “Circles” respectively. Clicking on one of these takes you to the corresponding interface within Google+. In the center of the screen are three links that take you to brief videos (I featured them in my last post) outlining the three major features of Google+: Circles, Hangouts and Sparks.

Since this post focuses on Circles, here’s a brief overview of the feature. In real life, you know a lot of people. Some of them are your friends, some are your colleagues, some are your classmates, some are relatives, and so on. The point is that there are a lot of people and they all fit into different aspects of your personal or professional life.

Things get complicated online, where you might also have/want “followers”, and where you also want to “follow” people that you don’t really know, those people who are interested in what you say “publicly” (or hyperpublicly), or vice versa. When you have a conversation with your friends, you don’t necessarily want your colleagues to overhear it, or your extended relatives, or your followers. In other words, you might want to have some privacy online that maps nicely onto the kinds of privacy expectations you have in the real world (these are, after all, real world people reading your online posts, and the repercussions of online speech can be more damaging because of the hyperpublicity of online speech compared to real-world speech).

Google+ Circles are meant to provide more of the kind of privacy that you currently have in real life, online.

One of the first things that struck me, from a privacy perspective, was the inclusion of the “Streams” along the left side of the Welcome screen. There are four preconfigured streams–Friends, Family, Acquaintances, and Following–each meant to function a lot like a Facebook “Wall”. The most notable difference when comparing Streams to your Facebook Wall, however, is that each Google+ Stream corresponds to one of your Circles. Click on a Stream and you get a running list of updates from the people in that Circle.

Google+ Streams with Acquaintances highlighted

I wanted to check out how the Google+ Circles feature looked right out of the box, so I clicked on the “Circles” link at the top of the Welcome Screen in order to go to the Circles interface. The Circles interface allows you to organize your Google+ Circles, which means creating new Google+ Circles, and adding/removing contacts to your existing Circles. You can add to your Circles from contacts who are already on Google+, search for new contacts from Yahoo! or Hotmail, invite people from your contact list who are not yet on Google+–all the hooks you’d expect from a social networking site.

To better understand the privacy significance or Google+ Circles, notice how Google describes the “Friends” Circle in the hover text:

Your Friends are, “Your real friends, the ones you feel comfortable sharing private details with.” Compare that to your Facebook “Friends”, who are all of the people you ever friended on Facebook, including your old high school buds, your teachers, your parents, your colleagues, most of whom you don’t care to share ALL your information with.

Google+ allows you to place your real friends on one Circle, your Family in another (described as “Your close and extended family, with as many or as few in-laws as you want”), your Acquaintances in another (described as “A good place to stick people that you’ve met but aren’t particularly close to”), and those people that you “follow” in yet another (described as “People you don’t know personally but whose posts you find interesting”).

Of course you can also create your own Circles, for the poker gang, the knitting club, or what have you. Each Circle gets its own social space, much like your real life.

I decided to add a couple of (real) friends to my Friend Circle to see how it worked. Before adding the contact Google+ notified me of how I could expect Google+ to behave:

Now, I have to admit how much I like this little feature. Google+ informs me that my contacts will never be able to see which Circle I’ve added them to (or switched them to). This feature will undoubtedly capture the hearts and minds of high school students everywhere, whose daily ins and outs with their ever changing groups of friends will spark a flurry of “circling”. (Predicting the Future: I suspect that in six month to a year we will be hearing about how “circling” has become a new form of online status, and bullying.)

That’s HUGE from a privacy perspective!

In real life, nobody but you gets to know where the people in your life stand in relation to one another, unless you choose to tell them yourself. Facebook offers you the binary ability to “friend” someone or not. Sure, you can silently ignore them, but often times you would rather accept the friend request, then stick them in a “circle” that segregates the kind of information that they will have access to…just like real life.

Google+ Circles allow you to do that. No need to ignore people, or to curtail your use of Facebook because you have suddenly come to the realization that you have friended too many colleagues and can’t really talk about the party you went to the night before. And no need to send out awkward “unfriending” explanations to those people who contact you asking “why can’t I see you on Facebook any more?” “Oh, sorry, I’ve decided to clean up my online life and you didn’t make the cut. See you at the company BBQ?”

By adding these little notifications Google has designed Google+ with the users’ values in mind. Google+ tells you up front that you are making a choice by adding a contact to, say your Friend Circle, and lets you know that you can change the behaviour of the software if you would like to (removing them from visibility in your public profile), a feature that Facebook deliberately, and infamously, hid from the user.

I decided to add a Circle called “Academic”. I thought it might be useful to have a circle dedicated to people I know from the university setting, but who I don’t necessarily hang out with otherwise.

I also tried to add a (real) friend to my Academic Circle because I know he’s interested in some of the work I do and might want to receive posts related to my work (Presumptuous? Maybe. But he is still in my Friend Circle.)

And here is another great feature of Google+, you can add your contacts to more than one Circle! Again, just as in real life, my friends can also be my colleagues if I decide that that’s how they feature in real life.

After setting up my Circles I clicked back to my Home page to check it out. Now I was able to see the Streams populated with information from my Circles. As I clicked on my Streams the information in the main part of the screen changed to reveal the various posts from the people in that Circles. In addition my “Academic” Stream was visible in the list of streams.

I decided to try to “share” a photo that one of my friends had posted to his stream (which stream? I don’t know! nor should I), and I was given another opportunity to consider the privacy aspects of my online actions:

I really can’t say enough about this feature. It’s really a move in the right direction as it reminds the user that they are about to make an important choice about who to share the photo with, and that the person who originally posted the photo was interested in limiting the audience of that post. This kind of design choice fits very well as an example of value sensitive design (see my other posts on the topic), in which designers take into account the impact that features of a design can have on users’ values, such as privacy, freedom, etc. By prompting the user and reminding them how the software behaves, the user is able to learn how to use the software in a way that respects his or her pre-existing value expectations.

After clicking on “Okay, got it!” I was able to choose which circles to share the photo with. I chose to limit it to my friends, who I trust implicitly. I also felt comfortable about sharing the picture because I knew it didn’t contain any of my friend’s personal information (unlike the many, many pictures I get access to on Facebook that I probably shouldn’t have access to, and definitely don’t want access to).

As if that isn’t enough, Google+ lets you disable sharing on your posts. That means that once you have posted something, you can make so that others can’t share it. Fantastic privacy feature as it prevents things from going viral if you don’t want them to (once again, high school students should love this).

My initial impression of Google+ Circles is that they are a fantastic, extremely useful feature. Allowing the user to control who sees what information online is a huge step in the right direction where privacy is concerned. It makes a social networking tool function like a useful communication hub ought to. I have a lot of contacts in my life, most of whom Id like to share information with, but few of whom I’d like to share ALL of my information with. Facebook failed miserably in designing this basic privacy consideration into its interface, and Google+ stands to gain from Facebook’s insistence that isers don’t care about privacy.

There are a lot of questions that still need to be answered. One of my unanswered questions is “What happens when I move someone from one circle to another? Can they still see all the posts that I had previously given them access to by virtue of being in one circle, or do they immediately lose access to those posts? And I’m sure Google+ will raise privacy issues of its own. But for the time being, I am very excited about the privacy aspects of Google+ Circles, and I stand by my initial claim that Facebook ought to be worried about going the way of the MySpace, all because of privacy.

 

Circles, Hangouts, and Sparks on Google+

So I finally made it onto Google+ (thanks to Twitter user @jkozuch). I’ll be writing a few posts about my initial reactions to Google+, mainly focused on the privacy aspects of the new social networking service. I wrote a piece earlier this week speculating on what Google+ would mean to Facebook, especially in light of Facebook’s horrendous privacy track record. Now I get to put Google+ to the test, see how it actually works, and report on the results.

But first, I want to add three simple links to the videos that Google has designed as an intro to the three main features that distinguish Google+ from Facebook: Circles, Hangouts and Sparks.

Take a look at them, and stay tuned for my privacy analysis of Google+.

Circles

Hangouts

Sparks

Exposing the Ghost Management of Medical Research

Dr. Marc-André Gagnon (Carleton University) and Dr. Sergio Sismondo (Queen’s University) have co-authored an excellent op-ed piece on the Ghost Management of Medical Research. Ghost Management is related, though not the same as Ghost Authorship. Ghost Authorship refers to situations where influential academics or professionals (professors, doctors, etc.) accept authorship credentials on scientific or academic papers that they had little or no part in writing. Ghost Authorship is a process often used by large companies, the most famous cases being pharmaceutical companies, in order to help market their drugs.

This article emphasizes that most of the press on Ghost Authorship has missed the ethical mark, so to speak. Typical analyses of Ghost Authorship involve evaluating whether or not professionals ought to sign onto research they didn’t perform themselves. But Gagnon and Sismondo point out that there is a larger, and potentially more dire, outcome associated with Ghost Authorship, and that is that Ghost Authorship is usually a small part of the overall Ghost Management of Medical research.

Ghost Management often involves creating a highly biased perception of certain drugs, say that a drug has beneficial outcomes, when in fact the underlying research does not support that claim. This is accomplished by flooding the literature with research that is biased, by spinning or burying negative research outcomes, and so on.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

In 2008, research showed that pharmaceutical companies systematically failed to publish negative studies on their SSRIs, the Prozac generation of antidepressants. Of 74 clinical trials, 38 produced positive results and 36 did not: 94 per cent of the positive studies were published, but only 23 per cent of the negative ones were, and two-thirds of those were spun to make them look more positive.

Physicians reading the scientific literature got a biased view of the benefits of SSRIs. This helps to explain the huge number of antidepressant prescriptions, in spite of the fact that, according to a meta-analysis in JAMA in January 2010, for 70 per cent of people taking SSRIs, the drug did not bring more benefits than a placebo. Compared to placebo, however, SSRI antidepressants can result in serious adverse drug reactions.

There we see one of the problems with the ghost management of medical research and publication. Pharmaceutical companies want upbeat reports on their drugs. They design, write, and publish studies that are likely to show their drugs in positive lights – and there are myriad ways to do so. Ghosts sometimes bend the truth, and sometimes even commit fraud, with grave results…[read more]

Here’s what I think: All medical doctors should educate themselves on these issues by first reading Gagnon and Sismondo’s article, then the academic research on Ghost Management (included below), and should give it serious consideration. Ghost authorship might offer the opportunity to pad a CV, but at what cost?

For further reading you can check out these articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals:

Publication Ethics and the Ghost Management of Medical Research (Sergio Sismondo and Mathieu Doucet). Bioethics 24 (2010): 273-283.

Publication Planning 101: A Report (Sergio Sismondo and Scott Nicholson). Journal of Pharmacy and the Pharmaceutical Sciences 12(3) (2009): 273-283.

Medical Publishing and the Drug Industry: Is Medical Science for Sale?.Academic Matters (May 2009): 8-12.

Ghosts in the Machine: Publication Planning in the Medical SciencesSocial Studies of Science 39 (2009): 171-198.

Science and Technology Studies (STS) Hashtag: #socofsci

In a brief Twitter conversation (are there any other kinds?) with science blogger Alice Bell, I asked if she knew of any Twitter hashtags useful for following Science and Technology Studies (STS) conversations.

She did not.

But Alice did suggest using #socofsci.

I concurred. So let it be tweeted, so let it be done.

(Note: In the past I have tried using #STS but it is of no use as Space Shuttle buffs use it to tweet about the various shuttle missions.)

If you know of any other useful hashtags that relate specifically to STS, Sociology of Science, or Philosophy of Science, please do let me know and I will add them to this post as updates.

Updated (July 13, 2011): @alibell has put together a great list of #socofsci Tweeps at : http://twitter.com/#!/alicebell/social-studies-of-science/members