What if Barbie could pass the Turing Test?

If you’re a movie fan or a cryptologist, you probably know who Alan Turing was.  In the movie ‘The Imitation Game’, the code breaker savant was portrayed by the omnipresent Benedict Cumberbatch.  Among his contributions to society is the Turing Test. A machine passes the test when a human interlocutor cannot determine if they are conversing with said machine or with a human.

Toymaker Mattel now endeavors to have its classic doll, Barbie, pass the Turing Test – at least when conversing with a 9 year-old girl.  In a wonderful article in the New York Times magazine, James Vlahos describes the development of a soon-to-be released Barbie with the artificial intelligence to hold a real conversation with its (her?) human companion. 

What most interested me is the idea that it’s not necessary to pass the Turing Test if your human companion knows a machine’s limitations but treats it like a human anyway.  If you’ve had kids (or remember being one), you know that a youngster can have elaborate, imaginary conversations with a stuffed bunny, the family pet or with Barbie.  No response required. 

So, what if Barbie could talk back?  Would a child know that Barbie is just a toy just as she knows that Fido is just a dog?  Probably.  Would Barbie pass the Turing Test?  Probably not.

The implications are interesting if not yet well understood.  A study done by economists at Deloitte and Oxford University reports that technology has been changing the nature of the work we do for centuries, eliminating the most monotonous, dangerous or physically challenging work.  Yet, when technology destroyed jobs, it created many more new ones.

The report also provides a list of those likely to lose their jobs to technology in the next 20 years. At the top of the list – are you ready for this? – Telephone Salesperson.

It took a moment for that to sink in.  What if the recorded robo-call you received just as you sat down to dinner was from Barbie instead of a recorded message?  Or, to turn it around, what if Barbie were programmed to answer 800 numbers instead of being programmed to talk with 9 year-olds?  Hold queues would disappear. 

Could she handle it?  Maybe not today…. But soon!

What of the workforce as a whole?  It’s easy to assess the historical impact of creative destruction on people’s jobs.  Assembly line workers who lost jobs to robots needed to be retrained for something new. 

On the other hand, it was once thought that accountants would lose their jobs to Excel Spreadsheets.  Instead, they have prospered by using that tool to offer new services. 

And, so it goes.  Jobs that barely existed at the turn of the Century are now plentiful --- webmasters, solar panel installers, optical engineers – while others have faded away – telephone operators, draftsmen, travel agents.

Futurists like MIT’s David Autor and Andrew McAfee suggest that we might see a barbell effect.  Those in very high skill professions – brain surgeons, for example – will use technology to be more productive and effective at their jobs.  Others, like legal secretaries and the aforementioned Telephone Sales people, are vulnerable to being pushed down the compensation ladder to personal service jobs like nursing assistants or hotel workers. So, high-income professions will become more productive and create more value while low-income jobs become more numerous.  The middle gets hollowed out.

McAfee is optimistic, telling the Huffington Post “the technological progress we are experiencing is the best economic news on the planet, bar none. It will increase the material bounty of our world, giving us higher volume, more variety and better quality goods and services at lower prices.”

He worries, however, about how quickly the workforce can adapt.  Our public schools still prepare students for the jobs of the 20^th Century.  Our infrastructure is crumbling and our government’s policies stifle entrepreneurs.

Technology improves productivity and drives economic growth.  People lose jobs as it happens.  It’s an unstoppable force. 

Big companies and government are not driving these changes.  Consumers are.  We prefer low-friction, efficient service.  It’s easier to shop on your smartphone than to go to Wal-Mart.  It’s easier to print your boarding passes at home than to wait in line at the airport.  And, it’s easier to send an email than to mail a letter. 

We can’t stop the unstoppable.  We need to find ways to deal with it.

WHO WILL LEAD?

Does Any of This Sound Familiar?

Remember the old adage about history repeating itself?  See if any of this sounds familiar? 

Following the American Revolution, it was by no means certain that the United States would survive as a single country.  It was only by virtue of a series of compromises that the United States became a viable nation.  The glue that brought it all together was Alexander Hamilton’s offer to assume the war debts of the states in exchange for the establishment of a single currency.  The states that had already paid their debts thought it unfair.  Why should those who had been profligate get a bailout? 

Sound familiar?

·         The election of 1800 is regarded by historians as the first “contested” election.  The incumbent, John Adams, represented the federalist view that embraced a strong central government.  Adams’ opponent was Thomas Jefferson who favored states rights and thought a strong central government was anathema to our founding principles.  The once great friends hurled epithets at one another.  Pamphleteers aroused the voting public with slogans and insults.  In the end, Jefferson prevailed following a tie in the Electoral College with the House of Representatives deciding the final outcome. 

Sound familiar?

By 1819, the US suffered its first financial crisis.  To make matters worse, corruption was abundant.  Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster, the great orator, received fees for services rendered to the Second Bank of the United States.  The country’s richest man, John Jacob Astor, paid a retainer to Thomas Hart Benton, Senator from Missouri, to push through laws that benefited him financially; and, President Monroe himself received loans from wealthy patrons that were never repaid.  Andrew Jackson, who had no experience of Washington, DC, campaigned to “turn the rascals out”. 

Sound familiar?

Jackson himself was very controversial in his day.  He was accused of behaving like “a Bonaparte” for having attacked the Spanish territory of Florida without Congressional approval, a clear violation of the Constitution.  His fiercest critic was Henry Clay who said of him, “I cannot believe that killing 2500 Englishmen at New Orleans qualifies for the various, difficult and complicated duties” of President.  Jackson was thought a rube – too inarticulate and poorly educated to be President. 

Sound familiar? 

Following the Civil War, it was the railroads that made the western US a viable part of a national economy.  But, not before a stock scam contributed to the Panic of 1873.  Securities fraud by the Northern Pacific Railroad brought down Wall St. firm, Jay Cooke & Co., the preeminent investment bank of its day. 

Sound familiar? 

Before the 1930’s, the Panic of 1873 was called the Great Depression because it lasted so long and brought down not only the economy of the United States but also that of Europe.  It was left to President Rutherford B. Hayes to put in place reforms that turned things around.  He tied US currency to gold and silver thereby tightening the money supply, increasing interest rates and attracting investors anew. 

Hayes’ election was controversial.  A Republican, he lost both the popular vote and the Electoral College.  But, 20 electoral votes were in dispute and Congress appointed a commission to decide the outcome.  Congress was controlled by Republicans and they decided in his favor. 

Sound familiar?

Many have pointed out that this election is the most divisive in our history.  Do they remember what happened after the election of 1860? 

But, divisive might be the word of the year.  “Cruz Wins Divisive GOP Runoff” was the headline in July 31’s USA Today.  British newspaper, The Guardian, ran a headline Sunday, “In Paul Ryan, Romney Makes a Risky and Divisive Choice”.  In May, the New York Times ran an article titled "How Did Wisconsin Become the Most Political Divisive Place in America"  The Huffington Post featured a blog by author Warren Adler titled "The Most Divisive Political Campaign in History".  Mr. Adler has written 32 novels including “War of the Roses”.  If you’ve read it or seen the movie starring Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner, you know that Mr. Adler knows what divisive means. 

If this year’s election is the most divisive in our history, it will be because we want it that way.  We, as consumers, choose to watch the Sunday morning talk shows and cable news nightly opinion shows and embrace the divisive phrase of the moment.  We pass on derogatory emails about the candidates, some meant to be jocular others not so much.  We post our one sided views on our Facebook pages, read political blogs and editorials argue vehemently while hiding behind pseudonyms.

Why?  Perhaps, it’s because the candidates haven’t given us anything new to consider.  All they have to talk about is what’s wrong with the other guy.

So, what do we do?  Rutherford B. Hayes isn’t around anymore.  So, you have to ask:

WHO WILL LEAD?