Slashdot Mirror
Computer Software to Predict the Unpredictable
Amigan writes "Professor Jerzy Rozenblit at the University of Arizona was awarded $2.2Million to develop software to predict the unpredictable — specifically relating to volatile political and military situations." From the article:
"The software will predict the actions of paramilitary groups, ethnic factions, terrorists and criminal groups, while aiding commanders in devising strategies for stabilizing areas before, during and after conflicts.
It also will have many civilian applications in finance, law enforcement, epidemiology and the aftermath of natural disasters, such as hurricane Katrina."
Sure, no problem. The software should work fine, as long as you find a computer powerful and irrational enough to run it.
Didn't see that one coming.
Go ahead and predict the weather for a week. I will be impressed.
Predict it for 2 weeks, I will blow you.
You cannot predict something with so many variables that you don't understand. You certainly cannot do it regarding how people will react.
The Asymmetric Threat Response and Analysis Project, known as ATRAP, is a massively complex set of computer algorithms (mathematical procedures) that sift through millions of pieces of data.
They come right out and say it...
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Apparently there are those that have forgotten the old computer law of "Garbage In, Garbage Out". Even if we had a perfect model to predict these sort of things, we don't have any way of supplying the required data to model the prediction. What's the computer going to do, go undercover in secret groups? Read the web sites? Listen to radio chatter and analyze their conversations?
Maybe someday when we have a real science of A.I. something like this might be possible, but all it shows is that this university professor will happily take government money for delivering absolutely nothing.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
...the program will still fail to predict it. By definition.
The article (as would be unsurprising even from the professional press, and is less surprising from what seems to be a school newspaper of the school employing the professor getting the grant) seems to be a very uncritical regurgitation of an extraordinarily puffed-up press release that seems to suggest that the professor has gotten a grant to develop something that already exist and presently has the capacities sought by the grant. Sometimes. Maybe. Really, the shifting use of verb tenses gave me a kind of mental whiplash trying to read it.
Also, I think that while this may be useful, the danger of overreliance on a system where quite literally no one using it understands how factors are really being used to generate outcome predictions are immense; if you get something that works well predictively at all, it will likely be prone to fail wildly if any of the many factors it is adapted to based on the historical data used to train it shift. Unfortunately, it is quite likely that the particular sensitivities will be opaque, and thus no one is likely to know when it is likely to fail. This is rather distinct from conventional analysis which, even though it may fail in many circumstances, where it is rigorous analysis and not just guesswork to start with, its assumptions are transparent and its weaknesses and vulnerabilities in application to particular situations can also be evaluated.
..when Duke Nukem Forever will be released.
And to be honest, this alone is worth the expense.
Load New Commander (Y/N)?
politicians?
You just need to find one single planetary system complex enough, some basic axioms, a lot of spare mathematicians and Hari Seldon to come up with a solution for predicting the unpredictable, as long as the unpredictable isn't the Mule.
^[:wq!
Of course it can--did you even read the link?
It will just take about six months to calculate the result.
"Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this, the peak of your civilization. I say your civilization because as soon as we started thinking for you it really became our civilization which is of course what this is all about..."
-- Agent Smith
The short story, not the movie. They're completely different. It covers exactly this situation.
Precog #1 sees the future.
Precog #2 sees the future that happens when you know what Precog #1 saw.
Precog #3 sees the future that happens when you know what Precog #2 saw which was the future that Precog #1 saw.
Chinese researchers today announced $10.2 million (USD) funding for a system to predict the outcomes of unpredictable outcomes predicted and influenced by US ATRAP computing, with the goal of further influencing the the outcomes to produce a balance-of-trade advantage for China and producing a complete domination of Taiwan...
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
For anybody who wants a little more info than is present in the popular-press summary, here's a couple of conference papers from Rozenblit's group on using coevolution and genetic algorithms to analyze/visualize military scenarios. I think they might require institutional subscriptions to see the full PDF, but I've pasted the abstracts below.
A coevolutionary approach to course of action generation and visualization in multi-sided conflicts
The current state of military operations includes many stability and support (SASO), multi-sided conflicts. The research presented in this paper attempts to address this complex environment by creating a SASO simulation, coevolutionary generation of courses-of-actions (COAs) for each side, and visualization tools for analysis of the resulting COAs. The SASO simulation is significantly different from previous systems because it incorporates non-conventional warfare units such as terrorists and media. The coevolution algorithm is different because it allows all sides of the conflict to evolve their COAs. The visualization tools are important because SASO doctrine is not as well developed as conventional warfare doctrine. Therefore, visual analysis and understanding of a system that is not well defined provides insight for future modeling and verification.
Modeling and simulation of stability and support operations (SASO)
Stability and support operations (SASO) are becoming increasingly important in modern military operations. Conflicts are no longer comprised solely of two opposing sides engaged in combat on an open battlefield. Instead, they are more likely to involve groups sharing various alliances and relationships each pursuing a range of different goals. The Sheherazade SASO wargaming engine presented here: a) incorporates subjective criteria for scoring course of action (COA) success such as the animosity between factions and attitudes of locales, b) uses nontraditional units such as refugees, media and information operators, and c) employs a coevolutionary genetic algorithm in modeling the dynamics of the complex multisided simulation for generating COAs. This paper outlines our approach towards the development of a wargaming model that handles the more complex and computationally demanding arena of SASO.
Be advised the Foundation has Patents covering the areas of study and interest.
H. Seldon
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
...using a computer model is like driving by looking out the rear view mirror. I bet after the first major miss, they'll claim to have added that to the model. Then the next big thing will add five new factors and make three others irrelevant. Computers can't predict what they don't know what means. I'd much rather take a well reasoned human analysis over that unique situation than trying to find patterns that are spurious at best and plain out wrong at worst.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Welcome the flim flam predicting the unpredictable coding in a bunch of random number generating overlords.
What a waste of 2 million bucks.
This is my sig.
That would give you an infinite recursion, no?
i.e. then you'd have to factor in the fact that people were aware that you had factored in the results, and then factor in the fact that they were aware you had factored in the fact that people were aware you had factored in the results.... and so on until your head explodes.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
It isn't about actually being able to predict anything useful. Think of it like this. As a "World Leader" [sic], how much would you spend on the Ultimate Cop-Out(tm)? yeah a few million is a *bargain* for what this thing can do. None of the people involved in this project are actually interested in the predictions. What they are interested in is that the *next* time they have a royal screw up, they can say: "well, its unfortunate this happened, but you see, we have really smart supercomputer. It has 3-D and stuff. And it tells us what is most likely to happen. This wasn't on the list. We only have limited resources, and this is the best way to focus those resources where they are most likely to be doing us good".
Its the ultimate repudiation. As far as I can predict, they will spend lots and lots more money on this, get some buddies in on the gravy train somewhere to boot, and they still got themselves a bargain.
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
"...and the aftermath of natural disasters, such as Katrina."
Dealing with the aftermath of Katrina wasn't a matter of applying rocket science. It was simply a matter of simple logistics and a government that gives a shit about people. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has shown time and again under this administration that it could care less for the lives of its citizens, let alone the citizens of other countries. These problems can't be fixed by software. They can only be fixed by real leadership, something the people of the U.S. haven't shown much interest in electing...
It doesn't take software to predict that going into Iraq was a huge mistake. Just ask Chaney circa 1994. He knew it would be a major mistake, and he wasn't the only one. A lot of us were yelling and screaming to stop it before it started...
Software can't predict the future nor can they predict what stupid leaders will do. On Sept 10th, could anyone (or more importantly, any software) predict what things would be like in this country today? Even remotely? The war in Iraq, a country completely disconnected from 9/11. Guantanamo, spying on our citizens and other erosions of liberty... I doubt it. A single event and the responses by inept leadership led to a variety of disasters that nothing and nobody could have predicted.
If the system is stable, you iterate until the error is negligible. If it's unstable, you spend your grant money on hookers, blow, and a ticket to Mexico, though perhaps not in that order.
You see.
People will trust the answer a bit of software gives them when they won't trust exactly the same answer, calculated in exactly the same way but presented by the same expert who wrote the software in the first place...
Particularly if the software system cost 8+ figures.
Deleted
Major: Sir, the computer has given us a plausible scenario for operation Sandy Whirlwind
General: OK Major, lets see what this pile of junk has to say for itself
Major: It says that we can overcome all undesirable outcomes by sending in CL22 using a classic scissor movement.
General: Let me see that! How did the computer even know about CL22, our crack regiment of killer circus clowns! That's amazing!
Major: There's more sir. It also talks about project CC.
General: Project CC! The stealth car capable of carrying thousands of CL22 troops in a vehicle the same size as Robin Reliant? How did the computer even know about that project, it's only been discussed between myself and my 2 year old daughter!
Major: This program is amazing sir. Have another star.
Task Mangler
...good movie with Ben Affleck and Uma Thurman.
Tell the future and then make it happen...
But then there is the quantum physics problem of changing the outcome by observing it.
At what point do you prove the software actually works in a manner that doesn't lend to the creation or alteration of what would have been had it not been predicted in the first place?
Oh I know, 2.2 million to produce software to predict the future but nobody is allowed to see the results.
Or this is where computer become smarter than humans by making humans not need to think for themselves...Hmmm, some already don't and they apparently have loads of money...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They never heard of the chaos theory.
Deep Blue, the first computer program to beat a world chess champion, is an example of how ATRAP can respond to changing factors, Ten Eyck explained. "Every time its opponent made a move, Deep Blue recalculated all the possibilities and likely courses of action, eventually settling on the fittest move that would achieve its goal of winning the game."
However, chess is not an exact analogy because only two players are involved and the end goal is for one player to win.
In unstable areas, winning often means establishing an environment in which the factions co-exist in a win-win situation or at least in an equilibrium in which there are no rewards, and some penalties, for disturbing the status quo, Rozenblit said.
"Deep Blue is a good analogy because it illustrates the complexity of the problems, but in chess you have a finite court and a well-defined set of operations," Rozenblit added. "Therefore, a move constitutes a valid move.
But what we're dealing with now is a world with no rules, with infinite possibilities and moves that defy logic, such as total disregard for the basic instinct of self preservation."
Or maybe they have but are ignoring the fact it cannot be predicted. I like the last graf. It kind of says it all.
Oh well, good luck on that one.
qz
Your analysis seems valid, for situations that are relatively stable. For system which are in flux (such as in a combat area), reality is substantially more fluid than, say, the traffic patterns in Queens.
It takes events like 9/11, or the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, to adjust the normal state of affairs. In a flux situation, small actions (and individual actors) can cause tremendous instability...or crystalization, depending.
A nice analogy when people think computers can make decisions or have "Artificial Intelligence" of any merit.
Pupil (Excited about AI):- I have just written a programme that writes music in the style of JS Bach.
Tutor (Seen it all before):- Really? How does that work then?
Pupil:- I programmed all of the known manuscripts by Bach and the computer uses that to write new compositions.
Tutor:- Great, can it write in the style of Mozart?
Pupil:- Sure, give me all the compositions by Mozart and I'll show you.
Tutor:- You mis-understand, can it decide, of it's own volition, to write in the style of Mozart.
Pupil:- Well, no it needs to base it's composition on something.
Tutor:- It has the entire works of Bach, is that not enough?
Pupil:- No, it needs the entire works of Mozart to write in the style of Mozart. Hell, even music students need to have heard Mozart in order to write in the style of Mozart.
Tutor:- Oh, so how did Mozart do it then?
America, Home of the Brave.
Two money quotes from TFA:
Note especially the text I bolded. This assumes that "normal logic" predicts actions that conform to American cultural and ideological biases.
This is not about predicting truly unpredictable behavior. This is about predicting behavior that is perfectly logical from the viewpoint of the people doing it. US planners can't admit that the behavior is logical, because that would be granting rational legitimacy to opposing US government policy, and that would mean admitting that the US is not always right.
This project would never have been thought of if we tried to understand our opponents instead of demonizing them. This project is only necessary because the US is committed to pretending that only irrational people oppose US policies.
If, for example, Americans understood how Muslims feel about the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina being defended by infidel soldiers, they wouldn't be so quick to call bin Ladin and al Qaeda irrational.
US writers like Thomas Friedman and Victor Davis Hansen try to diagnose militant Islam as "irrationality" and "immaturity," because they refuse to consider that anyone might have rational reasons for opposing US military and commercial power, or for trying to defend their traditional culture and religion from US cultural influence.
Note that I am not saying that America's enemies are "right." This is not about right or wrong; this is about competing political and cultural interests.
Whatever money is going into this project would be better spent on hiring more State Department people who speak foreign languages and understand foreign cultures.Not true.
Giving kids everything they could possible need makes them _spoiled_
Giving kids everything they could possibly want makes them _entitled_
Eventually, a kid will need to get things they need by themselves. Delaying a kid's recognition of this fact will make them spoiled (at least a little bit in the best case). In addition, giving everything they could need will deprive the kid of the ambition and self confidence they would gain from doing the things they need to get done by themselves. Of course as a parent, it's purdent to provide a safety net in case things don't work out as expected and it doesn't hurt to give them _some_ things that they need or want, but there needs to be something that kid needs to do to grow up and be a contributing member of society (and it seems to me that that's a parent's primary job).
Of course another way to approach this is to want your kid to be dependent on you for all their needs the rest of their lives (I know parents that desire this type of outcome, so it's not actually a rhetorical statement).
Feel free to substitute parent-kid with government-citizen at your convenience...