Dating in 2020 is a roller coaster, from endless swiping to video chat dates, the worry that your quarantine-boo might be fake is all too real. "I've been on Tinder on-and-off for the past three years, but have been back on since March when the pandemic started. I have been seeing more bots than usual," said Carlos Zavala, 25, of his dating experience. Online dating in the U.S. has become the most popular way couples connect, a Stanford study published in 2019 found. That finding is being put to the test with the outbreak of the coronavirus in the U.S. since mid-March.

Dating in 2020 is a roller coaster, from endless swiping to video chat dates, the worry that your quarantine-boo might be fake is all too real. "I've been on Tinder on-and-off for the past three years, but have been back on since March when the pandemic started. I have been seeing more bots than usual," said Carlos Zavala, 25, of his dating experience. Online dating in the U.S. has become the most popular way couples connect, a Stanford study published in 2019 found. That finding is being put to the test with the outbreak of the coronavirus in the U.S. since mid-March.

Part of this exhibit will feature illusions. Some can fool people, and some can fool machines. Without full context, our brains cannot always make sense of images. Machines can see illusions we can't, but they can't see things we can! For example: without ears and a tail, a Chihuahua can easily look like a blueberry muffin!

In the 67 years since Alan Turing proposed his Imitation Game - the infamous'Turing test' for artificial intelligence (AI) - people have been confused over the very purpose of AI itself. At issue: whether the point of AI is to simulate human behavior so seamlessly that it can fool people into thinking they are actually interacting with a human being, rather than a piece of software. Such deception was never the point of Turing's exercise, however. Rather, he realized that there was no way to define true intelligence, and thus no way to test for it. So he came up with the game as a substitute - something people could theoretically test for.

In the 67 years since Alan Turing proposed his Imitation Game - the infamous'Turing test' for artificial intelligence (AI) - people have been confused over the very purpose of AI itself. At issue: whether the point of AI is to simulate human behavior so seamlessly that it can fool people into thinking they are actually interacting with a human being, rather than a piece of software. Such deception was never the point of Turing's exercise, however. Rather, he realized that there was no way to define true intelligence, and thus no way to test for it. So he came up with the game as a substitute - something people could theoretically test for.

On the right, can you tell whether it's a picture of the same cat, or a picture of a similar looking dog? The difference between the two pictures is that the one on the right has been tweaked a bit by an algorithm to make it difficult for a type of computer model called a convolutional neural network (CNN) to be able to tell what it really is. In this case, the CNN think it's looking at a dog rather than a cat, but what's remarkable is that most people think the same thing. This is an example of what's called an adversarial image: an image specifically designed to fool neural networks into making an incorrect determination about what they're looking at. Researchers at Google Brain decided to try and figure out whether the same techniques that fool artificial neural networks can also fool the biological neural networks inside of our heads, by developing adversarial images capable of making both computers and humans think that they're looking at something they aren't.

In the 67 years since Alan Turing proposed his Imitation Game - the infamous'Turing test' for artificial intelligence (AI) - people have been confused over the very purpose of AI itself. At issue: whether the point of AI is to simulate human behavior so seamlessly that it can fool people into thinking they are actually interacting with a human being, rather than a piece of software. Such deception was never the point of Turing's exercise, however. Rather, he realized that there was no way to define true intelligence, and thus no way to test for it. So he came up with the game as a substitute - something people could theoretically test for.

There are only a few industries in which automation isn't threatening some job roles. "While automation will eliminate very few occupations entirely in the next decade, it will affect portions of almost all jobs to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the type of work they entail," according to McKinsey Quarterly. Roles that require empathy, like therapists and psychologists, as well as jobs that are highly reliant on social and negotiation skills, like managerial positions, are less threatened by automation, according to The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation? Those of us in roles that require creative thinking and original ideas -- like content creation -- are also deemed at less risk of having our jobs swiped from under our noses by something harder-working, "smarter," and cheaper to maintain. It's pretty tough to envision a machine generating great content ideas, not to mention creating that content -- content worth consuming.

There are only a few industries in which automation isn't threatening some job roles. "While automation will eliminate very few occupations entirely in the next decade, it will affect portions of almost all jobs to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the type of work they entail," according to McKinsey Quarterly. Roles that require empathy, like therapists and psychologists, as well as jobs that are highly reliant on social and negotiation skills, like managerial positions, are less threatened by automation, according to The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation? Those of us in roles that require creative thinking and original ideas -- like content creation -- are also deemed at less risk of having our jobs swiped from under our noses by something harder-working, "smarter," and cheaper to maintain. It's pretty tough to envision a machine generating great content ideas, not to mention creating that content -- content worth consuming.

Ashok Goel, a professor at Georgia Tech, made the news this week with the revelation that one of the TA's that he used in his AI course was actually an "AI." Now, I have no reason to believe that Goel was trying to do something wrongheaded. I think he was just playing around. But the media love AI stories these days and have yet again led the public on a very wrong headed journey about what AI is and what it can be. Could a chatbot be an effective TA? It could certainly beat a rather disinterested TA.