Yesterday, I assured you that there was no need to worry about super-sentient robots taking over the world and ruling humanity. Then, I read about this.

Researchers at Cornell have announced the creation of self-replicating robots. These are robots that are designed to build exact copies of themselves. They are made up of identical building blocks (cleverly named “molecubes”), each of which contains all of the information needed for the program, not unlike DNA. The current version is simple, only able to self-replicate, but they have big plans for the future:

Although these experimental robots work only in the limited laboratory environment, Lipson suggests that the idea of making self-replicating robots out of self-contained modules could be used to build working robots that could self-repair by replacing defective modules. For example, robots sent to explore Mars could carry a supply of spare modules to use for repairing or rebuilding as needed, allowing for more flexible, versatile and robust missions. Self-replication and repair also could be crucial for robots working in environments where a human with a screwdriver couldn’t survive.

Well, that’s all fine and dandy, but add the idea of self-replicating robots to yesterday’s discussion of robot evolution and now we have ourselves a problem. You see, the only elements that are needed for evolution are self-replication, the possibility of error in that replication, and a competitive environment. The errors that increase the chance of survival within that environment will then spread throughout the population, leading to the inevitable evolution of something entirely new.

But what, you ask, are the odds of robots actually being put in a position where they will be able to reproduce and evolve? Um, how about one hundred percent? Because you just know that this is exactly what researchers are going to do once they have the ability to do it – put self-replicating robots (with the possibility for random mutations) in a competitive environment and see what evolves. Hell, that’s the first thing I’d do, and I’m the one warning you about it. Even if it leads to the destruction of humanity, it’s too cool. It must be done.

But then the robots evolve laser-guided heat-seeking missles before the experimenter has the chance to flip the off switch, and the evolving robots run amok in the wild, mutating and evolving at breakneck speed. And then, one day, humanity gets a bitter lesson in the true meaning of “survival of the fittest.”

So that’s it then. We’re all doomed. Long live the age of the robot.

Today is the two month anniversary of this blog. Break out the champagne!

I want to thank everyone who has visited. I want to thank everyone who has left a comment, took a crack at a puzzle, or played one of the games. I want to thank everyone who has linked here, or has helped to spread the word. I have every confidence that, with your help, we can do another two months.

By the way, yesterday was a record-setting day for Shakespeare Teacher, so I really do appreciate everyone who has helped to get the word out. And these things matter less to me now, but I did want to note that this blog has now cracked the top million blogs in Technorati. It’s like a childhood dream come true.

(In my childhood, I always dreamed that there would one day be a global information network, and that I would moderate one of the top million non-commercial forums within it. I used to scribble Thursday Morning Riddles in my notebooks, and try to get my friends to play Six Degrees of Sir Francis Bacon at recess. That was before the Kevin Bacon game was popular. It’s funny how life works out sometimes.)

Okay, enough of that. I have stuff to do, and time is running out on this week’s Six Degrees. So we’d both better get moving. But I did want to say a word of thanks for joining me in my journey these past two months.

You’ve the right to stay silent, unless I’m ignored;
I’m a symphony famous; or simply a chord;
I’m a column of traitors; the wheel that’s just stored;
And I’m also an avenue most can’t afford.

Who am I?

UPDATE: Riddle solved by Ro. See comments for answer.

Via Prospero’s Books, I found this article about robots being used to simulate evolution. I’ve read about similar projects simulating evolution through competing artificial intelligence programs, using the “Prisoner’s Dilemma” scenario as the competitive task. The Prisoner’s Dilemma, for those who are unfamiliar, breaks down as some variation of this:

You and a partner are both correctly arrested for two crimes, one major and one minor, and are put in separate rooms. Executive Assistant District Attorney Jack McCoy comes to visit you and offers you a deal: testify against your partner for the major crime, your partner will get twenty years, and you’ll walk for both crimes. However, his lovely assistant is right now offering the same deal to your partner. If you both confess, you’ll both get five years. If your partner confesses and you don’t, you’ll get the twenty, and he’ll walk. If neither of you confess, McCoy can’t make his case for the major crime, but he’ll make sure you both do two years for the minor one. What’s the right play?

Well, logically speaking, regardless of what your partner ends up doing, you’re better off confessing. But if you both confess, you both end up worse off than if you had both kept your mouths shut. If you had had the chance to communicate with each other, you might have chosen differently. The fact that you don’t know what your idiot partner is going to do while gazing into the eyes of the lovely ADA means that you can’t afford to take any chances, and neither can he. You both end up doing the nickel, even though neither of you had to.

In this example, you only get to play the game once. If you play some version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma with the same person repeatedly, your choices can affect future outcomes. In a sense, the choices you make are a form of communication. Only the very last time you play do you revert back to the original cutthroat scenario. (And since everybody knows this will be the case, the next-to-last iteration can also be cutthroat. How far back does this reasoning work?) There is actually a twenty-year-old Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma competition for artificial intellegence programs and the winning strategy has long been the simple Tit-for-Tat. But it seems there’s now a new champion, though it seems to me to be a bit of a cheat. Read the article and let me know what you think.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma is an illustration of one of the central concepts of a branch of mathematics called “game theory.” Game theory allows us to make mathematical computations in decision making, even when all of the factors are not known. Think of two generals, one trying to choose a target to attack, the other deciding how to deploy defensive forces. Each knows the other is intelligent and out there making his decision. That’s game theory. If you were to meet someone anywhere in the world outside of the United States, but you couldn’t plan with that person ahead of time, where would you go? Would it surprise you to learn that almost everyone makes the same choice? (Post your answer in the comments section, if you like.) That’s game theory too.

With a branch of mathematics that can take unknown variables into account, a computer’s functionality can be increased significantly. Obviously computers that are powerful enough can play chess, but game theory allows them to play poker as well. There’s already a Texas Hold ‘Em Tournament for Artificial Intelligence programs. Imagine putting all of these programs into a giant simulated Texas Hold ‘Em Tournament where the losing programs died out and the winning programs created offspring with the possibility of mutation. We might evolve the ultimate strategy. And when we do, the first round of drinks are on me!

But as computers get more powerful, imagine other simulations we may be able to run, and what understandings we might be able to gain from these experiments. Evolution has proved itself to be a mighty force in the past. Once all of the data from Web 2.0 is compiled, maybe it will be allowed to evolve into Web 3.0. It’s not about computers becoming super-sentient and ruling over humans. It’s about humans developing and using new tools that can increase our capacity for growth. And if evolution has taught us nothing else, it has taught us that.

Real life or parody? Sometimes, I can’t tell the difference anymore. That’s when it’s time for the Headline Game.

Below are two headlines from CNN.com and two headlines from The Onion. Can you spot which are the real headlines and which are the fakes?

1. Bill Clinton waiting until after primaries to endorse candidate
2. Colorado governor vows to “arm-wrestle” for jobs
3. Oscars reveal widening gap between best, worst dressed
4. Study: Vanity on the rise among college students

Note: Capitalization on the Onion headlines changed to match the style of CNN.

Answers: Story 1, Story 2, Story 3, Story 4

How did you do?

In a Venn Diagram puzzle, there are three overlapping circles, marked A, B, and C. Each circle has a different rule about who or what can go inside. The challenge is to guess the rule for each circle. You can find a more detailed explanation of Venn Diagram puzzles, along with an example, here.

This week, in honor of the Oscars, Conundrum goes to the movies! All eight titles below refer to motion pictures.

Have you figured out one of the rules? Two? All three? Feel free to post whatever you’ve got in the comments below. Just tell us which circle you’re solving, and what the rule is.

Enjoy!

UPDATE: Circles A and B solved by Irene. Circle C solved by DeLisa. See comments for answers.

Last week, I posted a response to a blogger named Cesario who listed her ten unpopular opinions about Shakespeare. I registered my opinions for nine of them, but had only a non-committal response for her suggestion that Shakespeare was “probably Catholic” by saying there’s no way to know for sure. Well, of course there’s no way to know for sure. That’s why she called it an opinion, Shakespeare Teacher.

First, let me provide some quick background. In the early 16th century, England, like most of Europe, was a Catholic nation. During the Protestant Reformation, Henry VIII had a break with the Pope, partially over the question of whether he could divorce Catherine of Arragon (hint), and created instead the Anglican Church. After his death, his young son Edward VI and his advisors moved the country more solidly Protestant. After his death, came Queen Mary I.

Mary was of Spanish descent, and Spain was still solidly a Catholic country. She was the daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Arragon, and was married to the King of Spain (hint). She converted the country back to being Catholic, polarizing the country even further. Elizabeth inherited this strife and brought back the Anglican Church, but tried to implement the via media, or “middle way,” a compromise that made nobody happy. But this was the world that Shakespeare was born into, so if his family was Catholic, they would have had good reason to hide it. But lack of evidence alone isn’t proof either way.

I just did a Google search for “Was Shakespeare Catholic?” and the more interesting results can be found here and here. Both articles conclude that there’s no way to know for sure. So let me ask your opinion.

In your opinion, was Shakespeare Catholic?

The second episode of Season Three of Slings & Arrows airs on Sundance tonight at 8pm. It will also be repeated throughout the week, in case you have something else you want to watch tonight.

Use the comments section of this post to discuss the episode. Any comments I may have will also be posted in the comments section. Word from Canada is that the major themes for the season will be revealed in this episode.

You can continue to discuss last week’s episode here. Discuss Season 1 here and Season 2 here. Future episodes for Season 3 will be posted as they air on Sundance.

WARNING: Comments may contain further discussion of the show, including potential spoilers. Click through only after viewing the episode. Commenters may discuss this episode as freely as they like, though Canadian readers are asked not to post spoilers for any later episodes.

By the way, did you know that William Hutt (Charles) has been performing at the Stratford Festival in Canada since its very first season in 1953? That’s hot.

It’s still too early for any kind of meaningful speculation about 2008, so I will only offer rumors, gossip, and sarcasm.

There’s a rumor going around that if Al Gore wins the Oscar tonight, he’s going to announce his candidacy for President. I’d love to see Al Gore run, but he really doesn’t seem interested. I do think he’s going to win the Oscar though.

On the Republican side, Giuliani’s burning up the polls, and I think he’d mop up in the general election. I can’t see myself voting for him in the general, though we could do a lot worse. But once the primaries get going and conservative voters learn who he is and what he stands for, he’s not going to have, for lack of a better word, a prayer of winning the nomination.

To clarify earlier comments, I like both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I just don’t think either of them is going to be our next president. Biden and Edwards are both starting to look pretty good, and, okay fine, I am still holding out hope that Gore will still decide to run. Is that so wrong?

But I did enjoy this satirical take on the typical criticism of Hillary Clinton from The Onion.

Hillary Clinton Is Too Ambitious To Be The First Female President

I’m off to the baby naming for Lilah, so no time to post anything original this morning. Instead, I leave you with this Animaniacs song about Magellan, that for some reason really cracks me up. Enjoy!