Author Archives: Jan Barganowski

What will you be doing in 35 000 years?

Reading Time: 3 minutes

The year is 37 022. It’s a warm, sunny April morning in Scottsdale, Arizona and you’ve just woken up. You take a minute to think about the dream you’ve had, in which you crashed a brand new Mercedes into your neighbor’s house. After a while, you stand up and look out the window – but you’re discobombulated by what you see – the world as you know it is nowhere to be seen. As you ponder on the fact that you’ve just seen a flying box of metal blast past the window, you hear a voice. “Welcome back”, you hear, in a broken English accent. Then, you remember – you’ve just been unfrozen, and you’re at the Alcor cryopreservation clinic.

Perhaps this would be the human version of what two ancient worms experienced a few years ago, when they came back to life in a lab after being frozen for over 35 000 years in a permafrost.[1]

We’ve recently seen that it is possible for an organism to be resurrected after an extremely long period, while preserving all its life functions – as if nothing had happened. Of course, it is worth noting that Nematoda (the phylum to which these worms belong) are extremely tough and can survive extreme conditions.[2]

This discovery set the eyes of cryonics researchers alight. But what even is cryonics?

Well, it is the ‘science’ of cryopreserving humans, with hopes of reviving them when we have the technology to do so.[3] It’s actually been around for a few decades now, with the first documentation of such a procedure dating back to 1966.

Due to law constraints, a person wishing to have a shot at continuing their life somewhere down the line can only be frozen after being legally declared dead. Thus, while on deathbed, they have a team of cryopreservers ready to prepare the corpse for storage. One important part of the process is the injection of cryoprotectants into the bloodstream to prevent ice crystals from forming (such freezing is called vitrification). Then, the body is cooled to -196 degrees Celsius and stored in a vacuum-insulated dewar.[4] Theoretically, it could stay so for thousands of years.

Right now, there are almost 200 people being ‘stored’ at Alcor in Arizona[5], with over 1500 being reported to have made arrangements for preservation after their death. There are 4 cryonics facilities in the world, 3 in the U.S. and 1 in Russia. Cryopreservation is a costly process, though, and can cost upwards of 250 000 USD.[6]

Dewars storing bodies at Alcor in Scottsdale, Arizona

So far, there have been wildly unsuccessful attempts at bringing humans to life – in each case, there was horrific damage to the bodies (including ruptured organs), which seems way beyond repair with modern medical treatments.[7] It is not impossible that if we plan to unfreeze people, we first need to achieve biological reparation on a molecular level.

What is more, with the rise of transhumanist concepts[8], it might be an option to attach the brain of a person to a synthetic body, with far more capabilities than a regular human can even think of.

There is no way to predict whether successful unfreezing will be possible in the future, but with the current progress in technology, I’m leaning towards the opinion that eventually, we will be able to thaw someone safely. It might take us thousands of years (if we even manage to survive that long as a civilization), but hey – we didn’t have electricity until 300 years ago. There’s also the ethical concern of playing God and essentially defying the laws of nature. 

It would definitely be very hard for someone frozen in 2022 to suddenly find themselves in the distant future, where the world we know right now will no longer exist. This concept is very well illustrated in Cameron Crowe’s 2001 movie Vanilla Sky. Notably, there have been some quite well-known people opting for cryopreservation, like two founders of PayPal – Luke Nosek and Peter Thiel.[9]

Peter Thiel, one of PayPal’s founders

Would you ever consider being cryopreserved? Would you take the chance to find out what life will look like in the distant future? Perhaps you’ve always wanted a flying Porsche? Let me know your thoughts in the comments!

Until next time,

Jan


[1] https://allthatsinteresting.com/worms-frozen-resurrected

[2] https://www.pitchcare.com/news-media/nematodes-surviving-the-big-freeze.html

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryonics

[4] https://www.alcor.org/what-is-cryonics/

[5] https://journal.medizzy.com/almost-200-people-are-cryopreserved-in-arizona/

[6] https://www.alcor.org/library/required-costs-and-cryopreservation-funding-minimums/

[7] https://bigthink.com/the-future/cryonics-horror-stories/

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

[9] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/11098971/Peter-Thiel-the-billionaire-tech-entrepreneur-on-a-mission-to-cheat-death.html

Tagged

The Frank Sinatra song that not even Frank Sinatra heard

Reading Time: 4 minutes

As Christmas is fast approaching, we are starting to hear the holiday classics everywhere. From All I Want for Christmas at the Supermarket to Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree on the radio – Christmas songs are virtually unavoidable. 

But I’d like you to think of the artists behind these songs – most of Spotify’s Christmas Hits playlist[1] is comprised of songs recorded or written before the first manned mission to the Moon.

Naturally, many of the authors and performers listed in the credit sections of these songs are long gone – Bing Crosby died in 1977, Nat King Cole passed away in 1965 and Frank Sinatra departed in 1998. 

Frank Sinatra
source: http://enterate24.com/hace-104-anos-nacio-el-cantante-frank-sinatra/

It’s a shame that we won’t be able to hear any new songs from them.

But what if it doesn’t have to be that way?

That’s where OpenAI’s Jukebox comes into play.

Debuted in April 2020, the technology analysed over a million songs[2], along with their lyrics and metadata (release date, genre, mood) and is now capable of generating full tracks in the style of any well-known artist. The company shared a range of demos, designed to resemble artists such as Alan Jackson, Katy Perry, or Elvis Presley. Most notably though, the song that stands out is “Hot Tub Christmas”, in the style of Frank Sinatra. While the “recording” quality might not be perfect, the timbre of the “singer’s” voice is eerily similar to that of the legendary American singer.

Though the lyrics have been co-written by a language model and OpenAI researchers, the chord progressions and instrumental cohesion are very well replicated in the computer-generated mp3s. The team behind Jukebox is aware of the software’s faults, as “[…] the generated songs show local musical coherence, follow traditional chord patterns and can even feature impressive solos, we do not hear familiar larger musical structures such as choruses that repeat.”2

Jukebox doesn’t analyze the actual notes in the songs, but only relations between pitch over time. An upside of such an approach is the possibility of highly realistic human voice creation. For their future endeavors, OpenAI plans to integrate a note-to-MIDI technology which would detect the rhythms and exact notes, which would allow for a deeper, more natural, and precise song creation – perhaps with the use of software instruments or synthesizers for higher file and sound quality.

Jukebox, at this point, is treated by the music industry as a mere curiosity, with no real applications – even despite a new feature of creating an acapella file from user-generated lyrics being introduced. This dynamic might change in a relatively short time if Jukebox becomes able to create classically written songs, providing the notes, rhythms MIDI files behind them. With such possibilities, songwriters and producers could streamline their music creation processes and massively increase their output. 

The current market situation is visualized by the fact that most of the investments poured into creative AI come from Venture Capital and Tech Corporations – not from the Music Industry.[3]

At this point, it does not seem like any songwriter or producer jobs are endangered. High quality audio files have incredibly many timesteps which encode data – a standard 4-minute-long song in a .wav 44.1 kHz file will contain over 10 million timesteps.[4] Currently, a song needs to be almost fully produced and designed by a professional before being rendered into such a complicated audio file.

The process of AI art generation is slowly being integrated into commercial culture, with the generator Midjourney winning the Colorado State Fair Fine Arts Competition.[5] Jukebox and similar technologies are often criticized for taking away the humanity out of art, while some perceive it as an opportunity to augment their creations through technology.[6]

“Théâtre D’opéra Spatial” – the AI-generated, contest winning piece of art
source: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/03/tech/ai-art-fair-winner-controversy/index.html

To me, it seems inevitable that Artificial Intelligence will be widely used in the music industry – major labels will push for anything that can give them a competitive edge in business. 

We must also take into consideration the legal implications of Jukebox.[7] Our laws don’t include AI “artists” and thus, there might be copyright implications. Who is the de facto author of such a song? The AI developer, or the person who entered prompts into the technology to create a specific tune? How do we split royalties for such songs? Furthermore, is it acceptable ethically to expand dead artists’ catalogues?

In conclusion: AI is slowly entering into creative arts, especially the music industry, thus expanding songwriters’ and producers’ output and possibilities. It appears that in this case, the risk of actual people being replaced by technology is lower than in easily automated and routine operations. 

This time, I’ll ask the classic question: do you think that AI art is proper art? Should it be publicly disclosed that a song or a painting was generated through Artificial Intelligence?

Let me know what you think in the comments!

Until next time,

Jan 


[1] https://open.spotify.com/playlist/37i9dQZF1DX0Yxoavh5qJV?si=d4fa601b2c3f4418

[2] https://www.cnet.com/science/these-ai-generated-katy-perry-and-elvis-songs-sound-hauntingly-real/

[3] https://blog.songtrust.com/current-state-of-ai-what-songwriters-need-to-know

[4] https://openai.com/blog/jukebox/

[5] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/03/tech/ai-art-fair-winner-controversy/index.html

[6] https://fortune.com/2018/10/25/artificial-intelligence-music/

[7] https://themix.musixmatch.com/post/ai-in-songwriting-4-practical-applications

Tagged , ,

These AI company founders swear they are not racist – but is it truly so?

Reading Time: 3 minutes

We’re approaching 2023. We can fly across the world in a matter of hours. We can communicate in real-time with anyone, anywhere on Earth. And now, we can make anyone sound like a white American.

As wild as it may seem, that is exactly what Sanas’ AI development does – the algorithm takes anyone’s voice as an input, and (with minimal delay) puts out a slightly robotic voice of the ‘standard’ English speaker – colloquially known as a white, educated U.S. citizen’s voice.

Why would anyone even use it?

As usual, the answer is money.

Sanas was designed to help in offshoring call-centers. It is twice as cheap to hire a worker from countries like Pakistan or India as it is to hire them from in the United States.[1] The company operates on the assumption that all the callers must do is read a script and carefully follow sales/customer handling instructions. 

Sanas’ president Marty Sarim stated that ‘We don’t want to say that accents are a problem because you have one, they’re only a problem because they cause bias and they cause misunderstandings.’[2] Nevertheless, the company has been flooded with accusations of perpetuating racial stereotypes and reinforcing racial bias. 

For one, Nakeema Stefflbauer (AI and tech angel investor, CEO of women-led computer programming group FrauenLoop) described Sanas’ mission as a form of ‘digital whitening.’[3] She believes that the company doesn’t emphasize comprehension as much as it emphasizes comfort – for those who do not want to understand, empathize, or acknowledge individuals of different backgrounds, and, as a result, with different accents. 

There has also been outrage among the company’s target group: Mia Shah-Dand (the founder of Women in AI Ethics; an immigrant from India with a non-American accent) found the company’s goal ‘very triggering’. She slammed Sanas for trying to discard people’s uniqueness and for propagating the message that they’re ‘not good enough’.3

Three of Sanas’ four founders (Shawn Zhang, Maxim Serebryakov and Andrés Pérez Soderi), who met while studying at Stanford
source: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/12/19/us/sanas-accent-translation-cec/index.html

Naturally, Sanas’ board and founders have addressed these claims: 

90% of their employees, and all 4 of the founders are immigrants.1 Additionally, two of the board members – Massih Sarimad and Sharath Keysheva Narayana – have previously worked in call centers and witnessed racial abuse in the workplace first handedly.[4]

Sanas’ product is allegedly designed to be operated only by the call center worker – so that only they can switch the program on or off and have full autonomy in deciding whether they want their accent to be translated. While this seems like a rational idea, it is highly unlikely that it would actually be implemented – after all, call centers are very formalized structures with specific instructions. Thus, it is doubtful that managers would opt for their workers to have such high degree of ‘freedom’.

So far, Sanas has raised over 37 million USD in investments,[5] and has ambitious plans. Their aim is to introduce many more accents into their technology, to allow for seamless communication, as if everyone were your local. The company also plans for expansion into the entertainment industry – Maxim Serebryakov (the CEO of Sanas) said that “There are also creative use cases such as those in entertainment and media where producers can make their films and programs understandable in different parts of the world by matching accents to localities”. 

So, what’s the verdict?

Personally, I don’t believe that Sanas’ operations are inherently racist – though it might seem quite questionable at first. Considering the fact that most members of their team are immigrant, they are the ones to truly understand the pain of being racially discriminated against for their accents or appearance. If this is a solution that will allow for the reduction of racist incidents and decrease of stress among call center employees, then so be it. It is worth noting that things can turn upside down quickly, should Sanas enable an option for call center managers to force the usage of this technology on their employees. 

Should things pan out the way Maxim Serebryakov and the rest of the board say, Sanas could be a powerful tool for mitigating racist remarks and for optimizing costs and performance of call center outsourcing. The only way to find out is to wait and see.

Would you be interested in trying Sanas? Do you think having an American/standard English accent on online calls and meetings would help you in your career?

Until next time,

Jan


[1] https://www.worldwidecallcenters.com/call-center-pricing/

[2] https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/sanas-startup-creates-american-voice-17382771.php

[3] https://www.insider.com/ai-startup-sanas-accent-translation-technology-call-center-racism-2022-9

[4] https://spidersweb.pl/2022/10/sanas-startup-hindusi-call-center.html

[5] https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/sanas

Tagged

Is Mark Zuckerberg’s grand vision going to be the biggest flop in tech history?

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Thomas Edison. Nikola Tesla. The Wright Brothers. Alexander Graham Bell. 

What do all these visionaries have in common? 

Well, they all changed the course of humanity and our civilization’s technological development.

From inventing the lightbulb (Edison) to the creation of the telephone (Bell), they were undoubtedly figures that played key roles in getting to where we, as humans, have come so far.

But why am I mentioning them?

They were all ridiculed at first.[1]

In 1903, just nine weeks before the first manned flight, The New York Times stated that it would take at least a million years for humanity to create a functional airplane.[2] A million years.

And how are they relevant to Mark Zuckerberg?

As you might have read, the Meta (formerly known as Facebook) founder has come into great criticism recently over his vision of the Metaverse. With a 2021 loss of 10 billion dollars[3] and being over 300 000 users short of Meta’s year-end goal,[4] the Metaverse has already been branded as a massive flop by major media outlets.

The major feedback points were that:

  • The users’ avatars were ‘soulless’ and had no legs;
  • The virtual world felt empty and lonely.

The issue doesn’t seem to be only existent in Meta’s creation, as another metaverse, Decentraland (valued at over 1.1 billion USD[5]), reportedly had only 38 daily active users.[6]

Mark Zuckerberg showcasing his Metaverse avatar
Source: https://qz.com/2081426/facebooks-meta-company-wants-control-of-the-metaverse

The metaverse was supposed to serve as an “alternate reality” to our real world, with limitless possibilities. In fact, the idea seemed quite appealing, as you could travel to any place in the virtual world instantly. Of course, there are also dystopian visions of a Matrix-like scenario, where, in the distant future, a person would be constantly hooked up to a headset and haptic pads that would produce a fully immersive experience, essentially replacing actual reality.

But what is actually going on in the Metaverse?

For now, the main purpose of this virtual world seems to be entertainment, with virtual concerts making headlines.[7] Other such virtual experiences include art exhibitions, movie showings and gambling. 

As crazy as it may seem, there are going to be Subway franchises in the Metaverse – the company has filed for a trademark earlier this year.[8] So, worry not, you’ll be able to order a sandwich that you cannot actually eat soon enough.

While some of the ideas (such as virtual food and drinks) are ridiculous, if implemented properly, a virtual world could serve well for business and educational ventures. It could replace Zoom for virtual conferences and add at least a touch of reality to remote calls and work. 

Zuckerberg seems confident enough in his strives to popularize the Metaverse and there is no sign of him backing down anytime soon. For one, as he recently stated on his Joe Rogan Experience appearance, he wants VR to ‘eat TV’, so that people could spend time socializing inside of his creation instead of sitting in front of a TV.[9]

Mark Zuckerberg
Source: https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/12/mark-zuckerberg-surfing-again-electric-board-sunscreen

So where is this alternate reality headed? It is hard to say for sure, but it doesn’t seem to be replacing actual life anytime soon. There is major money to be made in the technology, and perhaps we could see a Metaverse boom after we come out of the upcoming recession. 

In the distant future, we might hold business meetings virtually by default. It is not impossible that we are headed into a Matrix-like world. Or maybe, in 50 years’ time, we might remember the Metaverse as the biggest flop in tech history.

If the Meta founder fulfills his ambitions, perhaps a future Kozminski student will start his October 2053 tech blog entry with the words:

Thomas Edison. Nikola Tesla. The Wright Brothers. Alexander Graham Bell. Mark Zuckerberg.

Where do you think is the Metaverse headed? Would you prefer to hold your classes and business meetings in such a virtual world, or do you think that the venture is going to fail miserably? Feel free to reply in the comments.

Until next time,
Jan


[1] https://scienceinfo.net/7-famous-inventions-were-initially-badly-criticized.html

[2] https://bigthink.com/pessimists-archive/air-space-flight-impossible/

[3] https://stealthoptional.com/news/facebooks-metaverse-lost-10-billion/

[4] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11319449/Mark-Zuckerbergs-Metaverse-FLOP-users-complain-lonely.html

[5] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/decentraland/

[6] https://insidebitcoins.com/news/is-it-that-lonely-in-the-metaverse-platforms-speak-out-about-daily-active-users

[7] https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2022/07/27/the-world-of-metaverse-entertainment-concerts-theme-parks-and-movies/?sh=53f366136531

[8] https://www.todaynftnews.com/subway-files-2-trademark-applications-to-enter-the-metaverse/

[9] https://open.spotify.com/episode/51gxrAActH18RGhKNza598?si=TSH3vCOcQP6NOddq3a_XIg

Tagged , ,

Lab-grown meat – protein of the future or an unattainable dream?

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Imagine this: You wake up. It’s a Sunday, middle of December, the Sun is shining and it’s snowy outside. You need to eat something. Something tasty. Something that you can savor with each bite. Something that satisfies each and every taste bud on your tongue. So, you open the fridge, and suddenly, it hits you: it’s time to bring out the classic. Scrambled eggs with bacon. The king of America’s tabletops each morning. The all-time favourite. What a fantastic start to start to the day!

Now, consider where the bacon you just took out from the fridge came from.

It used to be a cute little piglet not that long ago – it had been born, fed, raised, and killed mercilessly to end up on a supermarket shelf with a price tag.

Quite a dark story, huh?

Now, what if you could enjoy all the taste of meat, without the need to kill a living being?

That’s the premise of cultured meat.

The breakfast you’ve just had
source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Pigtures/comments/8h7j4l/cute_piglet/

Cultured meat is defined by the Good Food Institute as “genuine animal meat (…) that is produced by cultivating animal cells directly.” What is more, the claim is that “this production method eliminates the need to raise and farm animals for food”.[1]

We can find first mentions of the concept as early as 1931, when Winston Churchill stated that “We shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken to eat the breast or wing, by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium”.[2]

The idea of artificial production of meat was elaborated on in 2005 by in P. D. Edelman’s PubMed publication.[3] He noted that people are becoming more and more aware of the unfair use of animals in farming, and that there are growing concerns over nutrition-related diseases associated to animal products.

Edelman suggested that in-vitro synthesis of muscle fibers could solve most of such issues, and potentially drive down the cost of meat production.

The idea of ‘humane meat’ is backed by many, with the most common arguments for it being:

  • antibiotic-free production;[4]
  • lower usage of water and land, lower greenhouse emissions;[5]
  • no need to kill animals in the process.

The enthusiasm behind the technology is quite clear – since the first lab-grown burger has been premiered by Mark Post back in 2013,[6] the industry has grown to getting over 1.2 billion dollars in investments in 2020.[7]

What is more, tech giants are pushing for a widespread introduction of such a technology, with Bill Gates stating that “Rich nations should shift entirely to synthetic beef”.[8]

Labiotech stated that “the commercialization of cultured meat in Europe and the US seems inevitable.”

Just over 2 years ago, Singapore became the first country to legalize commercial sales of cultured meat – an industry leader called Eat Just has been selling synthetic chicken nuggets in the country ever since.

While the idea might sound like the perfect solution to all of humanity’s meat-related problems, we’ve seen some beef (pun absolutely intended) between the industry’s pioneers and certain market analysts.

For one, Paul Wood (served as executive director of global discovery for Pfizer Animal Health) is quite skeptical of the concept. He says that at this moment, it doesn’t seem feasible to use such costly biotechnology to drive down the costs of meat.[9]

The current situation in the industry doesn’t seem too advanced either – we’re only growing one type of tissue (e.g., muscle fibers) in a single Petri dish – thus, we cannot exactly replicate the exact animal cuts used for steaks or fillets. As a result, the main consumption of lab meat lies in blended products – nuggets and burgers.

As of today, the cost of lab meat production is very high (up to 15 000 $ per kg of foie gras)[10], though we’ve seen a major reduction in prices over the past decade – Mosa Meat has reported an 88x decline in production costs.[11]

Nevertheless, the future of lab-grown meat seems bright, with proposals of merging plant foods with cultivated muscle fibers and fat cells to create a hybrid product being put forward. As per CE Delft’s Techno-Economic Analysis, there is a prospect of a 4000-fold cost reduction in 9 years.[12]

As per the taste of such meat – the presentation in 2013 was a success – with culinary critic Hanni Rützler rating the consistency as “perfect”.

Mark Post – the founder of Mosa Meat
source: https://www.sciencefocus.com/future-technology/the-artificial-meat-factory-the-science-of-your-synthetic-supper/

So, the next time you are frying your bacon on a cold December morning – think about the future. Would you consider trying lab-grown meat? Do you think that humans can develop technology good enough to replace slaughterhouses with laboratories? Let me know your thoughts in a comment.

Until next time,

Jan


[1] https://gfi.org/science/the-science-of-cultivated-meat/

[2] https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/churchill-bulletin/bulletin-115-jan-2018/no-bull/

[3] P.D. Edelman, D.C. McFarland, V.A. Mironov, and J.G. Matheny.Commentary: In Vitro-Cultured Meat Production.Tissue Engineering.May 2005.659-662.http://doi.org/10.1089/ten.2005.11.659

[4] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-020-0112-z

[5] https://gfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Cultivated-Meat-LCA-Report-2019-0709.pdf

[6] https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/5/4589744/cultured-beef-burger-public-tasting-mark-post-sergey-brin

[7] https://news.crunchbase.com/startups/lab-grown-meat-startups-venture-investment/

[8] https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/02/14/1018296/bill-gates-climate-change-beef-trees-microsoft/

[9] https://thecounter.org/lab-grown-cultivated-meat-cost-at-scale/

[10] https://www.vmt.nl/41488/belgisch-bedrijf-bouwt-2-labos-voor-kweekvlees

[11] https://vegconomist.com/company-news/mosa-meats-announces-it-has-reduced-production-costs-by-88-times/

[12] https://cedelft.eu/publications/tea-of-cultivated-meat/

Tagged ,