I have to move tomorrow morning, early by my standards. Whereas the on the usual days, they don’t let me sleep till late. Sometimes they don’t let me sleep when I go to bed.
So after doing some last minute packing, I lie in the bed. And there is the same familiar congestion in the upper abdomen, affecting probably lungs and esophagus. This causes difficulty in at least two ways. One is due to the lung being affected. The other is due to arrested flatulence that is caused by magnetic force, as I had mentioned in an earlier post about the symptoms of radiation, sonic and EM.
So I take the triaxial EMF meter and place it near me. No reading. Then I place it somewhat away from my chest. Still no reading. Finally I place it on my chest. And there it is a reading that fluctuates and goes above 4mG. That is, only when the meter is exactly above the chest near the lung and heart or esophagus area.
As I start taking photos of the meter readings, they stop. And immediately, the chest congestion goes away and the flatulence is relieved by burping (no point at this stage to worry about embarrassment). I wait. No reading. Then I put back the meter a feet and a half away.
I lie down on the bed and the congestion starts in exactly the same way. It stay. So I pick up the triaxial meter again and repeat the above experiments. Exactly the same results.
The same thing, i.e., my taking photos stops readings. So I put back the meter half a feet away. I lie down and the same congestion again. I pick up the meter the same results are replicated exactly.
My guest is, there is something in the body which allows radiation to be directed towards a particular part of the body, controlled by either AI or human torturers, it hardly matters.
In case this seems like implausible, there is serious research going on on bio-cyber-physical systems. And it is so far advance that there is now research starting on cyber security of bio-cyber-physical system.
Scientific discourse is considered one place where you can present certain kinds of truth as accurately as possible, regardless of whether they conform to the prevailing orthodoxies or not, whether they are truths that most people want to listen to or not, and whether they agree with political ideologies or not. It used to be the case that most of scientific discourse was on matters which did not directly and immediately interest or concern either the general public or, to a lesser extent, even the powers that be. And so, scientists were able to pursue their research with tolerable hindrance from the circumstances and people in which and among whom they lived and worked.
This started changing when the modern Industrial, and then Corporate — apart from the state — establishment developed not only huge stakes in scientific research, but started funding most of it, not just for courtly splendour as was the case in the age of old feudalism. With funding came control. Simultaneously, with the neoliberal/neoconservative dominance of the world, government funding for independent research started diminishing at an ever increasing rate. This inevitably meant that scientific community came under heavy influence of state and corporate actors.
In the 21st century, this influence is transforming into more and more tighter form of control over not just what research is carried out, but how, to what end, and even with regard to whether it produces ‘desirable’ results or not.
The Pandemic of 2020 has made this phenomenon of tight control over scientific research more widespread as well as more visible. With it, however, has come (perhaps fittingly) an extremely shrill rhetoric of “You don’t believe in science?!” and “Science says so and so”, where so and so could be a very obviously a debatable matter (or not: it doesn’t make a difference). In other words, on the one hand, science is becoming more like religion, both in terms of concepts like heresy, blasphemy and blind (or at least uncritical) belief, and in terms of censorship of expression, even scientific expression. Genuine scientific debates are becoming more like theological conflicts, as the science wars about the Pandemic have revealed.
This is also the time when Artificial Intelligence (AI) is all the rage. It is being touted as the Silver Bullet to solve all of humanity’s problems, current and future. No wonder then that AI too is seriously in danger of becoming a theology and a church, rather science and technology. Perhaps the best example of this is the recent case of a paper on ethics of AI, co-authored by mainstream AI ethicists and researchers, which caused Google to ask one of its authors to retract the paper. Timnit Gebru, the co-lead of Google’s ethical AI team, was a co-author of the paper. She has since left her job rather than agreeing to retract the paper. Many researchers cannot afford to do that, and the paper might be published, but still this case is unprecedented.
I had my own experience with scientific censorship recently. I have been working on a paper about the impossibility of humanoid artificial intelligence, but I could not think of a suitable venue for this paper, since it seems to go against one of the most dearly held ideas about AI: that true humanoid AI is not only possible, but inevitable. Since the draft was written in a semi-formal style, using arguements against the possibility of humanoid AI, analogous to the arguments philosophers have been using for and against the possibility of a Single Supreme God. In my view, building humanoid AI will require AI as a whole to become a Single Supreme God, at least as far as human affairs are concerned. The arguments centred around the distinction between Micro-AI and Macro-AI.
Then I came across an unusual research workshop at the most well known AI conference (Neural Information Processing Systems or NeurIPS 2020), which was titled ResistanceAI. It invited papers and even media, including those not in an academic form or format. It seemed perfect to me, so I decided to submit my draft at this workshop. Since it is a common practice now to post such drafts (preprints) on the best known scientific archive or preprint hosting site arXiv. I already have posted several papers on arXiv. Since such preprint sites are meant for archival purposes, they do not put the papers through a peer review process, as that is going to happen anyway when the paper is submitted to a peer reviewed venue. Usually, the paper is posted directly after a kind of sanity check. Sometimes, however, arXiv puts a paper through moderation, which usually involves reclassification of the paper under suitable categories. In very rare cases, a paper can be removed. The reasons for such removal are supposed to be:
Rights to submit material
Excessive submission rate
Based on the description of these reasons given on their moderation page, none of these apply in anyway to my draft. I had submitted the paper on 8th October 2020. I first received a mail saying it will be ‘announced’ (that is, posted) the next day. Then, on 14th October 2020, I received a mail saying that the paper has been ‘put on hold’. Initially I assumed it must be for reasons of reclassification. However, on the same day, I received another mail saying the paper has been removed. The mail said:
Dear arXiv user,
Our moderators have determined that your submission is not of sufficient interest for inclusion within arXiv. The moderators have rejected your submission after examination, having determined that your article does not contain sufficient original or substantive scholarly research.
As a result, we have removed your submission.
Please note that our moderators are not referees and provide no reviews with such decisions. For in-depth reviews of your work, please seek feedback from another forum.
Please do not resubmit this paper without contacting arXiv moderation and obtaining a positive response. Resubmission of removed papers may result in the loss of your submission privileges.
For more information on our moderation policies, see:
The reason given (“your article does not contain sufficient original or substantive scholarly research”) was a kind of review itself, which is not supposed to be there as a reason for removal, since duplication means direct duplication, not extending existing ideas. The reason can be reasonably interpreted as saying simply that some references were missing from the paper, meaning that it was a kind of feedback to me about the paper, which arXiv is not supposed to give.
This came right before the deadline for submission at the ResistanceAI workshop. So I added a few of the missing references, given the page limit of four pages. The paper was, however, rejected at the workshop, although I did receive a review of the paper. Note that one of the reasons for removal from arXiv is “unrefereeable content”. So, clearly, the paper was not unrefereeable.
The review from the workshop is given below:
2. Please provide constructive feedback to the authors
This paper address some timely questions about what we might expect the “Singularity” to look like. Unfortunately, section three–the meat of the paper–is somewhat difficult to follow. Rather than listing many different arguments, it may be more helpful to focus on a subset of these arguments and explain how they are related. As currently written, it is difficult to understand the argument and how it reaches the conclusions that “Singularity at the level of Micro-AI is impossible” and that a Singularity at the “Macro-AI level” would be an existential threat to human intelligence.
3. Please give this submission a score
2. Please provide constructive feedback to the authors
1/ The paper, while looking at the impact of a hypothesized ‘Macro AI’ on human beings in the future, ignores the issues that AI technology is causing in the present.
2/ In particular, it fails to inspect and analyze the material impact that AI is already causing in the lives of human beings, whether or not it is a ‘humanoid’ AI which is doing that.
3/ Overall, the paper does not fit the theme of the workshop — which has more to do with how AI concentrates power in the hands of a few, rather than hypothesizing about the future of AI and what that means for humanity, without grounding it in a material analysis.
3. Please give this submission a score
Although I at least received reviews of the paper, the reasons given here are highly questionable, particularly in the light of the fact that the workshop has accepted not just papers, but also poems, rants, essays etc., and even an anonymous submission, which is never the case at a research venue. In particular, the reviewer statement, “ignores the issues that AI technology is causing in the present”, does not make sense. In a four page paper, when dealing with a topic like this, how can one include a survey of harms already being done by AI? I have, in the past, written at least one paper on such harms, which is (ironically) hosted on arXiv. That paper was rejected without review from the conference where it was submitted simply because I mistakenly did not notice that the paper, before submission, had (at the last moment) exceeded the four page limit by a two or three (one column) lines.
I had then two options, apart from working further on the paper and submitting it to another peer reviewed venue. One was to appeal the decision by arXiv, which I might still do, and the other was to post the draft on some other preprint site. I found two alternatives for the second option. One was the PhilSci Archive for preprints in philosophy of science. The second was HAL Archive.
I posted on both of them. The draft was again rejected from the PhilSci Archive, giving the following reason:
Unfortunately the item could not be accepted into PhilSci-Archive. The item lies outside the range of material suitable for PhilSci-Archive. We regret that because of the volume of material posted, the archive cannot enter into correspondence concerning submissions that have been refused.
This may be debatable, since it seems to me the paper is well within the scope of philosophy of science.
The preprint has finally been accepted by the HAL Archive, after they asked me to first post a paper already published in a scientific journal ‘in order to establish a confidence contract’, which sounds reasonable.
I am working on improving the draft with the possibility of submitting it to another venue, preferably peer reviewed. However, in the fifteen years since I first published a peer reviewed paper, this has been the strangest case of rejection by multiple venues, not just by peer review, but by two different preprint sites, one of them (PhilSci) does not even have a moderation process according to their policy.
Even so, this is not the first case of strange rejection that I have experienced from peer reviewed venues. Till recently, it could be attributed to the inherently imperfect nature of the peer review process, but now it seems to be clearly going beyond that, as the Google case shows, if not also the case of my paper.
The idea of machines which are almost identical to human beings has been so seductive that it has captured the imaginations of the best minds as well as laypeople for at least a century and half, perhaps more. Right after Artificial Intelligence (AI) came into being, it was almost taken for granted that soon enough we will be able to build Humanoid Robots. This has also led to some serious speculation about ‘transhumanism’. So far, we do not seem to be anywhere near this goal. It may be time now to ask whether it is even possible at all. We present a set of arguments to the effect that it is impossible to create or build Humanoid Robots or Humanoid Intelligence, where the said intelligence can substitute human beings in any situation where human beings are required or exist.
1. Humanoid Intelligence, the Singularity and Transhumanism
Before we proceed to discuss the terms of the title of this section and the arguments in the following sections, we first define the foundational terms to some degree of conciseness and preciseness:
1. Human Life: Anything and everything that the full variety of human beings are capable of, both individually and collectively. This includes not just behaviour or problem solving, but the whole gamut of capabilities, emotions, desires, actions, thoughts, consciousness, conscience, empathy, creativity and so on within an individual, as well as the whole gamut of associations and relationships, and social, political and ecological structures, crafts, art and so on that can exist in a human society or societies. This is true not just at any given moment, but over the life of the planet. Perhaps it should include even spiritual experiences and ‘revelations’ or ‘delusions’, such as those hinted at in the Philip K. Dick story, Holy Quarrel [Dick et al., 1985].
2. Humanoid: A living and reproducing entity that is almost identical to humans, either with a human-like body or without it, on a different substrate (inside a computer).
3. Intelligence: Anything and everything that the full variety of human beings are capable of, both individually and collectively, as well as both synchronically and diachronically. This includes not just behaviour or problem solving, but the whole of life as defined.
4. The Singularity: The technological point at which it is possible to create (or have) intelligence that is Humanoid or better than Humanoid.
5. Transhumanism: The idea that, after the singularity, we can have a society that is far more advanced, for the better, than the current and past human societies. From 1910 to 1927, in the three volumes of Principia Mathematica [ 1925–1927], Whitehead and Russell set out to prove that mathematics is, in some significant sense, reducible to logic. This turned out to be impossible when Godel published his incompleteness theorems in 1931 [Sheppard, 2014, Nagel et al., 2001]. During the days of origins of modern Computer Science, before and in early 1930s, it would have been easy to assume that a computing machine would ultimately solve any problem at all. This also proved to be impossible with Turing’s undecidability theorem [Hopcroft et al., 2006] and the Church-Turing thesis of computability [Copeland and Shagrir, 2018]. Since then, other kinds of problem have been shown to be undecidable.
Now that we are supposed to close be enough to the Singularity [Kurzweil, 2006] so that it may happen within the lifetime of a large number of human beings, perhaps it is time to ask ourselves whether real intelligence, in particular Humanoid Intelligence (as defined above) is possible at all. We suggest that there are enough arguments to ‘prove’ (in an informal sense) that it is impossible to build, to create or to have Humanoid Intelligence. We argue that even though the Singularity is indeed possible, perhaps even very likely (unless we stop it), it may not be what it is supposed to be. The conjecture presented here is that the Singularity is not likely to be even benign, however powerful or advanced it may be. This follows from the idea of the impossibility of Humanoid Intelligence.
2 Some Notes about the Conjecture
We have not used the term theorem for the Impossibility and the reasons for this should be evident from the arguments that we present. In particular, we do not, and perhaps cannot, use formal notation for this purpose. Even the term conjecture is used in an informal sense. The usage of terms here is closer to the legal language than to the mathematical language, because that is the best that can be done here. This may be clearer from the Definition and the Story arguments. It is due to a similar reasoning that the term ‘incompleteness’ is not used and, instead, impossibility is used, which is more appropriate for our purposes here, although Godel’s term ‘essentially incomplete’ is what we are informally arguing for about Humanoid AI, and perhaps AI in general. No claim is made as to whether or not a formal proof is possible in the future at all. What we present is an informal proof. This proof has to be centred around the distinction between Micro-AI (AI at the level of an intelligent autonomous individual entity) and Macro-AI (very large intelligent autonomous systems, possibly encompassing the whole of humanity or the world). To the best of our knowledge, such a distinction has not been proposed before. While there has been some work in this direction [Brooks, 1998, Signorelli, 2018, Yampolskiy, 2020], for lack of space, we are unable to explain how this work differs from previous such works, except by noting that the argumentation and some of the terms are novel, a bit like in the case of arguments for or against the existence of God, which question has been debated by the best of philosophers again and again over millennia, which as we will see at the end, is relevant to our discussion.
3 The Arguments for the Impossibility Conjecture for Micro-AI
The Definition Argument): Even the Peano Arithmetic [Nagel et al., 2001] is based on three undefined terms (zero, number and is successor of ), which are relatively trivial terms compared to the innumerable terms required for AI (the core terms like intelligence and human, or terms like the categories of emotions, leave alone the terms like consciousness).
The Category Argument: A great deal of AI is about classifying things into categories, but most of these categories (e.g. anger, disgust, good or bad) have no scientifically defined boundaries. This is related to the following argument.
The Story Argument: It is almost established now that many of the essential concepts of our civilisation are convenient fictions or stories [Harari, 2015] and these often form categories and are used in definitions.
The Cultural Concept Argument: Many of the terms, concepts and stories are cultural constructs. They have a long history, most of which is unknown, without which they cannot be modelled.
The Individuality, or the Nature Argument: An individual intelligent autonomous entity has to be unique and distinct from all other such entities. It originates in nature and we have no conception of how it can originate in machines. We are not even sure what this individuality exactly is. However, all through history, we have assigned some degree of accountability to human individual and we have strict provisions for punishment of individuals based on this, that indicates that we believe in the concept of the ‘self’ or the ‘autonomous individual’, even when we deny its existence, as is becoming popular today.
The Genetic Determinism Argument: Individuality is not completely determined by nature (e.g. by our genes) at birth or creation once and for all. It also develops and changes constantly as it interacts with the environment, preserving its uniqueness.
The Self-organising System Argument: Human beings and the human societies are most likely self-organising [Shiva and Shiva, 2020] and organic systems, or they are complex, non-equilibrium systems [Nicolis and Prigogine, 1977]. If so, they are unlikely to be modelled for exact replication or reproduction. The Environment, or the Nurture Argument: Both intelligence and individuality depend on the environment (or on nature). Therefore, they cannot be modelled without completely modelling the environment, i.e., going for Macro-AI. The Memory, or the Personality Argument: Both intelligence and individuality are aspects of personality, which is known to be dependent on the complete life-memory (conscious and unconscious) of an intelligent being. There is not enough evidence that it is possible to recover or model this complete temporal and environmental history of memory. A lot of our memory, and therefore our individuality and personality is integrally connected with our bodily memories.
The Susbstrsate Argument: It is often taken for granted that intelligence can be separated from the substrate and planted on a different substrate. This may be a wrong assumption. Perhaps our intelligence is integrally tied with the substrate and it is not possible to separate the body from the mind, following the previous argument.
The Causality Argument: There is little progress in modelling causality. Ultimately, the cause of an event or occurrence is not one but many, perhaps even the complete history of the universe.
The Consciousness Argument: Similarly, there is no good enough theory of consciousness even for human understanding. It is very unlikely that we can completely model human consciousness, nor is there a good reason to believe that it can emerge spontaneously under the right conditions (which conditions?).
The Incompleteness/Degeneracy of Learning Source and Representation Argument: No matter how much data or knowledge we have, it will always be both incomplete and degenerate, making it impossible to completely model intelligence.
The Explainability Argument: Deep neural networks, which are the state-of-the-art for AI, have serious problems with explainability even for specific isolated problems. Without it, we cannot be sure whether our models are developing in the right direction.
The Test Incompleteness Argument: Perfect measures of performance are not available even for problems like machine translation. We have no idea what will be the overall measure of Humanoid Intelligence. It may always be incomplete and imperfect, leading to uncertainty about intelligence.
The Parasitic Machine Argument: Machines completely depend for learning on humans and on data and knowledge provided by humans. But humans express or manifest only a small part of their intelligent capability. So machines cannot completely learn from humans without first being as intelligent as humans.
The Language Argument: Human(oid) Intelligence and its modelling depend essentially on human language(s). There is no universally accepted theory of how language works.
The Perception Interpretation Argument: Learning requires perception and perception depends on interpretation (and vice-versa), which is almost as hard a problem as modelling intelligence itself.
The Replication Argument: We are facing a scientific crisis of replication even for isolated problems. How could we be sure of replication of Humanoid Intelligence, preserving individual uniqueness?
The Human-Human Espitemic Asymmetry Argument: There is widespread inequality in human society not just in terms of money and wealth, but also in terms of knowledge and its benefits. This will not only reflect in modelling, but will make modelling harder.
The Diversity Representation Argument: Humanoid Intelligence that truly works will have to model the complete diversity of human existence in all its aspects, most of which are not even known or documented. It will have to at least preserve that diversity, which is a tall order.
The Data Colonialism Argument: Data is the new oil. Those with more power, money and influence (the Materialistic Holy Trinity) can mine more data from others, without sharing their own data. This is a classic colonial situation and it will hinder the development of Humanoid Intelligence.
The Ethical-Political Argument: Given some of the arguments above, and many others such as data bias, potential for weaponisation etc., there are plenty of ethical and political reasons that have to be taken into account while developing Humanoid Intelligence. We are not sure whether they can all be fully addressed.
The Prescriptivastion Argument: It is now recognised that ‘intelligent’ technology applied at large scale not only monitors behaviour, but changes it [Zuboff, 2018]. This means we are changing the very thing we are trying to model, and thus laying down new mechanical rules for what it means to be human.
The Wish Fulfilment (or Self-fulfilling Prophecy) Argument: Due to prescriptivisation of life itself by imperfect and inadequately intelligent machines, the problem of modeling of Humanoid Intelligence becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, where we end up modeling not human life, but some corrupted and simplified form of life that we brought into being with ‘intelligent’ machines.
The Human Intervention Argument: There is no reason to believe that Humanoid Intelligence will develop freely of its own and will not be influenced by human intervention, quite likely to further vested interests. This will cripple the development of true Humanoid Intelligence. This intervention can take the form of secrecy, financial influence (such as research funding) and legal or structural coercion.
The Deepfake Argument: Although we do not yet have truly intelligent machines, we are able to generate data through deepfakes which are not recognisable as fakes by human beings. This deepfake data is going to proliferate and will become part of the data from which the machines learn, effectively modeling not human life, but something else.
The Chain Reaction Argument (or the Law of Exponential Growth Argument): As machines become more ‘intelligent’ they affect more and more of life and change it, even before achieving true intelligence. The speed of this change will increase exponentially and it will cause a chain reaction, leading to unforeseeable consequences, necessarily affecting the modelling of Humanoid Intelligence.
4 The Implications of the Impossibility
It follows from the above arguments that Singularity at the level of Micro-AI is impossible. In trying to achieve that, and to address the above arguments, the only possible outcome is some kind of Singularly at Macro-AI level. Such a Singularity will not lead to replication of human intelligence or its enhancement, but something totally different. It will, most probably, lead to extinction (or at least subservience, servitude) of human intelligence. To achieve just Humanoid Intelligence (Human Individual Micro-AI), even if nothing more, the AI system required will have to be nothing short of the common notion of a Single Supreme God. Singularity at the macro level will actually make the AI system, or whoever is controlling it, individual or (most probably small) collective, a Single Supreme God for all practical purposes, as far as human beings are concerned. But this will not be an All Powerful God, and not a a Kind God, for it will be Supreme within the limited scope of humanity and what humanity can have an effect on, and it will be kind only to itself, or perhaps not even that. It may be analogous to the God in the Phiilip K. Dick story Faith of Our Fathers [Dick and Lethem, 2013], or to the Big Brother of Orwell’s 1984 [Orwell, 1950]. We cannot be sure of the outcome,
of course, but those as likely outcomes as any others. That is reason enough to be very wary of
developing Humanoid Intelligence and any variant thereof.
Philip K. Dick, Paul Williams, and Mark. Hurst. I hope I shall arrive soon / Philip K. Dick ; edited by Mark Hurst and Paul Williams. Doubleday New York, 1st ed. edition, 1985. ISBN 0385195672.
Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell. Principia Mathematica. Cambridge University Press, 1925–1927.
John E. Hopcroft, Rajeev Motwani, and Jeffrey D. Ullman. Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation (3rd Edition). Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., USA, 2006. ISBN 0321455363.
B. Jack Copeland and Oron Shagrir. The church-turing thesis: Logical limit or breachable barrier? Commun. ACM, 62(1):66–74, December 2018. ISSN 0001-0782. doi: 10.1145/3198448. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3198448.
Ray Kurzweil. The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Penguin (Non-Classics), 2006. ISBN 0143037889.
Rodney Brooks. Prospects for human level intelligence for humanoid robots. 07 1998. Camilo Miguel Signorelli. Can computers become conscious and overcome humans? Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5:121, 2018. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2018.00121. URL https://www.frontiersin. org/article/10.3389/frobt.2018.00121.
Roman V. Yampolskiy. Unpredictability of ai: On the impossibility of accurately predicting all actions of a smarter agent. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness, 07(01):109–118, 2020. doi: 10.1142/S2705078520500034.
V. Shiva and K. Shiva. Oneness Vs. the 1 Percent: Shattering Illusions, Seeding Freedom. CHELSEA GREEN PUB, 2020. ISBN 9781645020394. URL https://books.google.co.in/books?
G. Nicolis and I. Prigogine. Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium Systems: From Dissipative Structures to Order Through Fluctuations. A Wiley-Interscience publication. Wiley, 1977. ISBN 9780471024019. URL https://books.google.co.in/books?id=mZkQAQAAIAAJ.
Shoshana Zuboff. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. 1st edition, 2018. ISBN 1610395697.
पिछली पोस्ट (शर्म के साथ कहना पड़ रहा है कि पोस्ट के लिए कोई उपयुक्त शब्द नहीं ढूंढ पा रहा हूं) में मैंने (अंग्रेज़ी में) संचय के नये संस्करण के बारे में लिखा था। मज़े की बात है कि संचय के बारे में मैंने अभी हिंदी में शायद ही कुछ लिखा हो। इस भूल को सुधारने की कोशिश में अब अगले कुछ हफ्तों में संचय के बारे में कुछ लिखने का सोचा है।
तो संचय कौन है? या संचय क्या है?
पहले सवाल का तो जवाब (अमरीकी शब्दावली में) यह है कि संचय एक सिंगल पेरेंट चाइल्ड है जिसे किसी वेलफेयर का लाभ तो नहीं मिल रहा पर जिस पर बहुत सी ज़िम्मेदारियाँ हैं।
दूसरे सवाल का जवाब यह है कि संचय सांगणिक भाषाविज्ञान (कंप्यूटेशनल लिंग्विस्टिक्स) या भाषाविज्ञान के क्षेत्र में काम कर रहे शोधकर्ताओं के लिए उपयोगी सांगणिक औजारों का एक मुक्त (मुफ्त भी कह सकते हैं) तथा ओपेन सोर्स संकलन है। पर खास तौर से यह कंप्यूटर पर भारतीय भाषाओं का उपयोग करने वाले किसी भी व्यक्ति के काम आ सकता है। इसकी एक विशेषता है कि इसमें नयी भाषाओं तथा एनकोडिंगों को आसानी से शामिल किया जा सकता है। लगभग सभी प्रमुख भारतीय भाषाएं इसमें पहले से ही शामिल हैं और संचय में उनके उपयोग के लिए ऑपरेटिंग सिस्टम पर आप निर्भर नहीं है, हालांकि अगर ऑपरेटिंग सिस्टम में ऐसी कोई भी भाषा शामिल है तो उस सुविधा का भी आप उपयोग संचय में कर सकते हैं। यही नहीं, संचय का एक ही संस्करण विंडोज़ तथा लिनक्स/यूनिक्स दोनों पर काम करता है, बशर्ते आपने जे. डी. के. (जावा डेवलपमेंट किट) इंस्टॉल कर रखा हो। यहाँ तक कि आपकी भाषा का फोंट भी ऑपरेटिंग सिस्टम में इंस्टॉल होना ज़रूरी नहीं है।
संचय का वर्तमान संस्करण 0.3.0 है। इस संस्करण में पिछले संस्करण से सबसे बड़ा अंतर यह है कि अब एक ही जगह से संचय के सभी औजार इस्तेमाल किए जा सकते हैं, अलग-अलग स्क्रिप्ट का नाम याद रखने की ज़रूरत नहीं है। कुल मिला कर बारह औजार (ऐप्लीकेशंस) शामिल किए गए हैं, जो हैं:
अगर इनमें से अधिकतर का सिर-पैर ना समझ आ रहा हो तो थोड़ा इंतज़ार करें। आगे इनके बारे में अधिक जानकारी देने की कोशिश रहेगी।
शायद इतना और जोड़ देने में कोई बुराई नहीं है कि संचय पिछले कुछ सालों से इस नाचीज़ के जिद्दी संकल्प का परिणाम है, जिसमें कुछ और लोगों का भी सहयोग रहा है, चाहे थोड़ा-थोड़ा ही। उन सभी लोगों के नाम संचय के वेबस्थल पर जल्दी ही देखे जा सकेंगे। ये लगभग सभी विद्यार्थी हैं (या थे) जिन्होंने मेरे ‘मार्गदर्शन’ में किसी परियोजना – प्रॉजेक्ट – पर काम किया था या कर रहे हैं।
उम्मीद है कि संचय का इससे भी अगला संस्करण कुछ महीने में आ पाएगा और उसमें और भी अधिक औजार तथा सुविधाएं होंगी।
As I promised, I am going to write about the movie ‘La Môme’, also known as ‘La Vie en Rose’ (‘The Life in the Pink’). The movie is about the legendary French popular singer Édith Piaf, real name Édith Giovanna Gassion, but earlier known as La Môme Piaf (The Little Sparrow).
For the last many weeks, I have been soaking myself in her songs. Not her alone, because I am never ever an exclusivist, but my playlist during this period has been almost half full of her songs. Or songs related to her, i.e., songs sung by her which were later also sung by others. As far as music is concerned, this has been one of the major obsessions so far. And it doesn’t look like I am going to get over it soon. I don’t mind it, of course.
I even found some notes and tunes familiar from Hindi film songs, which are the true melting pot of music like nothing else.
Did I say I will talk about it later?
Let it be said that I have listened to a very wide variety of music from around the world and claim to have a very good musical sense. So, now that you know about my qualifications for writing about her and the movie based on her (I guess you already know that I also claim to have a very good cinematic sense), I can get on and you better take me seriously.
Heh! Heh! Where is your degree?
First, I will say what has already been said by all. Marion Cotillard has given a great performance in this movie as the legendary singer. It’s hard for me to forget that she is not really Édith Piaf.
By the way, she became the first actor (or actress) to “ever win an Academy Award for Best Actress (“Oscar”) for a performance entirely in French”. Given that winning an Academy Award is considered the height of achievement for people working in the movies, doesn’t it sound a bit strange? I mean French directors (along with directors from other countries from Europe and Asia) have been making movies and setting the standards for others for a long time now and French actors have been acting in them. Well enough to deserve world class awards.
How easy it is to forget that the Oscars, the Academy Awards, are mainly meant for English movies. There is just one magnanimous (or guest, if you like) category for ‘Foreign language movies’. But everyone behaves as if the Academy Awards are equally for all movies of the world.
Can we expect globalization of the Academy Awards? I won’t bet on it.
Except that I have never bet.
The spell checker has identified ‘globalization’ as an invalid word. I am adding it to the dictionary. The spell checker also doesn’t recognize ‘exclusivist’ as a valid word. I am adding this word too.
I have heard the term ‘Artificial Intelligence’ somewhere. I also heard a rumor (rumour for the non-dominant party) that computers now have some of it. Why do I feel a bit relieved that it is just a rumor?
Coming back to the movie, it is about a singer who, as someone said, “belts them out, doesn’t she?”. She does indeed. And she does just great. I have become her lifetime admirer. For whatever is left.
She was a born singer. She started on the street. She was the daughter of an acrobat and a street singer. For some time she lived in a brothel managed by her grandmother, where she was treated very well. One of the prostitutes became so fond of her that she was heartbroken and hysterical when the father came back for his daughter. With her father, she (the singer to be) lived in a circus. Later she accompanied her father on his acrobatic (contortionist) street shows and started singing. Then she sang on the streets with her half-sister, who remained close to her till her death, except for some time when she felt ignored and abandoned by the star singer.
She was discovered by a nightclub owner. She was suspected of involvement in his murder, but was cleared. She denied that she had anything to do with that and I would prefer to believe that. I would rather give her the benefit of doubt than to Henry Kissinger. Or so many like him, even if not his equal in douchehood.
She sang under the protection of local mafia men, who took their share, obviously. She met a composer, Marguerite Monnot, who also became her ‘most loyal friend’ for the rest of her life. Then she was mentored by a composer who was also a poet and a businessman. She became popular on the radio as well as on the stage. She became a star. Actually, in France, she became a super star. She mentored many people and helped them launch their career. And ‘dropped’ them when they became successful and no longer needed her mentoring. She helped launch many careers, including that of another legendary singer Yves Montand. Jean Cocteau wrote a successful one-act play ‘Le Bel Indifférent’ specially for her and she acted in it.
She was severely injured in a major car accident. Then she suffered more car accidents. Partly because of injuries from the car crashes, she got into addiction and suffered more. She fell in love with a married French boxer (who was a star in his own right in France) …
Well, according to the ethics of movie reviewing, I shouldn’t divulge too much. Suffice it, as the phrase goes, to say that if there was anyone whose life was the stuff of legend, she was the one.
I would say even more than Howard Hughes.
So much about her, what about the movie? It is one of best biopics I have ever seen. It is better than ‘The Aviator’. It is better than ‘Capote’, even though I have more than a soft spot for movies made about writers or about literature. It is better even than ‘Gandhi’. More about that last movie later.
Now the reasons why it is better. First is simply that I like it more. But more specifically, everything is almost perfect in this biopic. Direction (Olivier Dahan) is really good without being pretentious or stiff. Screenplay (Isabelle Sobelman and Olivier Dahan) is as it should be for a biopic. Realistic but still interesting. Not over the top. Neither starry eyed, nor of the kind which seems to be declaring ‘I will (academically) judge this person’s personal life and cut him or her to size’.
Marion Cotillard actually became The Little Sparrow. I don’t know whether it was with or without Method Acting. The rest of the cast also gave very convincing performances, including the actress who played Marlene Dietrich. I should make special mention of Sylvie Testud who played the role of Mômone (Simone Berteaut), Édith’s half-sister and her lifelong friend. Her lifelong partner in mischief.
For now, I will stop talking about the movie here as I intend to write a second installment of this post.
I would be proud to have lived a life like the one she lived. With warts and all.
Even now, as I write, she is singing in the background. Literally.
In the words of the movie’s Marlene Dietrich, she is taking me on a voyage to Paris. Where (unlike Marlene Dietrich) I have never been, except for half an hour at the airport when I had to keep sitting in the plane as there was a strike at the airport. So I have yet to set my feet on the soil of Paris, but The Little Sparrow, who really belts them out and who embodies the soul of Paris, has flown me around there plenty of times now.
P.S.: The strike in the above paragraph doesn’t mean terrorist strike. It means labour strike. Just in case.