Word Distinction: “Smart” and “Intelligent” Introduction, Part II

As we learned in our first part of the introduction in word distinction between “smart” and “intelligent,” there is indeed a difference between the two words, according to many experts.

Smart is using knowledge we’ve gained in a, well, smart fashion. Intelligence is our capacity to reason and think. It’s finite. It can’t be improved upon.

As a species, we’ve always been fascinated by the concept of creating machines that have human qualities, particularly being smart or intelligent. And we’ve had considerable success creating smart machines. The telegraph? For its time, that was a pretty smart tool and probably forced many carrier pigeons into early retirement.

A washing machine? If you were beating clothes on a rock in a stream to get them clean, a washing machine must have seemed like a pretty smart way to do the job in comparison. A dishwasher? A coffee maker? All smart machines, no question.

And today we have the smart phone, which is really, really smart, given that it can give you directions, report the latest news and weather and challenge your fine motor skills with a game of Angry Birds.

But what about creating intelligent machines?

In science fiction, all sorts of machines do all sorts of very cool things.  If you’re a Baby Boomer, no doubt you remember the robot from the TV show “Lost in Space,” which sounded the well-known warning, “Danger Will Robinson!” That robot seemed pretty intelligent.

Believe it or not, you can buy a replica of one, according to this post in Robot Living.

Danger, Will Robinson!
(Credit: CBS)

Star Wars brought us two famous robots, C-3PO and R2-D2. R2-D2 couldn’t talk, but he (she?) sure appeared intelligent helping rescue Luke and the gang from a number of close calls by what appeared to be quick thinking. Then there’s HAL 9000, the computer in the movie, 2001: A Space Odyssey. That dude was creepy intelligent. He could do all sorts of human-like things, including reading lips, which is how he learned he was to be shut down. He wasn’t going for that, of course. So poor astronauts started doing the Big Sleep, thanks to HAL.

HAL 9000
(Credit: MGM)

So how much of this stuff is reality today? According to the novel based on the Space Odyssey movie, HAL became operational on Jan. 12, 1997, in Urbana, Ill. That was 15 years ago. But, as far as we know, there is no HAL-type computer able to do such remarkable human-like things.

Yes, smart/intelligent people have created computers that have beat chess masters and Jeopardy champions. But can they think? Are they intelligent? Or are they simply really, really smart, meaning they take all the information that’s been programmed into them and merely apply it well.

Many experts say it’s the latter, for now at least.

Our machines, while amazingly smart, are doing what they are programmed, by humans, to do. They are not, well, thinking outside of the box. A number of experts believe that we’re still a ways off from creating machines that are truly intelligent.

For instance, there were some playful jabs toward Google and its recent big announcement that a network of computers did this most remarkable thing: It identified cat faces from YouTube videos. One headline from a tech blog didn’t give it much hoopla: “Someone Call Sarah Connor, Google’s Brain Machine Learned to Recognize Cats.” Sarah Connor was the heroine in the “Terminator” movies, who faced the very mean and very focused Terminator robots. But could they recognize cats?

Google’s accomplishment, however, was heralded by many as a significant step in the field of “artificial intelligence” or AI. That’s because humans didn’t tell the computers what to seek. They did it on their own. HAL would be proud.

Creating intelligent machines is a tough challenge. One hurdle is explained by University of Louisiana professor Istvan Berkeley in a paper, “What is Artificial Intelligence?”

“For most people, if they know that President Clinton is in Washington, then they also know that President Clinton’s right knee is also in Washington. This may seem like a trivial fact, and indeed it is for humans, but it is not trivial when it comes to AI systems. In fact, this is an instance of what has come to be known as ‘The Common Sense Knowledge Problem’. A computational system only knows what it has been explicitly told. No matter what the capacities of a computational system, if that system knows that President Clinton was in Washington, but doesn’t know that his left knee is there too, then the system will not appear to be too clever. Of course, it is perfectly possible to tell a computer that if a person is in one place, then their left knee is in the same place, but this is only the beginning of the problem. There are a huge number of similar facts which would also need to be programmed in. For example, we also know that if President Clinton is in Washington, then his hair is also in Washington, his lips are in Washington and so on. The difficulty, from the perspective of AI, is to find a way to capture all these facts. The Common Sense Knowledge Problem is one of the main reasons why we do not have as yet the intelligent computers predicted by science fiction, like the HAL 9000.”

So it might take some time before we see a machine that can do intelligent things, such as design airline seats that are actually spacey and comfortable. We humans apparently can’t do it.

We are fortunate to have Daniel Tynan as our guest blog interviewee on the distinction between “smart” and “intelligent,” whose take on the subject will be published in two parts next week on our blog. Dan has a wealth of experience writing about technology in an intelligent (smart) and funny fashion. A contributing editor for PC World, InfoWorld.com, and Family Circle magazine, he recently launched a new Geek Humor Web site titled eSarcasm, along with partner JR Raphael. Additionally, he’s a television and radio commentator.

Tune in next week for his lively thoughts.

Mike Stetz, Senior Writer
Collaborative Services, Inc.

Word Distinction: “Smart” and “Intelligent” Introduction, Part 1

Last week’s blog topic on word distinction featured the difference between “weather” and “climate” and this week we move to “smart” and “intelligent.”

Again, they are two words that seem similar – almost interchangeable – but are they?

Today, we run into these words with many of the purchases we make – smart phone anyone?

How about a smart TV? Samsung created one that reacts to your gesture or voice commands. It even has face recognition. James Bond would love smart TV, no doubt.

Samsung’s Smart TV

Apparently, you need some serious brains to figure out this word distinction because it can get a bit confusing since the words are so closely related.

Oh, some experts say it can be simple, particularly when it comes us, people. Our intelligence is measurable. It’s set. You can’t improve it. What you are born with is what you’ve got. Einstein went back for seconds apparently.

Albert Einstein

Smart? That’s what you gain through learning and life experiences. It’s also used to describe how you apply that knowledge. You can be street smart, for instance. Or book smart. Or a smart dresser. People say things such as, “That was a smart move.” Or, “That took some real smarts.”

Here’s one way of looking at it: If a person has an IQ that’s off the charts, but is never sent to school to gain knowledge, his or her smarts would be severely limited. Indeed, that person – who wouldn’t be able to read and write or do simple math equations – would appear intelligently stunted, even though that’s not the case.

Here’s good news? Even if you’re not the most intelligent person in the world, you can teach yourself to be smarter. At least that’s the opinion of University of Texas at Austin psychology professor Art Markman, who wrote the book, Smart Thinking.

As he noted to KUT public radio in Austin: “If you think about it, we spend a lot of time focusing on intelligence tests and ‘is someone smart to begin with?’ and we track kids from early on in school. But the fact is, while there are definitely difference between people in how they score on intelligence tests, so much of what influences how effective we are as thinkers in the world depends on what we know and our ability to use our knowledge. And that’s really under our control.”

Here, he talks in more detail about his book.

OK. So “smart” and intelligent have distinct meanings when it comes to our brains.

But the two words are being used interchangeably more and more – most noticeably in the technology field. And that’s where it gets confusing. Power companies are coming up with grids they call both “intelligent” and “smart.”

Maybe you drive a “smart” car.  Perhaps you work in an “intelligent” building.

Smart Car

See? Who doesn’t have a headache already.

But really smart (or is it intelligent?) people say there is a difference in those two words even when it comes to science and technology. Gary Bradski is a senior scientist at Willow Garage, a robotics application incubator in Menlo Park. He also holds a joint appointment as Consulting Professor in Stanford University’s Computer Sciences Department. So he’s an intelligent (or smart) guy, no question. His take on smart/intelligent, when it comes to technology:

“Smart phones are tactical, they are not used for planning,” he explained to us via email. “You want them to come up with email and games quickly. A robot would be intelligent if it could learn from observing other people, learn operational plans and efficiently manage spaces. It would be smart if it learned new objects quickly.”

Machines would be intelligent if they could think, sort of like the way people do. That means reacting to a situation and learning from it. Or being able to reason. In the field of “artificial intelligence,” or AI, those are among of goals. Right now, machines do what we tell them to do. If you had a few too many drinks and decide to call an old flame, your smart phone will dutifully make the connection even though that’s not a very, well, smart thing to do. But an intelligent phone would be able to remember the last time you made a similar decision, recognize it was not a good one, and learning from that, not only not make the call, but make an appointment for you to see your therapist.

We will explore more of the difference between “smart” and “intelligent” in our second part of this introduction, which will appear later this week. And, next week we’ll hear from an industry expert his take on the way these words could and should be used.

Mike Stetz, Senior Writer
Collaborative Services, Inc.

What’s With the Weather? (Part II)

When it comes to climate change, one of the frustrations that experts routinely voice is that the concept sometimes gets lost in translation. That’s not all surprising. Climate change is complex science, after all, and the topic is still relatively new to those of us non-scientists. The term “global warming” was first used in 1975 – hardly ancient history. The Beatles had broken up five years earlier.

So the learning curve still appears to be steep. One of the lingering problems noted by Carl Wunsch, the Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is that many people routinely confuse “weather” and “climate,” which doesn’t help matters.

Climate vs. Weather

Our current blog topic, of course, is the distinction between those two words. In our previous blog on the subject, we learned about the difference between the two. Weather is what we’re seeing outside now. Climate is the average weather that a region experiences over a significant period of time.

Our guest blogger today, Cara Pike, the director of Climate Access, has the challenging job of bridging the gap between scientific research and those government agencies and organizations that are seeking to implement change.

On its website, Climate Access, spells out the dilemma this way:

“Those in government and non-profits trying to communicate to the public about climate change say that they often lack the time and resources to digest the latest research and incorporate it into their campaigns. Similarly, researchers wish to know more about how their findings are playing out in the field.”

But when “climate” and “weather” are routinely confused, one can see the hurdles that Pike faces. She is undaunted, though. Much is at stake, of course, considering how climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing us. Her fascinating insight follows:

– – –

But just what do you mean when you say “climate?”
Our climate is the collection of our weather patterns – the wind, 
precipitation, temperature and storm trends that prevail within a 
region over time. Weather patterns affect just about everything in our lives – the ability to grow the food we eat, the kinds of infectious diseases and pests that can thrive and affect our health, the amount of water we have for drinking and maintaining our property, and our efforts to keep our homes and families safe from extreme weather events.

How is that different from weather?
Weather is about the short-term wind, precipitation, temperature and
 storm patterns within a region, versus the averages over time.

But climate change changes weather, correct? Is that why there may be 
some confusion?
Most people do not understand the difference between climate and
 weather. We all tend to focus on the daily or short-term weather
 forecasts so we can decide when to bring an umbrella, wear an extra
 layer, or pack sunscreen.  We remain relatively unaware of what the 
long-term average atmospheric trends are and this does create
 confusion. For example, a single storm event often cannot be attributed to 
climate change, yet the overall trend around the increase in extreme 
weather events can.

What’s the biggest challenge in communicating about climate change to 
the public?
The majority of Americans accept climate change is happening and is 
a serious concern. The challenge is that most people do not have a 
clear sense of how and when it will impact their lives, and what can
 actually be done to address it. Feeling “tension” around climate
 change without have a sense of “efficacy” or what the “benefits” of 
action might be creates dissonance that causes many to become overwhelmed and tune. This
 situation is exacerbated by the fact that the fossil fuel industry is
 engaged in a propaganda war to intentionally place doubt around the 
certainty of the challenge and what it means for our lives. As a 
result, in many communities, people do not feel comfortable talking
 about climate change with colleagues, neighbors, or even friends, even if it is foremost in their minds.

The Breakdown of Fossil Fuel in the US

What are the lessons learned in the past decade about communications 
involving climate change?
I’ve been focused on climate communications and behavior change for 
the past eight years and over that time, I think we have made progress 
in terms of learning how best to communicate the challenges and
 opportunities global warming presents. While we still have a lot of
 work to do in terms of creating a climate story with a clear and
 compelling vision for the future and a path that can get us there, at 
the same time there has been the acknowledgement that taking an 
”information-deficit” approach with engagement efforts is not enough.
 Scientific literacy is an extremely important issue that needs to be
 addressed, yet we have also learned about the need to tap people’s
 values, worldviews, and identities around climate change. 
Fortunately, some efforts are starting to address this need by going
 beyond traditional media approaches to develop peer support programs, 
social media networks, and other mechanisms that connect people with 
others who care for support and inspiration.

Are there any emerging trends that you see that are working to help
 people understand what is meant by climate change?
In 2009, The Social Capital Project produced a guide to framing the 
climate conversation called Climate Crossroads.
 At that time, our research showed potential around shifting from the 
scientific uncertainty frame (Do we know enough to act?) to a 
preparation frame (People are already acting to prepare for climate 
impacts…) as a way to build understanding of what climate change
 means for our lives. This approach is gaining momentum and showing 
promise as communities across the country are downplaying climate 
impacts to the local level and sorting out how to respond to the 
changes. This approach has unfortunately been advanced by the 
increase in extreme weather events in the United States and around the
 world over the past year. These extreme storm events are acting as a
 wake-up call for many, including those who are still uncertain about
 climate change, given their toll on communities and the economy. 
Another trend to consider has been around addressing the psychological
 aspects of climate change and developing processes that support people 
through the steps of recognizing the challenge, understanding its 
implications for our lives, mourning the loss of our fossil-fuel 
lifestyles, and then finally letting go and moving into a phase of
designing solutions and new ways to live.

Severe Thunderstorm above Manhattan on July 18, 2012
(Credit: Dhani Jones)

From those trends, do you have any predictions for how communications 
should be focused in the year and decade ahead about this topic?
For the most part, I think we have failed to consider climate change
 as a long-term communications and public engagement challenge. Given
 the urgency of the issue, the tendency has been to focus on near-term
 efforts, versus building a strong constituency base for action over 
time, with a focus on youth. Climate change will be one of the 
defining issues for generations to come and we need to start
 approaching the work by considering at least the next decade of
 activities, not just the next year.

There is more to be done in terms of identifying what the role of the public is or should be in making the transition to low-carbon, 
resilient communities. To date, climate change has been seen mostly as 
a scientific, engineering, and policy issue; however, human history 
illustrates that transformational change happens when the largest 
number of people in a culture are engaged in collective actions that 
have profound economic, political and social effects. 
More efforts are needed that support people emotionally as they move
 through the stages from disinterest to defending their climate 
actions. People tend to get involved with issues, environmental and
 otherwise, when they feel part of a community that they care about and 
have a sense of meaning in their lives. What bigger challenge to 
infuse our culture with a sense of purpose and community than coming 
together to address climate change?

 Finally, while we need to meet people where they are at on the issue
 (i.e. approaching climate change from a national security, emergency 
management, or public health angle), we also need to carve out more
 space in the culture to allow for climate change to be discussed 
directly and openly. This is a tough challenge as it intersects with
 other major trends such as civic disengagement, the role of money in
 politics, and the polarized political environment yet important to 
address because too much ground is given up if we allow the ‘c-word’ 
to become culturally unacceptable to use.

– – –

Thank you Cara Pike for your time and expertise. We wish you the best of luck in helping bridge the gap between experts in climate change and the public agencies that seek to use the information to help create dialogue and change.

Mike Stetz, Senior Writer
Collaborative Services, Inc.

What’s with the weather?

Great question and one we jump right into in our kick-off post to distinguish important words – starting with weather and climate.

When it comes to “climate” and “weather,” we often use the same words to describe them. Lovely. Harsh. Delightful. Brutal.

So is it any wonder why there is confusion between the two? Indeed, the need for word distinction between this pairing is so apparent, many scientific agencies make it a point to explain their meanings on their websites.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center says this.

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research puts it this way.

And the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s take on the subject is this.

In a nutshell, weather is what we’re seeing right now.

Climate is the long-term – usually 30 years – of weather averages. It’s not shocking that it’s sunny and nice out in San Diego in July. It’d be shocking if a downpour were happening right now. Historically, it rarely rains in San Diego in July. The only umbrellas you see are the big ones on the beach for shade and the little ones in cocktails for garnish.

Will 2012 be the hottest summer on record?
(Credit: CNN)

But these words are key today. Can we have a discussion about climate and record-breaking weather if we don’t share the same definition of these words? Sure. But would it be productive? Probably not. Knowing the distinction is important given that we need to survive – and ideally thrive – in both the immediate timeframe and the longer term horizon.

It’s the hottest summer on record. Is that weather a result of a changing climate or is it happenstance?

Our two guest bloggers this week on this word distinction are experts addressing questions like that. Christina Milesi, PhD is a research scientist working in the Ecological Forecasting Lab at NASA Ames Research Center in Moffett Field in Silicon Valley. She’s also a member of the NASA Climate Change Adaptation Science Investigator Group for NASA Ames. We met her last year when she was making a presentation in the San Francisco Bay Area. The focus of her presentation – the difference between climate and weather. We’re thrilled to have her comment here on our blog. Next, we’ll hear from Cara Pike, the Director of Climate Access, which serves as the bridge between climate research and government agencies and organizations that are trying to spur action. We look forward to posting both their interviews next week.

The Water Planet
(Credit: NASA – The Earth Observatory)

Most of us associate NASA with the space shuttle and landing people on the moon, not with weather or climate. What’s NASA’s role in studying these?
You are right; most people are unaware that one of NASA’s goals is to “Expand scientific understanding of the Earth.” One of NASA’s missions is to explore the Earth system from space through observations taken mainly from satellites. These satellites, designed and launched by NASA itself, orbit our planet measuring various aspects of our Earth system, from sea surface temperature to snow cover, and over long period of times they allow us to improve our understanding of how climate on our planet is changing, and the impacts of these changes on the biosphere. A list of data collected by NASA’s Earth Science missions can be found visiting the following website: http://gcmd.nasa.gov/.

In your words, what is the difference between climate and weather?
Weather is the day-to-day variation. We call those meteorological variables or temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind. Climate is the average of the weather recorded in a location over a long period of time in addition to its statistical variability. For example, the summer climate of San Diego, where your business is,  is the statistical average of the meteorological conditions of June, July and August recorded around San Diego for about 30 years. So on average we expect the summer in San Diego to be warm and sunny because of its climate, but there can be colder and cloudy days even in July if a low-pressure system lingers along the coast. This unexpected variability is caused by the weather.

NASA SORCE Satellite
(Credit: NASA)

Are you studying climate or weather and how do you study it?
I study the impact of climate on the biosphere. I use Earth observations from satellites to measure the effect of climate and its changes on the greenness of the landscapes.  This tells us how changes in temperature, precipitation and atmospheric CO2 affect the photosynthetic capacity of the biosphere, and its ability to sequester carbon. I also use vegetation models, which are mathematical representations of the photosynthetic activity of biomes and the associated fluxes in carbon, nitrogen, and water to understand how vegetation growth could change in the next 50 to 100 years in response to projected climate change, and how this could potentially affect the functioning of ecosystems.

We’re a communications firm and our colleagues and clients are trying to engage and inform the public and policy makers about important topics, like climate change. What do you think the most effective ways are to communicate about climate and the difference between climate and weather?
I find that some of these abstract concepts can be explained by making analogies with everyday activities, for example driving to work. Let’s suppose that your commute to work by car on average takes half our, but at least 40 minutes if there is a lot of traffic, and up to 1 hour if there’s an accident. However, if you commute off rush hours it will take you only 20 minutes. You can think of the average commute as the climate, and all its day-to-day variations caused by traffic, accidents, road constructions, as the weather. In this analogy, you can imagine a changing climate caused by more and more cars put on the road. These increase your average commute, and make the delays caused by extra traffic and accidents even more extreme. Robert Heinlein famously defined the difference between weather and climate by saying that “Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.”

Our firm is based in San Diego. Here we have what’s described as a Mediterranean climate. How many climate types are out there?
Well, let’s think about what impacts the climate of a location.

Climate is first of all determined by the latitude of a location, because the latitude regulates how the sun strikes the earth surface, which affects the temperature of the location. In the tropics the sun strikes directly over the head, so it heats the surface more. As the latitude increases, the angle at which the sunrays hit the earth generally increases, and so does the distance from the sun.

In addition to the latitude, the climate of a location is also impacted by its altitude — which affects mainly the air pressure and the temperature, the terrain — which affects the wind circulation, and the distance to water bodies, which also impacts the wind circulation and affects the amount of moisture in the air and the precipitation. One way to classify climates is according to the Köppen climate classification system, which divides the world based on the combinations of temperature and precipitation and their distribution throughout the year. The Köppen system groups regions with similar average temperature and precipitation regimes, and defines about two dozens different climatic regimes, of which the Mediterranean climate is one of them.

Köppen Climate Classification Map
(Credit: University of Melbourne)

And I take it certain weather patterns exist in these climates. Is that why people confuse the two words?
That’s right, there are prevailing weather patterns in any given climate and their average over long time defines the climate. In San Diego there are mostly sunny and dry days in the summer and mild and rainy winters, which determines San Diego to be located in a Mediterranean climatic regime. People have often a short-term memory regarding meteorological conditions, and often attribute any wild weather condition to climate. To understand climate you need to maintain a big picture and rely on accurately measured long records in meteorological variables.

Thank you for being interviewed. We value your input greatly and are excited to share your thoughts with our colleagues and readers. We ask all interviewees whether they have any recommendations for resources (books conferences, organizations, etc) or experts that you’d like to recommend be highlighted in future posts. Please feel free to add any referrals you have here:
I would like to recommend the book: The Weather of the Future, by Heidi Cullen.

– – –

Thank you Dr. Milesi for your time and thoughts. We appreciate it greatly. In the coming days, we will run Part II of word distinction between “weather” and “climate” when we hear from Cara Pike, the Director of Climate Access.

Mike Stetz, Senior Writer
Collaborative Services, Inc.