Daily Archives: May 7, 2017

Ai (Hebrew: h-y "heap of ruins"; Douay-Rheims: Hai) was a Canaanite royal city. According to the Book of Joshua in the Hebrew Bible, it was conquered by the Israelites on their second attempt. The ruins of the city are popularly thought to be in the modern-day archeological site Et-Tell.

According to Genesis, Abraham built an altar between Bethel and Ai.[1]

In the Book of Joshua, chapters 7 and 8, the Israelites attempt to conquer Ai on two occasions. The first, in Joshua 7, fails. The Biblical account portrays the failure as being due to a prior sin of Achan, for which he is stoned to death by the Israelites. On the second attempt, in Joshua 8, Joshua, who is identified by the narrative as the leader of the Israelites, receives instruction from God. God tells them to set up an ambush and Joshua does what God says. An ambush is arranged at the rear of the city on the western side. Joshua is with a group of soldiers that approach the city from the front so the men of Ai, thinking they will have another easy victory, chase Joshua and the fighting men from the entrance of the city to lead the men of Ai away from the city. Then the fighting men to the rear enter the city and set it on fire. When the city is captured, 12,000 men and women are killed, and it is razed to the ground. The king is captured and put on a stake until he is dead. His body is then placed at the city gates and stones are placed on top of his body. The Israelites then burn Ai completely and "made it a permanent heap of ruins."[2] God told them they could take the livestock as plunder and they did so.

Edward Robinson (1794-1863), who identified many biblical sites in the Levant on the basis of local place names and basic topography, suggested that Et-Tell or Khirbet Haijah were likely on philological grounds; he preferred the latter as there were visible ruins at that site.[3] A further point in its favour is the fact that the Hebrew name Ai means more or less the same as the modern Arabic name et-Tell. Albright's identification has been accepted by the majority of the archaeological community, and today et-Tell is widely believed to be one and the same as the biblical Ai.[citation needed]

Up through the 1920s a "positivist" reading of the archeology to date was prevalent -- a belief that archeology would prove, and was proving, the historicity of the Exodus and Conquest narratives that dated the Exodus in 1440 BC and Joshua's conquest of Canaan around 1400 BC.[3]:117 And accordingly, on the basis of excavations in the 1920s the American scholar William Foxwell Albright believed that Et-Tell was Ai.[3]:86

However excavations at Et-Tell in the 1930s found that there was a fortified city there during the Early Bronze Age, between 3100 and 2400 BCE, after which it was destroyed and abandoned;[4] the excavations found no evidence of settlement in the Middle or Late Bronze Ages.[3]:117 These findings, along with excavations at Bethel, posed problems for the dating that Albright and others had proposed, and some scholars including Martin Noth began proposing that the Conquest had never happened but instead was an etiological myth; the name meant "the ruin" and the Conquest story simply explained the already-ancient destruction of the Early Bronze city.[3]:117[5][6] Archeologists also found that the later Iron Age I village appeared with no evidence of initial conquest, and the Iron I settlers seem to have peacefully built their village on the forsaken mound, without meeting resistance.[7]:331-332

There are five main hypotheses about how to explain the biblical story surrounding Ai in light of archaeological evidence. The first is that the story was created later on; Israelites related it to Joshua because of the fame of his great conquest. The second is that there were people of Bethel inhabiting Ai during the time of the biblical story and they were the ones who were invaded. In a third, Albright combined these two theories to present a hypothesis that the story of the Conquest of Bethel, which was only a mile and a half away from Ai, was later transferred to Ai in order to explain the city and why it was in ruins. Support for this can be found in the Bible, the assumption being that the Bible does not mention the actual capture of Bethel, but might speak of it in memory in Judges 1:2226.[8]:80-82

Fourth, Callaway has proposed that the city somehow angered the Egyptians (perhaps by rebelling, and attempting to gain independence), and so they destroyed it as punishment.[9]

Most archaeologists support the identification of Ai with et-Tell. Koert van Bekkum writes that "Et-Tell, identified by most scholars with the city of Ai, was not settled between the Early Bronze and Iron Age I.[10]Bryant Wood has identified it with Khirbet el-Maqatir but this has not gained acceptance.[11][12]

Coordinates: 315501N 351540E / 31.91694N 35.26111E / 31.91694; 35.26111

See the article here:

Ai (Canaan) - Wikipedia

In Brief Hank from CrashCourse explains in a YouTube video that our perception of humanity might differ in light of the upcoming age of AI. While he does cite many alternate views, he makes it clear that AI is a topic worth discussing.

Crashcourses Hank poses an excellent question at the start of his video. What if your closest friends are a set of extremely advanced robots? How would you know? Hank introduces the Turing Test, an assessment to determine the strength of an artificial intelligence (AI)program. If youspoke toa robot and wereunable to discern a difference between it and a human, then the AI capabilities of its programming would be exceptional.

Hank also spotlights opposing viewpoints which point out that while AImay be able to fool us into believing it is human, it may never truly encapsulate human thought, because humans themselves have yet to fully understand consciousness.

What do you think? If it talks like a human, walks like a human, behaves like a human, and feels like a humanis it human? Do differences in biology matter when the concepts of the mind are the same? Many question whether AI will need rights, and what those rights will look like. It is a question we must turn our attention to.

Read the original here:

Should We Make An AI Kill Switch or Give Robots Rights? - Futurism

The term artificial intelligence (AI) has been around since John McCarthy invented it in 1955, describing the field as "the science and engineering of making intelligent machines. Yet today, the topic is increasingly given overwhelming attention in the advertising industry as though it was thought of in recent years.

A new tech product with the incorporation of AI is thought to be more advanced and revolutionary. But is it really true? Frankly, what some smart companies brand as AI is simply a clever data analytics algorithm, machine learning or voice and image recognition. Over the past few years, bigger data sets, superior computer processing, together with better automation of manual steps in advertising workflow have contributed to machine learning. So, what is deemed to be AI in advertising could really just be vast knowledge, combined with a sophisticated and pretty user experience design (UX) and buzzwords.

Human intervention is still crucial

As Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO said, Today's AI is good at recognising patterns and bad at what we would call "common sense; without common sense, AI systems can't use knowledge they've learned in one area and easily apply it to another situation. This means they can't effectively react to new problems or situations they haven't seen before, which is so much of what we all do every day and what we call intelligence.

I agree. Common sense and decision making draw on factors beyond data that include senses, awareness, empathy, attitudes, behaviours and thinking. Algorithms cannot influence consumer motivations without first learning the emotions and thought processes of brand guardians. More worryingly, recent studies have shown that machines have picked up on our biasedness resulting in cultural stereotypes and sexist effects. Machines therefore cannot be left to evolve on their own without human intervention. Human intelligence is therefore irreplaceable and will continue to be of great value.

In fact, as another Mark, surnamed Cuban, a billionaire tech investor puts it, the most prized talents in the future are those who can make sense of the data that automation is spitting out and with degrees in studies such as English, Philosophy, and foreign languages or who excel at creative and critical thinking. And these talents certainly do not sound like machines to me.

Will agency roles become obsolete?

While the advertising industry has changed significantly with the onset of digital and continues to evolve, its purpose is still the same. Even as some deliberate about the pros and cons about the implication of ad tech, the basics remain consistent; that is to be able to reach the right audience at the right time in the right place with the right message, and more importantly than ever, at the right price.

Looking ahead, the future of AI in advertising is not to eliminate agencies but rather to improve efficiencies and effectiveness in driving returns on investment (ROI) for clients. We can use AI to capitalise on automated machine learning and big data sets, delivering predictive performance insights such as forecasting the performance of campaigns, further elevating our offerings.

In theory, for marketing teams that demand control, scope and scale, hiring an in-house team for ever-increasing automated digital marketing efforts might sound logical. In practice however, the ever growing and complex digital landscape requires specialised expertise and considerable resources. In fact, these challenges are increasing in intensity with mounting data, content, vendors, platforms and technologies to contend with. In consideration of the time, resources and expenses to recruit and run a well-oiled full service team consisting of digital experts such as traders, social leads, search specialists and data specialists, it is clear why brands are continuing to leverage on the value that external agencies can deliver.

The value of the agency partner remains strong

In recent months we have seen leading companies in the aviation and banking sectors in Asia cutting jobs across departments to focus on leaner and more efficient models. While unfortunate, this appears to be an unavoidable trend that looks set to continue and could potentially affect in-house marketing and digital teams in the future.

In working with agencies, clients can save on the costs of setting up specialist teams, incurring multiple recruitment fees, salaries, onboarding and training costs, office rent etc. This only scratches the surface of the benefits and value a specialist agency provides in terms of cost, productivity, and quality.

The activation of programmatic media requires a unique skill set and range of expert capabilities such as traders, data analysts, partnership specialists and more, to understand and manage the technology and technical platform processes behind programmatic buying. On top of this, the agency is responsible for providing campaign optimisation, reporting, insight and analysis at a granular level. Within our agency for example, a trader works together with an account manager to monitor the ongoing performance of a campaign, making adjustments daily to achieve optimal results for clients.

Given such complexity, the client can maximise the opportunity of an agency relationship, getting the best possible planning and buying, data and technology as well as strategy and insights, without having to carry the resource burden in-house. Essentially, this allows both the brand and the agency to focus on their respective areas of expertise and prioritise results to eventually add value to the bottom line.

Now, do we still need the agency when we have AI? The answer is simple: AI or no AI, creative or media; hiring an agency (and the right one) can only translate to higher ROI.

See the rest here:

Why do we still need the agency when we have AI? - Campaign Asia-Pacific

To create a new drug, researchers have to test tens of thousands of compounds to determine how they interact. And thats the easy part; after a substance is found to be effective against a disease, it has to perform well in three different phases of clinical trials and be approved by regulatory bodies.

Its estimated that, on average, one new drug coming to market can take 1,000 people, 12-15 years, and up to $1.6 billion.

There has to be a better wayand now it seems there is.

Last week, researchers published a paper detailing an artificial intelligence system made to help discover new drugs, and significantly shorten the amount of time and money it takes to do so.

The system is called AtomNet, and it comes from San Francisco-based startup AtomWise. The technology aims to streamline the initial phase of drug discovery, which involves analyzing how different molecules interact with one anotherspecifically, scientists need to determine which molecules will bind together and how strongly. They use trial and error and process of elimination to analyze tens of thousands of compounds, both natural and synthetic.

AtomNet takes the legwork out of this process, using deep learning to predict how molecules will behave and how likely they are to bind together. The software teaches itself about molecular interaction by identifying patterns, similar to how AI learns to recognize images.

Remember the 3D models of atoms you made in high school, where you used pipe cleaners and foam balls to represent the connections between protons, neutrons and electrons? AtomNet uses similar digital 3D models of molecules, incorporating data about their structure to predict their bioactivity.

As AtomWise COO Alexander Levy put it, You can take an interaction between a drug and huge biological system and you can decompose that to smaller and smaller interactive groups. If you study enough historical examples of moleculesyou can then make predictions that are extremely accurate yet also extremely fast.

Fast may even be an understatement; AtomNet can reportedly screen one million compounds in a day, a volume that would take months via traditional methods.

AtomNet cant actually invent a new drug, or even say for sure whether a combination of two molecules will yield an effective drug. What it can do is predict how likely a compound is to work against a certain illness. Researchers then use those predictions to narrow thousands of options down to dozens (or less), focusing their testing where theres more likely to be positive results.

The software has already proven itself by helping create new drugs for two diseases, Ebola and multiple sclerosis. The MS drug has been licensed to a British pharmaceutical company, and the Ebola drug is being submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for additional analysis.

While AtomNet is a promising technology that will make discovering new drugs faster and easier, its worth noting that the future of medicine is also moving towards a proactive rather than reactive approach; rather than solely inventing drugs to cure sick people, focus will shift to carefully monitoring our health and taking necessary steps to keep us from getting sick in the first place.

Last year, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative donated $3 billion in a pledge to cure all diseases. Its an ambitious and somewhat quixotic goal, but admirable nonetheless. In another example of the movement towards proactive healthcare, the XPRIZE foundation recently awarded $2.5 million for a device meant to facilitate home-based diagnostics and personal health monitoring. Proactive healthcare technology is likely to keep advancing and growing in popularity.

That doesnt mean reactive healthcare shouldnt advance alongside it; fifty or one hundred years from now, people will still be getting sick and will still need medicine to help cure them. AtomNet is the first software of its kind, and it may soon see others following in its footsteps in the effort to apply AI to large-scale challenges.

Image Credit: Shutterstock

See the article here:

Drug Discovery AI Can Do in a Day What Currently Takes Months - Singularity Hub