Yesterday, as an April Fool's Joke, Wizleton decided to announce to the world (via Facebook) his new relationship status. He was, for a brief twenty-four hours, in a domestic relationship with Hal Skynet, the creepy powerful computer he built himself a couple of months ago. I'm not sure who first suggested the name back when he first built it but I know it's based on the unhappy similarity the things holds to HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey (notice the red glowing circles). The whole thing was mildly amusing but it got me thinking about artificial intelligence. As a big sci-fi fan myself, I'm very familiar with the various technological villains popular culture has given us ever since the first days of Asimov (or would it be from the first days of Shelley? A topic for another post perhaps). Fun personal note: I named my dad's GPS GLaDOS. The cake is quite good. But how real is the possibility of evil artificial intelligence in this era of iPods and Skype?
About two years ago, when Terminator Salvation was getting all geared up to let us all down, The Times wrote "The Future of Artificial Intelligence". The article mentions and cites a bunch of different views from mostly Silicon Valley inhabitants on when artificial intelligence might arrive and what form it might take. The answers were all over the place, some suggesting specific dates like 2045, some suggesting that computers will mesh with humans in the next step of human evolution, some suggesting that we're going to kill ourselves before we even get a chance to invent something like that.
But that was 2009 and this is 2011 2012. IBM's Watson thoroughly trounced Jeopardy Champions Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter. Writers and humanists everywhere scurried to point out how Watson was incapable of thinking outside of his programming, how much more sophisticated the human brain is, and how Watson is not plotting to kill us all. Jenninngs even wrote an interesting piece here on the experience, covering his annoyance as loosing to something that could trigger a buzzer in a millionth of second with little quips about how his own game strategy apparently inspired Watson's training. IBM has stated that they are now looking into the logistic's of Watson's use in clinical diagnosis and legal research.
But if you want to look for an easier example of artificial intelligence, you might follow the experience I had a few weeks ago with my gmail account. I was sending a file of our lab report to my lab partner for her to look over and correct. I typed up the email and hit send. Then this appeared on my screen.
Gahhhhhh!!!
Holy Turnips! How can it do this?
So yeah, I know it's an algorithm, the same used every day to try and hawk vanity publishers at me every day because I get a lot of emails about creative writing contests but still. Gahhhhh!!! It's only a matter of time until they get to all of us. Run!
Note: This is a re-post from my old blog as part of my migration to the Blogger platform.
Ignore for a moment any of the bigger debates about capital punishment or the American prison system or the organ transplant system. Complete harvesting of the organs after death can save over a hundred lives. Should convicted criminals be allowed to donate their vital organs after execution?
What if there was one more path to this choice?
One such resident of the state of Oregon argues just that in thisNew York Times Op-Ed. Christian Longo, convicted of murdering his wife and three children eight years ago, claims that he was inspired by Will Smith's movieSeven Poundsto offer his organs up to needed recipients after his upcoming execution. His request was denied.
This is much messier and complicated than I initially suspected when starting research for this entry. Longo is now attempting to start a nationwide program called "Gifts of Anatomical Value from Everyone" to encourage other felons on death row to attempt to donate their organs among accusations that this is just another delaying tactic to put off his own execution (at time of posting I could not find a scheduled date for that event). There is also a suspiciously beneficial relationship between Longo and NYT writer Michael Finkle (whom Longo posed as while on the run), resulting in numerous story, book, and television deals for the both of them. But all of that should have no effect on the underlying idea of organ donation, which I believe to be a good one.
Every year, 6,570 people die waiting for an essential organ like heart, lungs, kidney, or liver. Around 105,000 people hover on the transplant list but only 38% of licensed drivers are organ donors (note that you do not need a driver's license to be an organ donor. You don't even need to be 18). The number is heartbreakingly low for a lot of reasons, including the mistaken belief that a doctor will not work as hard to save the life of an organ donor (52% believed). Also, if donors don't make their wishes explicit to their families, those grief-stricken families may end up revoking the donation when actually confronted with the necessary paperwork. Occasionally a donation must be denied from people with HIV, actively spreading brain cancer, and severe infections like Hepatitis, but there is no law or regulation against donation from a specific group (like criminals). So why is it not an option?
Technically, it sort of is. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has a policy that allows deceased donation by federal inmates, though details about actual participation of this program is slim. Convicted inmates are allowed as individuals to appeal to their state prison boards to be able to donate an organ like a kidney to a sibling or close relative (known as a directed donation). These requests are not always granted, however, and they are sometimes granted for what some might consider the wrong reason. The case of two sisters from Mississippi who were released from jail because one sister agreed to donate her kidney to the other sister recently caught national attention. The governor agreed to suspend their sentences in exchange for the donation which relieves the state of Mississippi of the burden of paying $200,000 a year for dialysis treatments. It's always about money.
Those against the undirected donations (donation given anonymously after death) by criminals talk about the prohibitive cost of the transplant and the expenses involved in testing organs to ensure their viability. Yet consider dialysis, the treatment responsible for prolonging the life of people with chronic kidney failure, which cost the United States $8.6 billion in Medicare expenses in 2007 (because anyone, regardless of age or class, qualifies for Medicare funded dialysis treatments if they have chronic kidney failure). The financial burden on society and the emotional and physical burden on a single patient on dialysis treatments decreases significantly with a single transplant.
The other money issue is the question of compensation for organs. Should people be paid for directed donations, much in the way that an egg or sperm donor is paid? Public opinion on this issue has waxed and wanned in a continuous cycle for almost as long as organ donation has been around (click here for an interesting take on the proposal by the guys behind Freakonomics). The concern with inmates is that the compensation might take the form of shortened sentences instead of money. The best rebuttal to this issue is simply the promise that there would be no compensation. Every day ordinary citizens decide to become organ donors without any promise of compensation and so it would be with death row inmates. It is a personal choice that would need to be accompanied by the standard donation counseling and the understanding that nothing is to be gained by this selfless act (check out the Indiana University for Bioethics's fantastic page that lists multiple arguments and articles for issues and resolutions proposed on both sides).
The biggest issue stopping organ donation is the current methods of execution. Electrocution fries the organs beyond use and the cocktail of three-drugs most commonly used in most lethal injections poisons the entire body so that nearly every part is useless. Longo has apparently consulted with a doctor on the subject and reports that a single drug injection would be enough to kill without rendering the organs useless. Perhaps.
I discovered the simpler solution about two years ago when I saw the video posted below. If nothing else, make sure to watch this fantastic, powerful little short.
It's true that adding death row inmates to the voluntary donation pool will not fix the large and pressing shortage of organ donations. It will probably not even make much of a dent. But to the people who do receive these organs, it will make all the difference in the world. And we as a society owe it to everyone involved to at least allow for the opportunity. A number of bills have been submitted in various states over the past twenty years or so to allow for organ donation by death row inmates. All of those bills failed.
I hope that at least some of you will consider writing your state congressman if I have inspired your interest in this matter at all.
In conclusion, I leave you with a simple comic from one of my favorite artists, Randall Munroe (of XKCD). Organ donation is great.
