zenpundit.com

[ by Charles Cameron — a computer “plays” Mario Bros while a robot demonstrates “Bushido” ]
.

Two stunning videos:

and:

**

Justin Seitz turned me onto the Super Mario World video with this tweet:

This AI Used 'Neuroevolution' to Teach Itself How to Play 'Super Mario World' http://t.co/WQEcWswTm6 <- coolest article of 2015 so far

— Justin Seitz (@jms_dot_py) June 16, 2015

I’m one of those obstructionists who wouldn’t say the AI was “playing” — but that’s the hard problem in consciousness for you. I wonder what my friends Mike Sellers and Chris Bateman would have to say..

And no, I wouldn’t call the robotic slicing and dicing “Bushido” either. From the Hagakure:

There is something to be learned from a rainstorm. When meeting with a sudden shower, you try not to get wet and run quickly along the road. But doing such things as passing under the eaves of houses, you still get wet. When you are resolved from the beginning, you will not be perplexed, though you will still get the same soaking. This understanding extends to everything.

Has the Yaskawa Bushido Project learned from rainstorms?

Indirectly, I suppose. But there you go.

**

Interesting that John Holland, the “father of genetic algorithms”, described his life’s work as a Glass Bead Game, eh?

[by Mark Safranski, a.k.a. “zen“]

Pete Turner of The Break it Down Show had a powerful post that encapsulated what is wrong with the American approach to intervention in foreign societies, both in terms of our aid and development programs as well as COIN and military assistance of various kinds.

Collection Center Collects Instability 

….A good example of what we did involves things called Collection Centers, which our government built to afford Afghan farmers a place to showcase products to vendors. The Center is supposed to create greater revenue for farmers. Despite the best of intent, and a lot of hard work, the program was and remains an utter disaster.

Why has the program been such a flop?

We, the US, came in and established these centers without ever considering how the existing system worked. We never bothered to determine how changing the system might be accepted or rejected, or cause harm to those we intended to help. We didn’t consider if the Afghans even had a system (which, of course, they did).

Instead of defining the existing system and assessing whether or how our tool might address a need, we just came in and started changing things It didn’t work, and we barely cared that it didn’t; and we reported the opposite.-–

An aside–the if you read the report, look for mentions of Afghan involvement in the process. You won’t find it.  

I spoke with an Army Major in charge of the program and asked him about the existing local market chain from grower to consumer. He admitted that he didn’t know about it. When I asked why he was trying to change it, I was met with silence.

We also never considered if we were creating a harmful situation for farmers, and that ignorance caused unexpected and undesirable outcomes. At the most basic level, Taliban fighters notice “western” influence. A farmer who uses (though they never actually did) the collection center is exposing his allegiance with the US and therefore putting his family and himself in jeopardy. Further, the farmer buyer relationship is established relationship. Changing the nature of their transaction is reckless in such a conservative, Taliban influenced place. What we can’t do is create a situation that is perceived to increase uncertainty for farmers.

We built these centers throughout Afghanistan. At every instance, covering multiple units, I observed the same poor US decision-making. We never bothered to involve our Afghan partners in the decisions and never allowed them to guide us on how to work within their system. We forced these centers upon the people of Afghanistan, and wasted more than money and resources in the process. We wasted opportunities to actually improve the lot of the farmer, which makes de-legitimizing the Taliban fighters more challenging.

Read the whole post here.

Turner wore many different hats in Iraq and Afghanistan but in one extended tour in Zabul, Pete worked closely with political science Professor Richard Ledet, who in addition to his scholarly expertise, was uncannily good at donning local attire and blending in with Afghan villagers.

Dr. Richard Ledet

Turner and his partner Jon, interviewed Ledet recently on their program:

What happens when an institution attempts to make changes intending to improve the lot of others? What if they ignore culture and fail to communicate with the people designed to receive a benefit from the change? We address these questions in ourepisode with Dr. Richard Ledet.

We are fans of Rich. He’s a warrior, professor, surfer, hunter, all-around brilliant, rugged dude. His current gig is working as a Poli Sci professor at Troy University in Troy Alabama. Rich and I worked together in Afghanistan studying how effective or “affective” our work was as US assets helping Afghans. It’s not common for Poli Sci professors to get so close to the ground truth, and then to be able to test our policy and strategic programs as they implemented at the lowest level. This experience, we believe, is fascinating and applies directly to the real world.

Listen to the interview here on The Break it Down Show.

[ by Charles Cameron — miracle in Egypt, human perfection in Russia ]
.

Vladimir Putin says he has never made a mistake because God wanted him to be perfect http://t.co/ZwDu0bnekk pic.twitter.com/CpxSi1srjP

— The Independent (@Independent) June 10, 2015

It’s not entirely clear, then, why he would need to be “shriven ” — have his confession heard and be granted absolution — by Abbot Ephraim

To be fair, though — Putin‘s exact words, as reported in the body of the Independent post:

It appears that the Lord built my life in a way that I have nothing to regret.

Not quite the same thing as “God wanted him to be perfect” — although, doesn’t God want that for everyone? Matthew 5.48, at least in the King James version.

**

Meanwhile in Egypt:

Egypt mosque preacher: a man's tongue was paralysed when he tried to pray against Sisi, who then appeared in a vision http://t.co/55hEjmBLyC

— Samer Al-Atrush (@SameralAtrush) June 10, 2015

[ by Charles Cameron — where two negatives (OPM and Secret Service) may make an ironic positive — a DoubleTweet ]
.

On the one hand…

“@washingtonpost: Secret Service officers at White House lacked security clearances, officials say http://t.co/KkFANbdoCv”

— Mike Walker (@New_Narrative) June 10, 2015

— while on the other…

When you get a security clearance, deal is: You keep USG's secrets & they keep yours. One-half of that is now broken. http://t.co/E7YhFCFeTQ

— John Schindler (@20committee) June 8, 2015

Taken separatedly, they’re both on the sinister side — but together, almost dextrous?

[ by Charles Cameron — because integrity is so crucial, and because this point so richly deserves repeating ]
.

Leah in a Sources & Methods podcast, talking about her work as a counter-terrorism analyst, as the co-author of her book with Mustafa Hamid, The Arabs at War in Afghanistan, and as an academic:

You have to be very sure of your own strengths and weaknesses, and what you will and won’t tolerate, and the consequences of that. It sounds silly, but if you’re not prepared to lower your standards, for example, if the integrity of your work is something you value above all else, be prepared to be blacklisted. I’ve pulled things from high-profile publications because they’ve insisted on using words that would misrepresent something so badly that subject matter experts would say ‘what the hell.’ Now, that’s my commitment, that’s a personal commitment, but that’s come with a cost. And to anybody coming into the academic field, be aware of that type of stuff. Be aware of what it is you will commit to, and what it is you won’t. Because there is going to come a time where you will have to make a choice – do you surrender some of that integrity?

And Boyd, in an anecdote that will be familiar to many Zenpundit readers:

“Tiger,” he would say, “one day you will come to a fork in the road. And you’re going to have to make a decision about which direction you want to go.” He raised his hand and pointed. “If you go that way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get promoted and you will get good assignments.” Then Boyd raised his other hand and pointed another direction. “Or you can go that way and you can do something — something for your country and for your Air Force and for yourself. If you decide you want to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not get the good assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your superiors. But you won’t have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference. To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That’s when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?