

Google wants to build the Star Trek computer - eplanit
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/04/google_has_a_single_towering_obsession_it_wants_to_build_the_star_trek_computer.html?google_editors_picks=true

======
webwielder
The computer in TOS was almost horrifyingly robotic. It was used sparingly by
the crew, and technology was generally seen as a necessary evil (there was
even an episode where a new computer system threatened to take away Kirk and
co.'s jobs).

It wasn't until TNG that the computer became a friendly, integral part of the
Enterprise. The crew widely acknowledged and were comfortable with the fact
that the computer could do all of their jobs, but that never became an issue.

This shift corresponds with the rise of the personal computer away from
mainframes, and the replacement of blinking lights with GUIs for depictions of
computers in film and television. I will now resist the urge to credit Apple
for helping usher in such a shift in culture.

~~~
flyinRyan
I'm not sure the computer _could_ do all of their jobs. A lot of their jobs
were judgement calls, often based on "gut feel". I never got the impression
the people there were completely redundant.

------
colemorrison
How many of you use voice commands? (i.e. siri, record voice notes with
evernote etc.)

The primary problem with copying the star trek computer is the user
interaction. One of the biggest reasons all of the star trek's utilize a voice
command computer is ...

For directing.

Otherwise when the crew entered a command, recorded a log, etc. they'd either
always be shouting it out or making us watch / read the creation of text. It
was quite brilliant from a directing perspective, but do you want everyone
around knowing how many times you go to facebook/hacker news/gmail all the
time? For that matter, personal log entries etc. Yes it has its place when
you're in isolation, but its quite difficult when around others.

~~~
enobrev
I use google now's voice search almost daily, and some other voice-command
like "what song is this?", "set a timer...". Personally, I wish my desktop had
google now and voice search.

I've especially found voice search to be the more socially acceptable way to
search for something when conversing with a group of people. For instance,
during a discussion about movies at a bar with friends, to tap the phone and
ask it a question fits into the dynamic far better than putting your head down
to tap it into a keyboard and wait for results.

Asking the question aloud shows everyone that you didn't suddenly start
texting someone or checking facebook mid-conversation, but rather searching
for something in order to add to that conversation. Same goes for "what song
is this?".

I almost forgot my all time favorite while driving (whether alone or with a
car full of people): "Navigate Home"

~~~
colemorrison
Great point! You know, I hadn't thought of it for the more "social"
situations. I was more thinking of it in a functional, individual setting.

------
troymc
Another hint that Google was using the Star Trek computer as inspiration for
Google Now:

The project was originally known as "Majel," after Majel Barrett, the wife of
Gene Roddenberry, who was the voice of the Star Trek computer.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majel_Barrett>

------
rollo_tommasi
Is anyone else turned off by the idea of ubiquitous voice interfaces? I can
think, type and process visual information much faster than I can vocalize or
process sound, and an interface that mimics natural conversation seems
unnecessarily inefficient for a conversation that is, essentially, me talking
to myself.

Not to mention it just feels weird. Have you ever used Siri on the middle of a
crowded subway platform? It's a strange feeling.

~~~
mdturnerphys
I think it would be nifty to have for a media PC or in a meeting.

I can't remember—do Star Trek characters use voice commands with their
tricorders?

~~~
pyre
Not that I recall. They only used voice commands when on a starship and
communicating with the "main computer." I don't even think they used voice
commands on shuttle craft.

~~~
cowbellemoo
In DS9/Voyager, the shuttlecraft have talking computers. On occasion, they use
comm badges to execute remote commands like having the computer use the
shuttle's short range transporter to beam them back into the shuttle.

------
siculars
As with most things Google nowadays, their vision of the future seems to be at
odds with my desire to remain anonymous and maintain my privacy. As I swype
this on my galaxy s3, Google search app remains un-updated because it wants
all sorts of pervasive permissions that I just don't want to give it. Why does
Google search app want access to my text messages and contacts? I'm sure there
is some googly answer but it just doesn't sit well.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Google, like many companies, wants the biggest market share, therefore it goes
mostly for idiots. The rest will just have to find a way to fit in into all
that.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to wrap _the same fucking point_ in euphemisms. What a
tragedy.

------
RyanCooley
I believe this is less about the input method (in this case, speech) than it
is about situational awareness. The reason the Star Trek computer is perceived
as so smart is because of the thousands of sensors it employs inside and
outside of the ship, the other seemingly limitless data sources it has to pull
from, and of course the ability to parse all of that data into something
usable when needed.

As a member of the Enterprise, Star Trek's computer knows your vital signs,
your medical history, your food preferences (replicator), your entertainment
preferences (holodeck), your sleep patterns, your work history, your travel
history, your current whereabouts (combadge), your relationships (Riker's
combadge sure does spend a lot of time around Troi's combadge), your
psychological status (log entries), etc.

This is where Google and many others are headed, particularly with the advent
of wearable computing. If only we could rest assured that their intent is as
ostensibly benevolent and altruistic as that of the Enterprise computer.

------
ggchappell
This is a nice goal; I appreciate the answers to questions that are
increasingly showing up on DDG, Google, etc. But I find the idea of a Star
Trek computer inadequate as the overall vision of what a search engine should
be.

Most of us search for lots of things other than just information. We search
for _experiences_ : a video to watch, a story to read, a game to play, funny
comics, music, a wacky interaction with a stranger. We also search for
_capabilities_ : a site that lets me buy something, enter a contest, execute
some code, sign a petition, communicate with people, create an image.

And even when we search for information, often it is not simply a one-time
answer to a question. I might search for a site that will give me ongoing
updates on something: the weather, a webcam. Or I might want to read an
article to help me master a topic.

(Surely the folks at Google know all this. I have to wonder how much of his
own ideas the writer is projecting onto them.)

------
evanmoran
I'm all for this. You can talk much faster then you can type and that is at a
normal human speaking pace. We can actually talk much faster then that and
still be pretty understandable to us, and there is no reason a computer
couldn't understand us talking faster then that.

I've recently been testing this theory out by talking to computers as fast as
possible to see if they can understand, usually through customer service
lines, but some with Siri. The last time was when I activated my credit card
and had to read off the numbers. It had no trouble understanding me at a
pretty ridiculous speed, something much faster then a person could write down
or remember.

In the interest of science: I tested out Siri just now, talking as fast as I
can. I asked for: "directions to a violin", "make an appointment for 2:15 am",
"what is the temperature". 3 for 3. That thing can handle some pretty fast
input!

Interesting data I found surfing around:

Typing speed: 40 wpm Talking speed: 150 wpm Reading speed: 250 wpm (up to 1000
wpm with 50% reading comprehension if you believe speed reading websites)

Clearly pictures are worth a thousand words, so words per minute don't hold a
candle to maps, charts and other visualizations. This makes me think reading
will still be a big part of interfaces of the future. Perhaps we input with
voice and but will have to receive results "on screen." Haha. Ok, maybe Star
Trek jokes still aren't mainstream yet. When this is all a reality, will they
be funny then? =)

~~~
codewright
> (up to 1000 wpm with 50% reading comprehension if you believe speed reading
> websites)

My effective WPM (meaning take the reading comprehension as a coefficient and
multiply it by the raw WPM) ranges between 800 and 950.

Why do I keep running into people doubting speed reading is a thing? I had to
practice at it above and beyond a love of reading.

~~~
lutusp
> Why do I keep running into people doubting speed reading is a thing?

I don't think anyone doubts that it exists. What remains doubtful is whether
there's any retention of what's read.

"I took a speed-reading course so I could read 'War and Peace'. It's about
Russia." -- Woody Allen

~~~
codewright
The "effective" part is a measurement of the retention. In my case, we're
talking about 95-98%.

I don't understand why people are so scornful of speed reading :\

~~~
lutusp
Maybe because some have tried it and discovered they didn't really retain what
they read. This might easily be a personal thing, not an indictment of speed
reading at all, only that some people can't absorb printed matter quickly.

In other words, the same training with the same goal, but completely different
outcomes.

Another issue is content. Some of what I read requires great concentration and
repeated scanning of complex passages. Other content can be read quickly
simply because it doesn't require much from the reader. So one might say that
not all reading is created equal.

Example: how quickly can one absorb "It was a dark and stormy night"? I would
guess pretty quickly. On the other hand, "Time flies like an arrow, but fruit
flies like a banana" might take a little longer. :)

~~~
codewright
The rate at which I can consume material definitely varies depending on the
material. I read philosophy a good 2-3x slower than literature.

It's a little bit disingenuous to suggest those speaking of speed reading are
saying, "1,000 WPM ALL THE TIME ALL THE ABSORPTION IRRESPECTIVE OF MATERIAL!"
- I don't think anybody is saying that.

------
stormbrew
This is a great example of an internally sold and shared vision. I think that
can be a powerful thing. I wish more places I've worked had this strong a
vision of what they're aspiring towards down the line.

------
bemmu
Siri and the Google app with speech recognition are already pretty
interesting, but the biggest reason for not using them is that you need to
touch the device to get them started.

If there was a way to keep such an app always open and just say "computer" and
then ask the question instead of having to press a button, it would be much
more useful.

~~~
johngalt
Google Now has hot word detection. Saying 'Google' starts the voice app. Just
have to prevent the device from sleeping.

------
D9u
I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. I remember my Motorola StarTac phone,
which I fancied as Capt. Kirk's "communicator," and it's follow up a few years
later - the Razr - was a definite improvement, so I fully expect a Star Trek
type computer in the not-too-distant future.

------
ColinWright
Single page:

[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/04/...](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/04/google_has_a_single_towering_obsession_it_wants_to_build_the_star_trek_computer.single.html)

------
croddin
That is just a short term goal. Long term they want to build Lieutenant
Commander Data.

------
opinali
Hey, at least we're not working on a HAL9000 project. ;-)

------
thomasjames
So pretty much what IBM already did with Watson...

~~~
alxeder
but Watson doesn't scale to the amount of queries google is getting

------
arethuza
I'd rather they build a Culture Mind :-)

------
likeclockwork
Google, lights!

