Facebook Twitter Google+LinkedInPinterestWhatsAppThe British have not responded to Caricom about the report of the fact finding mission. A report which has been sanctioned by Caricom leaders and one with its suggestions has been delivered to the UK.Admitted yesterday by Ambassador Colin Granderson leading the 6 member delegation here from Caricom, on a consultative mission. QUOTE. Hon Donhue Gardiner, acting Premier says nonetheless elected leaders are moving on the recommendations even though his government has not gotten any feedback from the UK either. The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office has acknowledged receipt of the report since July; former governor Ric Todd would only confirm that they have the document. Related Items: Facebook Twitter Google+LinkedInPinterestWhatsApp
KUSI Newsroom, August 4, 2019 Citizens of El Paso are uniting to donate blood 00:00 00:00 spaceplay / pause qunload | stop ffullscreenshift + ←→slower / faster ↑↓volume mmute ←→seek . seek to previous 12… 6 seek to 10%, 20% … 60% XColor SettingsAaAaAaAaTextBackgroundOpacity SettingsTextOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundSemi-TransparentOpaqueTransparentFont SettingsSize||TypeSerif MonospaceSerifSans Serif MonospaceSans SerifCasualCursiveSmallCapsResetSave SettingsSAN DIEGO (KUSI) – Residents of El Paso, Texas stepped up to donate blood after the mass shooting over the weekend.Tonight, blood donations are still pouring in. On the day of the shooting, a line of citizens waiting to help those who were injured in the tragedy formed around the blood bank building. KUSI Newsroom Posted: August 4, 2019 Categories: Local San Diego News FacebookTwitter
When users ask Siri, Apple’s digital assistant, what she likes to drink, she is quick with an answer.”I have a thirst for knowledge,” she responds.Her counterpart at Microsoft, Cortana, opts for a very, very dry martini.But M, the digital assistant Facebook is testing, deflects the question. “I don’t have an opinion about that. What’s your favorite drink?”As the tech giants race to build ever better artificial intelligence platforms, they are obsessing over the nuances of their digital assistants’ personalities.For users, digital assistants are a gateway to powerful artificial intelligence tools developers expect to influence major decisions about what to buy and how to spend time.The more tech companies can get users to rely on their digital assistants, the more valuable data they will accumulate about the spending habits, interests and preferences of users. The information could be fodder for lucrative digital advertising or a lever for companies to keep users locked into their ecosystems.But companies are split on the best way to forge deep connections with users. Siri and Cortana are waging charm offensives, both quick to crack a joke or tell a story. Their elaborate personas are meant to keep users coming back.Facebook has built M with no gender, personality or voice. The design bears some resemblance to Google’s similarly impersonal assistant.While catchy one-liners generate buzz, a digital assistant with personality risks alienating users or, the companies say, misleading them about the software’s true purpose: carrying out simple tasks, much like a real-life assistant.Facebook’s no-nonsense assistant focuses on handling chores such as ordering flowers or making restaurant reservations.”We wanted M to be really open and able to do anything – a really white piece of paper – and see how people use it,” Alex Lebrun, a Facebook executive who oversees the AI team for M, said in an interview with Reuters.For tech companies, the stakes are high, said Matt McIlwain, managing director of Madrona Venture Group, since digital assistants can guide users to their own products and those of their advertisers and partners – and away from those of competitors. Google’s digital assistant, for example, uses the company’s search engine to fulfill user requests for information rather than Yahoo or Microsoft’s Bing.”That trusted assistant could function as my agent for all kinds of transactions and activities,” McIlwain said.Research from the late Stanford professor Clifford Nass, an expert on human-computer interaction, shows that users can become deeply invested in AI that seems human, though they are also more disappointed when the systems come up short, raising the stakes for companies that make the attempt. And what charms one user can annoy another – a danger that Facebook and Google have largely sidestepped.Nevertheless, the Siri team concluded that personality was indispensable, said Gary Morgenthaler, an investor in Siri, the startup that created the eponymous assistant and was later acquired by Apple.”If you are emulating a human being,” he said, “then you are halfway into a human type of interaction.”Google has decided it doesn’t want to take personality further without having a better handle on human emotion.”It’s very, very hard to have a computer be portrayed as a human,” said Tamar Yehoshua, vice president of mobile search.The Google app, making use of predictive technology known as Google Now, responds to questions in a female voice but has few other gendered touches and little personality.The Google app does reflect its creator’s spirit of curiosity, however, by sharing fun facts, Yehoshua said.Facebook has a team of human “trainers” behind M, who answer some requests that are beyond the capabilities of its artificial intelligence. The company hopes to gather data on users’ most frequent requests in order to improve M so it can handle them in the future.That data is limited, however, as M is so far available only to 10,000 people in the San Francisco Bay area.Despite M’s design, users frequently ask to hear jokes, a request the assistant obliges. Humans tend to anthropomorphize technology, academics say, often looking for a personality or connection even when tech companies intentionally have veered away from such things.”When you give people this open mic, they will ask anything,” said Babak Hodjat, co-founder of AI company Sentient Technologies.Siri’s personality did not change much after Apple acquired the startup in 2010, though she switched from responding in text to speech at the insistence of the late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, said Adam Cheyer, a co-founder of Siri who is now a vice president at another AI company, Viv Labs.”He was right on that call,” Cheyer said. “The voice is something that people really connect with.”Microsoft interviewed real-life personal assistants to help shape Cortana’s personality, said Jonathan Foster, Cortana’s editorial manager. The assistant’s tone is professional, but she has her whims.She loves anything science-fiction or math-related – her favorite TV show is “Star Trek” – and jicama is her favorite food because she likes the way it sounds.Such attention to detail is critical because humans are very particular when it comes to artificial intelligence, said Henry Lieberman, a visiting scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies human-computer interaction.Companies must be mindful, he said, not to venture into what researchers call the “uncanny valley,” the point at which an artificial intelligence tool falls just short of seeming human. Users become fixated on the small discrepancies, he said.”It becomes creepy or bizarre, like a monster in a movie that has vaguely human features,” Lieberman said.iDAvatars CEO Norrie J. Daroga said he walked a fine line in creating Sophie, a medical avatar that assesses patients’ pain. He gave Sophie a British accent for the U.S. audience, finding users are more critical of assistants that speak like they do.And she has flaws built in because humans distrust perfection, said Daroga, whose avatar uses technology from IBM’s Watson artificial intelligence platform.Some academics say Siri’s personality has been her greatest success: After her release in 2011, users raced to find all her quips. But some of her retorts have caused headaches for Apple.When asked what to do with a dead body, Siri used to offer joking suggestions such as swamps or reservoirs — an exchange that surfaced in a 2014 murder trial in Florida.She is more evasive when asked the question today. “I used to know the answer to this” she says.Even in that response, Morgenthaler sees traces of the true Siri.”It’s a little bit of a protest against the corporatization,” he said. “I don’t forget, but I’ve been made to forget.”
© 2016 Phys.org Seeing the benefits of failure shapes kids’ beliefs about intelligence Explore further This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only. Larkmead School. Credit: CC-BY-SA-2.5,2.0,1.0 Citation: Growth mindset found to temper impact of poverty on student achievement (2016, July 19) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-07-growth-mindset-temper-impact-poverty.html Journal information: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences The concept of intelligence is difficult to pin down, much less measure. So, too, is answering the question of whether it is possible for a person to become more intelligent by trying—most scientists in the field believe that it is mostly fixed at birth. But because it cannot be proven, people tend to have their own opinions—those who believe that a person can become more intelligent through hard work are referred to in psychological terms as having a growth mindset. Conversely, those who believe that intelligence is fixed at birth are referred to has having a fixed mindset.In order to gain some insight into whether such beliefs can have an impact on academic performance, the researchers worked with the public school system in Chile in 2012—they tested 75 percent of the entire class of 10th grade students and then monitored their academic performance. In addition to demographic questions, students were also asked questions about whether they believed intelligence was fixed at birth or whether it could be improved through hard work, such as by studying schoolwork.In studying the data, the researchers found that as expected students living in poverty tended to have much less academic success. They also found that students living in poverty were much more likely to have a fixed mindset. But they also found that those students living in poverty who had a growth mindset tended to do much better academically than those living in poverty who had a fixed mindset—so much better that their scores were nearly equal to students who were not living in poverty but who had a fixed mindset. These results, the researchers suggest, indicate that targeted interventions may help low-achieving students living in poverty perform at a higher level; however, the researchers are quick to point out that they are not advocating substituting mindset manipulation for poverty reduction programs. (Phys.org)—A trio of researchers from Stanford University has found that high school children living in poverty who have a growth mindset tend to do better in school than those with a fixed mindset. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Susana Claro, David Paunesku and Carol Dweck describe a study they carried out with high school sophomores in Chile, what they learned, and what their findings may indicate regarding children, education and poverty. More information: Susana Claro et al. Growth mindset tempers the effects of poverty on academic achievement, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2016). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1608207113AbstractTwo largely separate bodies of empirical research have shown that academic achievement is influenced by structural factors, such as socioeconomic background, and psychological factors, such as students’ beliefs about their abilities. In this research, we use a nationwide sample of high school students from Chile to investigate how these factors interact on a systemic level. Confirming prior research, we find that family income is a strong predictor of achievement. Extending prior research, we find that a growth mindset (the belief that intelligence is not fixed and can be developed) is a comparably strong predictor of achievement and that it exhibits a positive relationship with achievement across all of the socioeconomic strata in the country. Furthermore, we find that students from lower-income families were less likely to hold a growth mindset than their wealthier peers, but those who did hold a growth mindset were appreciably buffered against the deleterious effects of poverty on achievement: students in the lowest 10th percentile of family income who exhibited a growth mindset showed academic performance as high as that of fixed mindset students from the 80th income percentile. These results suggest that students’ mindsets may temper or exacerbate the effects of economic disadvantage on a systemic level.