Column: Power outages and zombies don’t mix

The power outages following the freak October snowstorm have revealed a few very important lessons: One, we need to protect our power lines from hazards such as tree limbs, stiff breezes and particularly heavy butterflies. But more importantly, we are woefully unprepared to go underground following the impending inevitable zombie, robot and/or alien invasion(s). I’m just saying.

I’m speaking of course of the people who are complaining about being without power for a measly five or six days, just because they don’t have heat or light and all their food went bad, including their insulin. These people need to buck up! (And yes, I realize this is coming from someone who suffered severe panic after losing cable for a couple days, but that was different, because it happened to me.)

I’m not just saying this because it’s become clear that our power companies now consider actually delivering the power to be optional, like a side of French fries, or yield signs. I’m saying it because the first thing that’s going to happen when the zombies, robots or aliens attack is that the lights will go out, and we’ll be left to fend for ourselves with just our wits, along with sharpened shovels, enormous gas fireballs or deadly Earth viruses, whichever is most appropriate for the occasion.

I know you may be thinking that I’m overreacting. “What are the chances of us actually being attacked by zombies, robots or space aliens?” you may ask. And while it may sound far-fetched, the chances are … wait, let me check my notes … 100 percent.

After all, just take a look at the latest development by scientists apparently eager to welcome our new robot overlords. At Seoul National University in South Korea, they’ve developed a Venus flytrap robot that traps bugs and converts their little bug bodies into electricity. This will clearly lead to a robot that will be impervious to our main defense against sentient killer man-machines, which is unplugging.

Personally, I question why any scientist would develop technology that would make it more attractive for robots to eventually want to eat us. Nature already has bears for that.

As for the aliens, researchers at Harvard and Princeton are so antsy about attracting aliens here to invade our cornfields and national parks that they’ve suggested we start scanning the universe for the artificial light given off by their cities, since apparently modern telescopes can tell the difference between light from a distant star and, say, an alien disco ball. Of course, this would require the aliens not to be living in underground cities inhabited by mutated creatures with psychic powers like in “Beneath the Planet of the Apes,” which, let’s face it, seems unlikely.

And the zombies? I will admit that there’s very little in the way of concrete scientific evidence that the dead will rise and prey on the living with an insatiable appetite for brains. But is there concrete scientific evidence that they won’t? There is? OK, forget about the zombies.

Still, next time the power goes out — which, given recent history, should be in about 20 minutes, or whenever a squirrel wanders into an electrical substation, whichever comes first — I think people should take the opportunity to embrace the rugged, survivalist, anti-robot side of their personality, just in case. Hunker down, board the windows, start luring in small rodents for food, and hope that if the choice comes down to converting us to electricity or displaying us in zoos, the robots and aliens (or robot-aliens) opt for the latter.

After all, those might at least have cable.

Peter Chianca is editor in chief for GateHouse Media New England’s north-of-Boston newspapers and websites. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/pchianca.

COLUMN: Killer robots are lying in wait

My readers are always saying to me, “Pete, why do you keep writing about robots when there is actual news going on in the world, like Paris Hilton getting arrested?” And my response is always the same: “Where did you get this number?”

But the real reason I keep writing about robots is because scientists, who have apparently never seen even a single “Terminator” movie, keep doing robot-related things that seem destined to bring about the end of humanity as we know it. It’s like they’re in some kind of twisted competition with the guys in the next lab developing the deadly strains of bacteria.

In the latest incident, researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have apparently come up with a robot that can convincingly lie to you. It seems robots have to be taught this behavior, unlike, say, teenagers, who do it naturally as a defense mechanism. But just because we can teach a robot to lie, does that mean we should? Isn’t that sort of like training a pit bull to distract you with gooey puppy-dog eyes right before it chews your arm off?

But the Georgia scientists apparently see a need for lying robots. For instance, they say a medical robot with a badly injured patient might need to avoid saying something thruthful that would cause the person to panic (“Sir, the possibility of you surviving this mishap is approximately 3,720 to 1,” etc.). Or a spy robot might have to deceive an enemy into thinking it’s a simple peasant girl, or a can opener.

But never fear, one of the developers told Science Daily: “Most social robots will probably rarely use deception.” Of course, that’s what they said about Paris Hilton.

I know there are those out there who think I’m just overreacting, like that time I launched a campaign to ban the word “poop.” (Turns out there are worse words your kid could be saying — who knew?) But before you dismiss my concerns, you should try doing a Google News search for “robots,” keeping in mind that doing so will automatically register you in the Google Robot database, making you one of the first people the robots round up after they mobilize.

Here are just a few recent news stories that pop up:

· The one about the $400,000 robot that can fold your laundry, even though for that price you can hire a human to do it, or even several dozen humans. You know people are upset about illegal aliens when they’re willing to pay $400,000 for a robot to do the work Americans won’t do.

· The one about the artificial “e-skin” that will allow robots to “feel,” in addition to hiding their metal endoskeleton and glowing red eyeballs from their human prey until it’s too late. I’m extrapolating a little for that last part.

· The one about newly developed robot snakes that come with flashlights and hidden cameras, which sounds fine until one is working you down its metallic gullet before ejecting you as bio-pellets.

With that in mind, I plan to keep pounding the killer robot drum until someone listens to me, or until we’re all working in forced robot labor camps, which I realize is probably more likely to happen first. (Never tell me the odds!) In the meantime, we can only hope someone actually comes up with a robot that can do something useful for humanity.

Turning Paris Hilton into bio-pellets might be a good start.

Peter Chianca is a managing editor for GateHouse Media New England. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/pchianca. To receive At Large by e-mail, write to info@chianca-at-large.com, with the subject line “SUBSCRIBE.”

COLUMN: Stop the presses! And the robots

Whenever people ask me why I don’t quit journalism, with newspapers going under left and right and so much upheaval in the industry, I always have the same response: “What, and leave show business?”

But the real reason is, I feel like what we’re doing here in journalism — especially at the local level — is actually pretty important. Unfortunately, people may not realize this until we go out of business and the only person left to cover their towns is Perez Hilton, whose reports will consist of a picture of the school committee chairman with “SHUT UP!” written over him with a white marker.

So you can imagine my concern at the latest disturbing development in the world of journalism: The Singularity Hub blog is reporting that there are several plans afoot to introduce actual, working robot journalists. I have some concerns about this idea, not the least of which is that it’s just another group of robots that could wind up subjugating mankind. The only reason the human journalists haven’t done that yet is because we don’t have lasers.

The blog offers several examples of how the robot journalist will gather information; for example, it “detects changes in its surroundings, decides if they are relevant, and then takes pictures with its on-board camera.” This is a definitive advantage over human reporters, who primarily tend to detect changes to the selection in the newsroom vending machine. (“Flash! The Combos have been replaced by Cheez-Its,” etc.)

On the other hand, the robot also “uses Internet searches to further round out its understanding.” So it doesn’t have anything over us in the relying-on-Wikipedia department.

Personally, I don’t see how anyone can call something that doesn’t complain, procrastinate or stay up ’til all hours consuming unhealthy food a real journalist. But the blog points out that since the robot gathers primary source information from people in the field, “that’s real journalism,” as unsophisticated as it may be. (Which is actually exactly what I tell all the people who call me to complain about our selectmen coverage. This means you, Mrs. Henderson!)

But those robots are still mostly information collectors and not writers, per se. The same blog reports that a company called Statsheet has apparently taken the process further and is planning to launch a robot sports reporter that will write college basketball coverage that “90 percent of readers would be unable to distinguish” from the work of a human journalist. As if sports stories are nothing but a bunch of stats and clichés strung together in an utterly predictable … uh-oh.

But generic sports stories are one thing — there are plenty of other types of journalism that you’d be hard pressed to get a robot to execute. Take for instance a humor column, which relies not on rote formulas but on the creativity and ingenuity of the writer. (Note to self: Insert joke about SPAM here.)

I also wonder if a robot could do a heart-tugging feature story or an in-depth news analysis. I guess the more ways we have to efficiently collect information the better, but I still say human journalists are better equipped to get to the essence of the story by choosing just the right words. Or, in the case of TV journalists, looking smoking hot and not like Jabba the Hutt’s smelter droid.

So I propose a deal: Robots can collect all the information they want, but we humans should still be the ones to ask the really tough questions and write the big stories, so the robots can actually benefit from our skills.

And in exchange, we’ll take lasers.

This column appeared originally in North Shore Sunday. Peter Chianca is a managing editor for GateHouse Media New England. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/pchianca. To receive At Large by e-mail, write to info@chianca-at-large.com, with the subject line “SUBSCRIBE.”