Thought-provoking article on AI

The New York times (who else? – they really seem to be all over this machine intelligence stuff lately) has published an Op-Ed by Jaron Lanier, a research scientist at Microsoft.  The article twists the typical conversation about AI on its head, saying that one of the effects of AI is that people are turning more machine-like rather than machines turning more human-like, and in the process we are essentially losing our soul.

Pretty heavy stuff, for sure.

I’ll focus on one interesting snippet in the article:

We must instead take responsibility for every task undertaken by a machine and double check every conclusion offered by an algorithm, just as we always look both ways when crossing an intersection, even though the light has turned green.

This passage kind of struck a personal chord for me. In my former job, we worked on a system called TCAS, which is a collision avoidance system mandated by law to be installed on all aircraft around the world of a certain size. Certainly, all the commercial passenger jets in the United States have this system installed.

This system could easily be called artificial intelligence – it uses sensors to detect approaching aircraft and issues commands, based on decisions made by algorithms, to the human pilot who would nominally be expected to execute the commands faithfully. The system was developed because of an act of Congress after a series of tragic mid-air collisions in the 50′s, 60′s and 70′s. The system “went live” in 1992, I believe, and there are international bodies containing very dedicated and smart people continuing to work on upgrading it since then.

Where it gets interesting, and related to the author’s quote above, is where the human fits in with this system. For example, pilots are supposed to always follow TCAS’ commands, unless they have overriding visual evidence to support a different decision. The reason is that multiple TCAS systems will actually coordinate actions between the two planes if necessary to separate them.

Now, where it gets really interesting (and tragic) is when despite the rules, one or both pilots choose to take actions opposite to what TCAS tells them to do, as they did in Uberlingen Germany in 2002. In this case, one of the pilots obeyed the commands of the controller, and as a result, there was a mid-air collision and 71 people died.

While there are indeed technical solutions (CP112E) in this case – which I personally worked on verifying – it brings up a case where human judgement was faulty and the algorithm was correct, and the result of the human “double check” caused harm.

In general, I am actually in the author’s camp that handing over your free will to a machine should at least give you pause, and I don’t dispute that we are slowly becoming more machine-like. I support all the creative/independent thinkers out there, because I think it’s getting tougher for people to trust your judgement in the presence of the Social Network.

But I also believe that in some situations, like in Uberlingen, it’s not always a bad thing to accept a machine’s advice. Unquestionably, the human element introduces “noise” which waters down the effectiveness of algorithms such as TCAS.  I predict it will be the great ethical and legal struggle of my generation to find out where to draw the line.  While it would be great if it were always an individual choice (such as shutting down your Facebook account), I can see examples similar to Uberlingen coming down the line in other life or death situations like in medicine and for safety systems in other contexts where something will have to give.

I seem to be more optimistic than the author, however, on the macro level. I think the slow revolution of society being caused by the AI all around us is causing us to think about our lives and society more logically which will ultimately lead to more social justice.

Either that or you’ll get the computer from Wargames, not sure.

Tic-tac-toe anyone? The only winning move is not to play...

Out of darkness: my internship experience

I’ve gone dark the past few months – I have no real excuse, but my radio silence happened to roughly correspond with my internship start date, so we’ll go with that explanation.

My internship project is to figure out how to best reduce energy waste in the manufacturing process.  I am following on to the work done by Mike Norelli, an on-cycle LGO ’10 who wrapped up in December. Since January, I’ve been located at Raytheon in Andover, MA, at the Integrated Air Defense Center (IADC). This plant is best known for manufacturing the majority of Patriot Missile System (the erstwhile “Scudbusters” from Operation Desert Storm), but they also make components for a variety of other advanced radar systems.

The Patriot Missile System

The IADC has about 4,400 (largely unionized) employees, and has a footprint of 1.2 million square feet. The plant includes a mix of offices, production areas,  kitchens, and server rooms. Moreover, they make everything from circuit cards to giant radar systems installed on Navy vessels. From Mike Norelli’s thesis:

The IADC had an annual electricity consumption of approximately 57,574 MWhs in 2009, which is the equivalent amount of electrical energy used by 5,126 average American homes. The IADC’s peak power during this was 11,410 kW, occurring in mid August. Since the IADC is such a large energy user, it negotiates its rates directly with its electricity provider. Its approximate annual electricity bill is $9 million.

Following on to Mike’s project was great because he already had built a network of people who were familiar with the project and I could essentially hit the ground running. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean I didn’t struggle with defining my project for about 2 months. Although I will graduate with a degree in Electrical Engineering, I really didn’t know the first thing about electricity. I never got that light bulb to light up in Physics lab in high school. I had to have somebody explain to me the difference between a Kilowatt (power) and Kilowatt-hour (energy)  - the former is a rate, the latter is cumulative:  like speed versus total distance traveled in your car.  I also had no idea how much energy an oven used versus a laptop versus a soldering iron (or even how to spell “soldering”). And then there’s real power versus apparent power, power factors, inductive loads versus resistive loads, 3 phase versus single phase

I still don't really get it

The funny thing is, I found a similar level of ignorance throughout the facility, including those in management who have been tasked to somehow reduce the use of energy in their departments. A big part of my project is simply mapping out, as best as we can, how much energy each piece of equipment in a particular department uses under the theory that you can’t control what you can’t measure.

As I’m writing this post, I’m realizing that I have learned so much about energy in my 4 months there – I really owe Raytheon a major debt because I think what I ultimately give the company will be far less than what I’ve taken from them in terms of my own education. I think I’ll start a series of Sunday posts about what I’ve learned so far about energy use in a manufacturing facility – maybe my perspective of ignorance will help teach others who are coming from the same perspective, that’s kind of why I started this blog in the first place.  I’m still no expert, but you have to start somewhere.

I’ve also learned a lot about how to work, collaborate and lead in a production environment.  My previous jobs were in a start-up and in a research lab – neither of which could be classified as production. I’ve also generally worked sitting at a desk with a computer, whereas about half of my time now is spent on the floor with people. So there have been some interesting work-related personal challenges for me at Raytheon:

  • Leadership: The majority of the workforce at IADC, and particularly those I have been working with, have all been much older than me, generally in their late 40′s and 50′s. I was wondering if I could lead effectively in this situation. One piece of advice given to me is if somebody is old enough to be your parent, then they expect you to treat them like that. Another way of putting it is: don’t be a brat. Good parents want to support their kids, and maybe because of that I have gotten great support from pretty much everybody at the facility in that age group. In fact, I would say I have gotten better support from them than from some of my peers closer to my age!
  • Culture: If working in a startup was chaos, and working in a research lab was pretty smooth and controlled, I would say that working in a production environment, to be a bit pithy, is controlled chaos. As an example, at one point, I concocted a data collection plan that had a schedule down to the minute over the course of a month. The first day on the floor, that schedule was scrapped. Now I try to plan a day in advance, but often times I simply adjust on the fly. That’s been really good practice for me.
  • Operations: A major challenge for me at IADC has been the fact that they are a “high-mix, low volume” operation. A lot of the specific Lean techniques (single piece flow, point of use supplies etc) which we have learned in class, which had been my only real exposure to operations, seem to work best on “low-mix, high volume” production. On top of this is the fact that the processes are highly regulated by the customer, with very rigorous quality requirements for every product. The end result of this situation is a high level of variability in day-to-day operations, low predictability, and a constant fear of unintentionally screwing something up because of the complexity of the system. As a result, I have reduced the problem to something manageable in six months, by either looking at a single value stream end-to-end, or concentrating on a single type of floor equipment such as vacuum ovens. The key thing I have learned from my work is that to reduce energy waste, flexibility is critical, which I think is a lesson applicable in any other product mix or operational environment.
  • Workforce: On the other hand, some challenges I thought would be difficult have turned out to not be. For instance, I think the challenges resulting from a union environment is a bit overblown. Sure, at first it was a little annoying that there are contract negotiated breaks during the day, but they’re always at the same times, so you can plan around them. It’s kind of like what batters and pitchers say about homeplate umps – as long as they’re consistent, players don’t have any problem with them. What’s more important is that employees are engaged, helpful, and willing to change. On that score, I’ve had attitudes run the gamut from subdued hostility to indifferent resignation to enthusiastic support – but in no different proportion than when I speak to managers and engineers. I’m sure it can be tough in other places, but for me at least, it hasn’t been an issue.

    My view of the upcoming union contract negotiations (how can you have a picture of an umpire without Bobby Cox?)

  • Waking up early: This has been the most difficult part for me. First shift at IADC starts at 6 AM, and it’s a 40 minute drive from Watertown. Some people I work with on first shift get there at 5! I think the earliest I’ve made it there has been 7, but generally I get there at 8 so I miss a good 2-3 hour chunk. Fortunately, it hasn’t really been a major problem for me because I need to work with second shift as well and I’m not exactly responsible for anything, but I have massive respect for the people who do it every day.

    Yeah, that's pretty much me every morning.

    My thesis will go into detail on a lot of the specifics in engineering and management around the project. But suffice it to say it has been a great learning experience so far, and I just hope that I can figure out a way in the next couple months to sustain and spread the approach I’ve developed which should result in some big energy savings throughout the facility.

Plug for MIT Lincoln Laboratory (“The Lab”)

 

 

As cool as it looks

As cool as it looks

For the past two years I have worked at MIT Lincoln Laboratory, or the Lab for short. Not many people outside of the research circles know about this place, and in fact I only stumbled upon it in my job search because I went to a job fair for high tech companies and got some literature.  In fact, the wikipedia page on the Lab is comically short considering the amount of research that has been conducted there for the past 50+ years – while the Lab didn’t invent radar, it probably perfected it. However, because most of this research is classified for national security, 95% of the amazing work by Lab scientists goes unpublished.  When I was looking around for information on the Lab, I could hardly find any online, so hopefully somebody may stumble upon this page when they are thinking about working there. 

While at the Lab, I worked for the Surveillance Systems group, Group 42. When I got to the Lab, the group was called the Air Traffic Control and Surveillance Systems Group, and about half of the group’s research is sponsored by the FAA. Most of my work centered around the TCAS collision avoidance system, which is mandated by Congress to be installed on every commercial passenger aircraft above a certain size.

TCAS vertical speed indicator (displayed in cockpit)

TCAS vertical speed indicator (displayed in cockpit)

I also worked on new collision avoidance systems for UAVs (Unmanned Air Vehicles). My major project was developing airspace encounter models for generating random, realistic encounters so that these systems can be tested in simulation. Over the course of developing these models, I learned a great deal about Bayesian networks, Monte Carlo methods, importance sampling, radar (note: the giant radar ALTAIR in that link is operated by Lincoln for missile defense in the Marshall Islands), flight dynamics, and especially air traffic control. It was a fascinating project, and only one of many fascinating projects that I was involved in (I will probably blog about my thoughts on ATC at some point in the future).

 

Global Hawk, one of the platforms we worked with.

Global Hawk, one of the platforms we worked with.

I’ve worked with some amazingly smart and capable people who I now consider my friends.  In particular Mykel Kochenderfer and Jim Kuchar have been my mentors, among many others who don’t have personal websites. Over half of the Lab employees have PhDs, most from MIT and other top schools, and the sheer brain power there is kind of awesome. People also work at the Lab for the love of their research, and that definately comes through as well.

I will be leaving the Lab in a couple months because I accepted an offer to be a LGO fellow at MIT. However, my work there has been very intellectually satisfying, and it has served to focus my future academic interests. For instance, I will recieve a MS in Computer Science, largely because my work at the Lab has piqued my interest in AI and machine learning. In particular, I hope to research how these principles can be applied to improve the efficiency and operation of manufacturing companies.  I would say that the Lab is an excellent place to work if you are interested in doing cutting edge research, are intellectually curious and smart, and enjoy tackling difficult problems in the area of national defense, homeland security or the FAA.