Background

New Zealand introduced “National Standards” last year. In the past, the curriculum talked about competencies and learning areas in general terms and defined stages through which children would pass. It didn’t say “at this age, children should be able to do X”. That was the gap that National Standards filled. The debate has been around timing (too fast) and how those standard age-based skills were arrived at (not soundly).

It’s important to note that National Standards is not standardised assessment. That is, it’s not the same test taken by every child once a year to determine what the child can do. Instead, teachers use their professional judgement to assess the child however they want, and work together to ensure that all children are assessed in roughly the same way. This process of working together to ensure that a kid in Paihia and a kid in Dunedin are being assessed on the same grounds is called “moderation”.

Failing Schools

I’ve believed for the last year that National Standards would be used to identify “failing” schools and those schools will then be punished instead of supported. Schools are required to report on performance against National Standards, and these reports can (and will) be gathered and sorted into “league tables”. Those at the bottom of the league tables (those with the most kids not reading at or above age expectation) will be labelled “failing” and given fewer funds to motivate the staff and board (and perhaps parents) to change for the better.

On the surface, this sounds reasonable. Kids should know stuff, and schools should be pushed hard to improve if they’re not doing right by their kids. The question is whether this is an accurate measure of “not doing right by their kids”, and whether this push will cause the schools to improve.

If you ask people what they want their kids to be when they leave school, they talk about: confident, healthy, knowledgeable, independent learners, financially literate, curious, creative, global in outlook, aware of their history, comfortable moving between the cultures in the community, fluent public speakers, and so on. All this is covered in the New Zealand Curriculum’s key competencies: thinking, using language, managing self, relating to others, participating and contributing. National Standards only looks at one and a half aspects (“thinking” and “using language”, both important but very narrowly interpreted) and completely omit the others.

So you’ve got two failure modes here: you can have capable confident curious kids who don’t know stuff they should, and kids who can recite the Kings of England but who can’t think independently to save themselves. Both exist and both are problems to be solved. Ranking on National Standards won’t identify the Kings of England problem, and if we want the independent creative financially-literate entrepreneurs who will lift NZ out of its economic malaise, we won’t get them if the grammar schools continue to churn out graduating classes full of children skilled in regurgitation and not digestion.

I think National Standards will successfully identify children who don’t know the stuff they should by their age. What’s needed to turn that around? Sometimes teaching is the problem. But research has repeatedly shown (see John Hattie’s “Visible Learning”) that most of a child’s progress in the year is a result of what they knew at the start of the year and what happens at home. A minority of the possible improvement in kids’ knowledge is a result of what happens at school.

Fixing Failure

So it’s entirely possible that we’ll end up identifying schools in poor areas as having children who don’t progress as rapidly as children in rich areas. This is hardly an earth-shattering conclusion. The question is: what will we do to make change?

A great school can change its environment. Pt England primary school has raised literacy in its entire community. Great schools like this are rare. How can we make more?

The Government today announced the introduction of charter schools, the first such intervention. The upside is pretty good: if a public school isn’t doing well and hasn’t improved over years, then let private or charitable groups to start a new one in competition, with latitude on employment and curriculum that public schools don’t current enjoy. Then parents have choice, can vote with their feet, and the worse school will be starved of pupils and die.

That’s the upside. I’d love to think that we’ll get more Russell and Dorothy Burts starting charter schools that have the effect of a Point England school. That’d be fantastic.

Failing Fixes

The problem is that while there is massive effort to identify and contain the failures of public schools, I don’t see the same thought being put into the downsides of charter schools. That is, if a charter school fails, how will we know and what will we do about it? “Charter schools will be accountable to school sponsors and subject to external review” seems rather vague.

What failure modes might there be? A charter school might not meet national standards. It might omit sex education or teach a bizarre version of it such as abstinence. It might include religious education, so a pupil is forced to be indoctrinated into a different religion in order to get a decent education. It might omit “relating to others” and “participating and contributing” in favour of creating kids who can recite the Kings of England and regurgitate an essay on the use of symbolism in Hamlet.

What’s really frustrating is that we already have a mechanism for assessing and improving schools: the Education Review Office. ERO just finished visiting our school, and dinged us on some things we weren’t doing well. They offered us assistance to improve, and we will. ERO even have the power to depose the board and principal and install a commissioner to run the school and reform the governance and administration (they did that a decade ago for our school, and it worked). Schools have tremendous freedom to meet their communities’ needs (Albany Senior High with its Googlish 20% time, and Auckland Grammar School with its British prep school aspirations are both NZ public schools). What exactly was wrong with that system that requires charter schools?

How is the solution to “this school is failing National Standards” to create a school with “more freedom to set the curriculum” and the ability to hire untrained teachers?

Failure to Fix

This disconnect between National Standards and charter schools is what frustrates me. You’ve got National Standards used as evidence of a problem, and charter schools as a cure that won’t necessarily fix the problem.

It’s hard not to see this as working backwards from a system the politicians want to see in place (charter and private schools), and National Standards with the language of “failing schools” used to justify the installation of that system.

Underneath is the belief that business can and will do everything better than government. This is, however, far from universally accepted (“everything”, really?) and far from necessarily applicable to education. Businesses have their failure modes too (cf Telecom, Enron, News of the World, and any number of finance companies) and should be guarded against as vigorously as public school failures are.

Forced Failure

What I ultimately fear, yet predict, is the introduction of what in America is referred to (without irony!) as “No Child Left Behind”. The process: test often, rank according to test results, those at the bottom of the test results are “failing” and therefore deserve to be punished, so withhold funds, and eventually starve them in favour of semi- or fully-private schools. Americans don’t compare well academically to Kiwis and it seems unwise to import this model (see, for example, OECD’s PISA scores where our kids do better in school but don’t stay in school as long).

How would we get there? We’ve got National Standards with no standardised testing. After a year or two it’ll be possible to say “moderation is blurring the numbers, there’s too much uncertainty and room for fudging, we need the clarity of standardised assessment” and in will come annual national tests. At that point we’re doing what one 19th century reformer called “continually pulling up the plants to see the condition of the roots, the consequence of which is that all good natural growth was stopped.”

I’ll wager a pint of Guinness that within 5 years we’re punishing “failing” schools and talking about, if not living, standardised assessment instead of moderation.

Links:

• Network Neutrality: Save The Internet, U.S. Court Curbs FCC Authority on Web Traffic, Wired’s coverage, the End-to-End Principle.
• iPad: iPad, Nine Banned iPhone Apps, iPad censors SPERM, But Will It Blend?

Network Neutrality

Is your ISP allowed to mess with your Internet traffic? We pay them to connect to the Internet, but in America they want to do more. They want the ability to treat some traffic different from others. For example, to say to Google and Microsoft “who will pay me to make their web traffic go faster to our customers?”

Now, that runs contrary to what we expect. We expect best efforts unprioritised service, where our ISP delivers everything as fast as they can. The only way they could make Google’s traffic faster is if they made everyone else’s go slower. It’s a form of extortion.

This also breaks an important principle of the Internet, called the “end-to-end principle”. The intelligent decision-making cleverness in the Internet always sits on the ends of the Internet and the center of the Internet is a “dumb pipe”. It just delivers stuff. So the same dumb pipe does the same dumb things regardless of whether you send email to Radio New Zealand, if you visit the Radio New Zealand web site, or if you have a Skype call with someone at Radio New Zealand.

Think for a second of what it would be like to have all the smarts in the network. Only the companies who run the network could innovate. That means we’d have had to wait for Telecom or Orcon to develop the web or Skype. Or, more likely, for someone else to develop it and then slowly and expensively sell it to the telecommunications companies who’d then badly and expensively sell it to us.

Fortunately that’s not how it worked. The clever folks who built Skype (a Swede and a Dane) were able to do so without having to talk to the telecommunications companies. Because, really, do you think a phone company would ever have developed something that let you talk long-distance for free? The Skype folks only had to get Skype running on two computers, both of which they controlled, and never had to speak to the Swedish or Danish equivalent of Telecom.

Naturally, the ISPs around the world don’t like this, particularly in America. They don’t like being sidelined while other people (Skype, Google, etc.) make lots of the money. So they came up with an idea for a shakedown: let’s make the buggers pay! It’s basic extortion tactics: we’ll make your traffic go slow unless you pay up. It almost sounds right, until you realise that they want to charge BOTH sides of everything you do on the Internet. So when I’m in Colorado, I pay my Colorado ISP to connect to the Internet. Google’s paid their ISP to connect to the Internet. But my ISP wants Google to pay it as well! It’s like the post office charging the sender AND recipient of the letter.

There are other bad scenarios possible, too, laid out in the Wired article I linked to:
A broadband company could, for instance, ink a deal with Microsoft to transfer all attempts to reach Google.com to Bing.com. The only recourse a user would have, under the ruling, would be to switch to a different provider — assuming, of course, they had an alternative to switch to.

Companies can also now prohibit you from using a wireless router you bought at the store, forcing you to use one they rent out — just as they do with cable boxes. They could also decide to charge you a fee every time you upgrade your computer, or even block you from using certain models, just as the nation’s mobile phone carriers do today.

When computer companies got wind of this, they and user associations started a campaign for “network neutrality” — the idea that ISPs should stick to moving my Internet traffic around as fast as they can and not shake down the people I connect to.

There’s a US Government Agency, the Federal Communications Commission, which was established to control radio stations. They’ve extended their control to TV as well: it’s the FCC that fines TV companies when they air “wardrobe malfunctions” or swear words on free-to-air TV. They presumed they had the right to regulate the Internet, too, and laid down some basic “thou shalt not” rules for the US companies that provide Internet access. These rules were challenged by a US ISP, Comcast, which said basically “no, you don’t have the right to regulate Internet access”. A US court just ruled that the FCC didn’t make a good case that it could.

What does that mean for us in NZ? Nothing immediately, as we have our own regulatory agency (the Commerce Commission) but you can bet your last cent that our ISPs are watching with interest what happens in America. The possibility of double-charging will be very interesting to them. So we Internet folks are closely watching the US to see what’ll happen.

What will happen? At the moment the FCC is figuring out how to proceed–the court didn’t say “you can’t regulate”, just “you didn’t make a good argument that you can” and it hinted at some lines of reasoning that might be better. The best option is for the US Congress (the US equivalent of Parliament) to give the agency the right to regulate Internet access. The worst is for the FCC to classify the Internet as a “telecommunications service”. At the moment it’s an “information service” which puts it into the private market and out of the reach of the regulators.

Why can’t we just let the market decide? The consumer is the one who would have to change ISPs if the market were to speak about this, but remember that it’s not the consumer that’s being shaken down–it’s the Google or Microsoft or Radio New Zealand. It’s also not clear that a new neutral ISP could be competitive, as the gouging ISPs are all integrated Internet-voice-cable TV companies with huge scale letting them offer lower prices.

So I’ll be watching this one and hoping NZ telcos don’t decide to be “world leaders” in interfering with their customers’ service.

iPad, Apple, and Trading Power for Convenience

Apple released its latest shiny this week, the iPad. It’s a bigger iPhone, nine inches by seven — a bit smaller than A4 in size but larger than a paperback. Light, with Wifi and mobile Internet, GPS, accelerometer and all manner of other goodness. No keyboard, it’s a touch-sensitive screen so if you want to type something then it shows you a picture of a keyboard and you type onto the picture. Yes, it’s weird, but it has worked on the iPhone and it apparently works better on the iPad. Prices start at USD500, and darn near everyone who has one is raving about it. Not for sale yet in New Zealand officially, but you can already pick them up on TradeMe.

But that’s the problem with Apple gear, isn’t it? There’s a set of people, a cult if you will, who love everything Apple and who will queue to buy the first of whatever new gadget they make. And make no bones about it, Apple make good products–they control every aspect and make sure it’s beautiful, elegant, functional, and desirable. But there’s a difference between good and good for you, and I’d like to talk about that for a bit.

Apple has a control complex. They’re not fond of the idea that someone else makes money off their computer hardware and software, and so they want to “clip the ticket” as much as possible. Think of the difference between the iPad and a MacBook computer.

On my Macbook, I can install any software I want. If someone writes software for the Mac, they put it up on their web site. I download and install it, a simple process, and then I can run it.

On an iPad or iPhone, I don’t have that freedom. Apple have the machine locked down. The only way you can get a program on an iPad or iPhone is if you buy it through the Apple “app” store. (app is short for “application”, a geeky word for “program”). If I write a program and want to sell it it you, you can’t get it unless you buy it through Apple’s store. If Apple won’t let you buy a program, you can’t get it on your iPad or iPhone.

But why would Apple do that? After all, they make money every time I buy a program! But there are all sorts of programs that Apple won’t allow. They’re very keen to maintain their devices as “family-friendly”, so anything to do with sex or profanity is in an “adult” section of the store. That’s okay, but sometimes they go a little far–the word “sperm” was censored in a description of a Moby Dick ebook app, which was apparently about the hunt for an s-star-star-star-m whale.

More seriously, Apple’s store won’t carry any apps that duplicate functionality in the device. Want a different web browser? Tough. Want Google Voice services instead of your phone’s built-in calling and texting? Want someone else’s maps? Tough. Want a BitTorrent app? Tough. Want something overtly political and partisan? Tough. I’ve linked to a site that lists a bunch of apps you’ll never see on the iPhone.

Apple’s approval process is also in-depth and comes with no guarantees of timeframe. So if I write a program that you download, then I discover a bug and fix it, it could be weeks before that fixed version is on the site for you to download. In the meantime, you’re cursing me for not fixing your program.

If all this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the same scenario we talked about with network neutrality. One company wants to sit in the middle and be a gatekeeper. In the case of ISPs, they have your connection to the Internet and want to tell you what you can and can’t do with it. In the case of Apple, they have the device and they want to tell you what you can and can’t run on it. The only difference is that there’s a strongly competitive market for smartphones and handheld gadget, and no government regulator.

How’s this going to play out? In the short term, the iPad and iPhone will be successful. But in the long term, there’ll be competitive devices that aren’t locked down the way they are. They might be based on Google’s “Android” technology, it might be something else, but my money is always on fast-breeding innovative mammals when the option is slow-moving pea-brained dinosaurs.

I’ve also linked to a clip of a man from an industrial blender company answering the question “will it blend?”. It’s the only possible antidote to all the sickly iPad cooing that’s over the Internet at the moment. Enjoy!

It seems bizarre at first, but the draft is laid out like a spreadsheet: one article per row and with three columns, one each for the US/Japan version, the EU version, and comments. Inside each sentence square brackets mark the attributed proposed alternatives for language. From this we can tell some very interesting things about the New Zealand position:

• NZ negotiators are keen on the wording “copyright and related rights and trademarks” rather than the US’s catch-all “intellectual property”. Richard Stallman has a well-written article on why “intellectual property” is a dangerous illusion. (Namely, it covers some very different pieces of law with different intents, terms, scope, and applicability)
• NZ negotiators are keen to keep the Copyright Tribunal option open. After Section 92a collapsed last year, the government consulted and has proposed a nuanced and good proposal that balances ease of complaint against risk of false accusation, giving the Copyright Tribunal the ability to hear complaints and award fines of up to $15,000. A 6-month suspension of Internet access and larger fines remain the domain of the courts. The US proposed language is all about “judicial authorities”, so New Zealand has proposed “competent authorities”. This is good–it shows that the government is serious about the Copyright Tribunal part of the new Copyright Bill and is not simply mooting it knowing that it will be overruled by ACTA.
• NZ negotiators are aware of the US desire to turn litigation into a revenue stream. They’ve opposed the US language “in the case of patent infringement, damages adequate to compensate for the infringement shall not be less than a reasonable royalty”, although interestingly NZ only supports this being stricken from the US proposal not from the EU proposal. The EU negotiators’ comments are fascinating: “The EU sticks on the concept that damage compensates all the prejudice but only the prejudice. Neither ‘punitive damages’ nor ‘future prejudice’ is acceptable”.
• NZ negotiators are keen to prevent the situation where someone joins a filesharing network, grabs an album, and is hit with a $100,000 penalty. Their wording supports flexibility when copyright damages are set: the authorities may consider lost profits (as opposed to the US wording shall) and NZ suggested the authorities consider retail price as well. The US wants each country to set up a system of pre-established damages and guidelines for calculating the penalties (oh, say, number of copies times profit we say we would havemade), and give the rightsholder the choice of using that formula instead of letting a judge award penalties. NZ wants this to be optional, not mandatory.
• Pirated or counterfeit items will be removed from sale or distribution, and NZ would also like them to be surrendered to the rightsholder (so Mattel get the knock-off Barbie dolls). The machinery used to manufacture the pirated or counterfeit goods is also forfeited, which NZ raises no objection to. It’s unclear to me whether this applies to computers used in copyright infringements.
• NZ supports deleting the article which says that when you’re found guilty of infringement, your identity and the identity of others involved in the infringement and distribution are turned over to the rightsholder.
• NZ is questioning the scope of the term “online service provider”. As we’ve seen with S92A, the term “provider” might cover cafes, hospitals, employers, apartment building body corporates, families, even sites like Google and TradeMe. Clarity is essential.
• ISP and website liability is a hot topic. Some countries already hold service providers liable for what happens on that service (e.g., Italy’s prosecution of Google executives) while others give safe harbour to such providers. Section 4 says “what we said for the physical world also applies for the online, but countries can place limits on the liability of service providers under certain conditions”. Switzerland wants this optional, NZ wants to know why search engines deserve safe harbour. I hope they got their answer–Google’s programs index billions of web pages and there aren’t enough humans on the Internet to read and pre-qualify pages before they go online.
• There’s an interesting clause that would prevent service provider safe harbours from being made conditional on proactive monitoring. That is to say, a country wouldn’t be able to say “oh sure, you can have safe harbour, but you have to be reading everything your users do and you lose it if you’re not searching all their traffic.” There’s a NZ objection here, but it’s unclear to me whether it’s to the whole provision or just the language.
• NZ is the white knight when it comes to anti-circumvention legislation. The ACTA draft contains proposed text saying that if you make or use a tool that breaks “technical protection measures” (DRM) then you’re breaking the law. The NZ negotiators point out that DRM is out of scope for ACTA, but even if it were in-scope there’s still public domain material locked behind DRMs and breaking such DRM shouldn’t be against the law. The paragraphs are beautiful. I quote them here:
  

  NZ: The paragraphs refer to “adequate legal protection” as well as remedies, which is inconsistent [with] the objective of ACTA to establish standards for the enforcement of intellectual property rights and the ACTA discussion paper. In particular, we note that the discussion paper refers only to parties providing “remedies against circumvention of technological protection measures used by copyright owners and the trafficking of circumvention devices.”

  New Zealand does not support protection being mandated against circumvention of TPMs where the underlying work is not protected by copyright. In particular, we do not support protection against circumvention of access control TPMs because access control is not an exclusive right given to copyright owners.

• There’s an odd section about preserving electronic rights management information. I assume it’s meant to preserve owner and license information, but I’m not really clear on the situations that motivated this section. NZ opposes extending protection of RMIs to cover information about performances or the producer of a phonogram.

On the balance this bit isn’t too bad–New Zealand is a good voice for sanity in the negotiations. I have to qualify my assessment in two ways, though:

1. I’m not a lawyer. I may have misread the complex document. I’m not intimately familiar with the current legislation, so I may have overlooked a situation where the negotiated text will throw out a freedom that we currently have (e.g., format shifting).
2. I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about how specific technology might interact with the proposed treaty. For example, do I run foul of the Rights Management Information protections if I rip a CD and don’t add in title, composer, etc. information?

This treaty is going to need a lot of close examination from people who can read the legal language and yet who are intimately familiar with the possibilities and opportunities of technology. This is why negotiation in secret is a bad idea–our country won’t benefit from the knowledge of experts until the text is set in stone. We’ll get something that likely has flaws, but we’ll have to approve or reject it “warts and all”.

1. First, I have to applaud the industry getting together to try and figure out how it can help the rest of NZ grow. The most exciting conversation at the short-lived Digital Development Council was when agriculture and manufacturing and other industries had an honest conversation with representatives of the ICT industry without being sidetracked into the failures or benefits of particular products or vendors.
2. Second, I applaud the idea that ICT can contribute to the lift in national economic performance that the government wants. Lately I’ve been thinking that there are three critical parts to NZ’s industries doing better: (1) make better use of ICT, (2) develop a global focus so our businesses don’t plateau once they get comfortable in the domestic market, (3) lift the skills of the people in leadership and management so that they can deliver on (1) and (2) without shitting on their feet as has happened all too often in the past. The report addresses (1) but I’d say that all three must be tackled together.
3. I don’t like the high-level generalities of the NZICT report. It’s their first report and in many ways is a stake in the ground to say “we’re here, we’re doing good things, we’re on the right side”. That would explain the vague parroting of political objectives (“step-change” is the new “sustainability”). The report is cannily aligned with political objectives (broadband, more efficient public sector, education, R&D) but many of the recommendations are little more than “we will work with you on what you’re already doing in these areas”. Government needs to be shown specific opportunities (e.g., “look to open source database alternatives in these situations”), and there are precious few specifics here.
4. And where there are specifics, they’re not great. For example:
   

   There  has  been  a  move  to  a  more  centralised  approach  to  Government  ICT strategy  managed  by  the Government Technology Services  group  within  the Department  of  Internal  Affairs. NZICT supports this centralised planning approach. It should clarify the strategic objectives of Government ICT spend, and enable consequent research and development opportunities for the industry to take. 

   NZICT proposes that the Government make an “Annual Statement of ICT Priorities”. This will enable transparency, certainty and direction of public sector ICT spending for all stakeholders involved. It will also encourage private sector investment, including research and development. This will stimulate ICT based innovation within the economy.

   Some problems with this: (1) annual is not a timeframe for strategic thought, it’s tactical; (2) annual is not a R&D timeframe, it’s a sales cycle; (3) it’s unclear that an annually-changing long-term strategy would provide any more certainty to investment than exists now; (4) the problem that this would solve isn’t clearly defined. This last failing is near-universal. Very few of the paper’s many recommendations come with a problem statement, and solutions to unknown or poorly-specified problems often turn out to be timebombs, turkeys, or turds.

5. I’m also aware that NZICT is an industry lobby group and as such its offers and advice should be taken with a grain of salt. New Zealand has precious few independent economic voices (New Zealand Institute has served admirably in the past), and NZICT is not one of them. “NZICT  will  establish  a  working  group  with  the Government Technology Services group of the Department of Internal Affairs to develop a programme for improving public sector ICT efficiency, including operational and process cost reduction to an agreed plan and targets” could be read by a cynic as “NZICT members will have privileged access to centralised government IT planners and buyers, bypassing or rendering moot a procurement process that attempts to provide a level playing field”.

So, like most things, it’s a mixed bag. I’d give them 6/10 for speaking with a single voice in such tight harmony with the government’s stated policies. There’s still work to be done in producing something that’s useful, rather than a positioning paper, but this is a promising first step from a new industry lobby group.

Below are my notes. I prepare a small essay on the subjects I’m talking about because it helps me get my thoughts straight. We often deviate from the topic of my notes (as we did today with the long sidetrack into artificial intelligence). I look at my notes as where the conversation starts, not where it stops.

Links

• http://robotic.media.mit.edu/projects/robots/leonardo/overview/overview.html
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilmDN2e_Flc
• http://onyas.org.nz/
• http://it.usaspending.gov/
• http://opengovt.org.nz/

EMOTIONAL ROBOTS

Ok, so first thing first: there are plenty of robots around us already. I’m not talking about Jim from Accounting whose only conversational gambit is marginal tax rates, but wires and metal machines. They make our cars, they pack our coffee beans, they sort our kiwifruit. But those are industrial robots. There are also military robots, blowing up roadside bombs and flying scout planes, but I’m not going to talk about them. I’ll talk about the softer, gentler, side of robots.

As is often the case, MIT are to blame. They have a Personal Robots group working on making robots that can interact with us as people, rather than just vacuum our carpets and blow up our bombs. Here are a couple of the cooler projects.

Leonardo looks like a Ewok from Star Wars: furry, pointed ears, big wide eyes. Leonardo was built by the Stan Winston studio. Stan Winston is famous for the creatures and make-up effects in Terminator, Predator, Batman, and other big Hollywood movies. Leonardo is a robotic toy, named after da Vinci of course, about 2.5 feet tall.

Brief diversion. A degree of freedom is something moving in one axis. Beckoning is one degree of freedom coming from a finger knuckle. Waggling your finger is a second degree, and comes from the joint where the finger attaches to the hand. Tapping your finger is a third degree of freedom, again coming from the joint with the hand.

Leonardo has 69 degrees of freedom, all provided by tiny motors. Most robot designers use degrees of freedom to tackle things like walking. 32 of Leonardo’s are in the face for lip curls, eyebrow waggles, forehead frowns, etc. There are something like 44 separate muscles that you generate facial expressions with, so Leonardo’s a long way along.

The goal is to make an *expressive* robot: something you can interact with beyond stilted voice synthesis (“I’M SORRY DAVE, I CAN’T DO THAT”). With Leonardo, and there are videos floating around the Internet–I’ve linked to one, you can forget that you’re looking at a robot. Briefly, of course, because the motors squeak and the movements are slower than a human’s, but that brief moment of “no wait, that’s not real” is priceless.

The project is based on social developmental psychology. Leonardo learns: in the video, a researcher shows an Elmo toy to Leonardo and gets excited. Leonardo gets excited back.

Researchers in computer graphics talk about something called the “uncanny valley”: you make crude computer graphics and everyone goes “oh, that’s computer generated”. But as it gets better and better, closer and closer to reality, there comes at point at which you can still tell it’s computer generated but it’s so close to real that it’s creepy. Presumably you can make it better and then nobody could tell it was fake. But between perfect and crude lies this “uncanny valley”. Leonardo is in that uncanny valley, if not there already.

Here’s something I found on a blog, someone less impressed with Leonardo:
“For some reason I can’t look at MIT’s Leonardo robot without an involuntary shudder – I think it’s the lifelike fur and the evil, calculating eyes. I still think it looks like an evil squirrel monster.”

If nothing else, though, watching the Leonardo video should convince you that we’re a long way from Terminator and the evil robot overlords walking among us.

Kiwi Web Awards

The Onyas launched last week (as in “good onya”). They’re awards for New Zealand web sites showing the best design, accessibility, usability, etc. This is brought to you by the people behind Webstock, the most awesomest web conference ever (in the words of many American visitors). Rather than the consumer-choice Netguide awards, which reflect popularity but not necessarily excellence, the Onyas are by the industry and for the industry.

It’s sponsored by New Zealand Post, Idealog magazine, and a Kiwi web design company, Shift. This is another sign that New Zealand’s web industry is growing up and getting a sense of identity. Now we just have to make hope the award winners don’t get jobs overseas!

Categories include best mobile, accessible, usable, innovation, and “most outstanding”. There’s only one New Zealander on the judging panel, the rest are from overseas. That means the candidates will be held to high international standards, and won’t be seen through jaded Kiwi eyes.

Transparency

The US Government’s CIO just launched the “IT Dashboard”. The government here spends US $80B a year on IT projects. I think this year’s budget for the New Zealand government had total government expenditure at NZ $75B. So that’s a lot of money the US government are spending. Now citizens can see which projects this money went to, whether they’re on or behind schedule, whether the CIO is happy with them, and the contractor getting the money.

It’s a great idea, and something the Obama administration is doing more of. They’ve opened up the stimulus package at recovery.gov, so you can see where around the country the money went. The recovery web site got a lot of flak for not being detailed enough (you can see which state got the money, but often not which programs they wasted it on). This IT dashboard is a lot more detailed.

New Zealand needs more of this. The UK Government is moving towards it. Australia launched a “Gov 2.0 Task Force” with money to spend making these transparency projects happen. New Zealand … not a whistle. I started opengovt.org.nz to house these kinds of projects built outside the government, but it’s slow going because we don’t release a lot of the relevant transparency information.

A Kiwi technologist, Glen Barnes, started a project on opengovt to build a list of open government data, but the truly interesting stuff either isn’t opened or isn’t gathered in the first place. For example, I’m pretty sure the NZ Govt doesn’t gather the IT project progress information that the US Govt does, so it’s not there in the first place to be opened. Lift your game, Enzed!