better living through computation.
Note: I am experimenting with exporting Jupyter notebooks into a WordPress ready format. This notebook refers specifically to to the Nature Conservancy Kaggle, for classifying fish species, based only on photographs.
I’ve been messing around with a few things during my time off for the Holidays:
So here’s a quick combination of these things, in the form of a simple guide to using Keras on the Nature Conservatory image recognition Kaggle.
Hopefully it serves as an easy introduction to get up and running with neural networks for this competition.
For awhile now, the Computer Science department at my University has offered a class for non-CS students called “Data Witchcraft“. The idea, I suppose, is that when you don’t understand how a technology works, it’s essentially “magic“. (And when it has to do with computers and data, it’s dark magic at that.)
But even as someone who writes programs all day long, there are often tools, algorithms, or ideas we use that we don’t really understand–just take at face value, because well, they seem to work, we’re busy, and learning doesn’t seem necessary when the problem is already sufficiently solved.
One of the more prevalent algorithms of this sort is Gradient Descent (GD). The algorithm is both conceptually simple (everyone likes to show rudimentary sketches of a blindfolded stick figure walking down a mountain) and mathematically rigorous (next to those simple sketches, we show equations with partial derivatives across n-dimensional vectors mapped to an arbitrarily sized higher-dimensional space).
So most often, after learning about GD, you are sent off into the wild to use it, without ever having programmed it from scratch. From this view, Gradient Descent is a sort of incantation we Supreme Hacker Mage Lords can use to solve complex optimization problems whenever our data is in the right format, and we want a quick fix. (Kind of like Neural Networks and “Deep Learning”…) This is practical for most people who just need to get things done. But it’s also unsatisfying for others (myself included).
However, GD can also be implemented in just a few lines of code (even though it won’t be as highly optimized as an industrial-strength version).
That’s why I’m sharing some implementations of both Univariate and generalized Multivariate Gradient Descent written in simple and annotated Python.
Anyone curious about a working implementation (and with some test data in hand) can try this out to experiment. The code snippets below have print statements built in so you can see how your model changes every iteration.
To download and run the full repo, clone it from here: https://github.com/adpoe/Gradient_Descent_From_Scratch
But the actual algorithms are also extracted below, for ease of reading.
Requires NumPy.
Also Requires data to be in this this format: [(x1,y1), (x2,y2) … (xn,yn)], where Y is the actual value.
| def gradient_descent(training_examples, alpha=0.01): | |
| """ | |
| Apply gradient descent on the training examples to learn a line that fits through the examples | |
| :param examples: set of all examples in (x,y) format | |
| :param alpha = learning rate | |
| :return: | |
| """ | |
| # initialize w0 and w1 to some small value, here just using 0 for simplicity | |
| w0 = 0 | |
| w1 = 0 | |
| # repeat until "convergence", meaning that w0 and w1 aren't changing very much | |
| # –> need to define what 'not very much' means, and that may depend on problem domain | |
| convergence = False | |
| while not convergence: | |
| # initialize temporary variables, and set them to 0 | |
| delta_w0 = 0 | |
| delta_w1 = 0 | |
| for pair in training_examples: | |
| # grab our data points from the example | |
| x_i = pair[0] | |
| y_i = pair[1] | |
| # calculate a prediction, and find the error | |
| h_of_x_i = model_prediction(w0,w1,x_i) | |
| delta_w0 += prediction_error(w0,w1, x_i, y_i) | |
| delta_w1 += prediction_error(w0,w1,x_i,y_i)*x_i | |
| # store previous weighting values | |
| prev_w0 = w0 | |
| prev_w1 = w1 | |
| # get new weighting values | |
| w0 = w0 + alpha*delta_w0 | |
| w1 = w1 + alpha*delta_w1 | |
| alpha -= 0.001 | |
| # every few iterations print out current model | |
| # 1. –> (w0 + w1x1 + w2x2 + … + wnxn) | |
| print "Current model is: ("+str(w0)+" + "+str(w1)+"x1)" | |
| # 2. –> averaged squared error over training set, using the current line | |
| summed_error = sum_of_squared_error_over_entire_dataset(w0, w1, training_examples) | |
| avg_error = summed_error/len(training_examples) | |
| print "Average Squared Error="+str(avg_error) | |
| # check if we have converged | |
| if abs(prev_w0 – w0) < 0.00001 and abs(prev_w1 – w1) < 0.00001: | |
| convergence = True | |
| # after convergence, print out the parameters of the trained model (w0, … wn) | |
| print "Parameters of trained model are: w0="+str(w0)+", w1="+str(w1) | |
| return w0, w1 | |
| ############################ | |
| ##### TRAINING HELPERS ##### | |
| ############################ | |
| def model_prediction(w0, w1, x_i): | |
| return w0 + (w1 * x_i) | |
| def prediction_error(w0, w1, x_i, y_i): | |
| # basically, we just take the true value (y_i) | |
| # and we subtract the predicted value from it | |
| # this gives us an error, or J(w0,w1) value | |
| return y_i – model_prediction(w0, w1, x_i) | |
| def sum_of_squared_error_over_entire_dataset(w0, w1, training_examples): | |
| # find the squared error over the whole training set | |
| sum = 0 | |
| for pair in training_examples: | |
| x_i = pair[0] | |
| y_i = pair[1] | |
| sum += prediction_error(w0,w1,x_i,y_i) ** 2 | |
| return sum |
Requires NumPy, same as above.
Also Requires data to be in this this format: [(x1,..xn, y),(x1,..xn, y) …(x1,..xn, y)], where Y is the actual value. Essentially, you can have as many x-variables as you’d like, as long as the y-value is the last element of each tuple.
| def multivariate_gradient_descent(training_examples, alpha=0.01): | |
| """ | |
| Apply gradient descent on the training examples to learn a line that fits through the examples | |
| :param examples: set of all examples in (x,y) format | |
| :param alpha = learning rate | |
| :return: | |
| """ | |
| # initialize the weight and x_vectors | |
| W = [0 for index in range(0, len(training_examples[0][0]))] | |
| # W_0 is a constant | |
| W_0 = 0 | |
| # repeat until "convergence", meaning that w0 and w1 aren't changing very much | |
| # –> need to define what 'not very much' means, and that may depend on problem domain | |
| convergence = False | |
| while not convergence: | |
| # initialize temporary variables, and set them to 0 | |
| deltaW_0 = 0 | |
| deltaW_n = [0 for x in range(0,len(training_examples[0][0]))] | |
| for pair in training_examples: | |
| # grab our data points from the example | |
| x_i = pair[0] | |
| y_i = pair[1] | |
| # calculate a prediction, and find the error | |
| # needs to be an element-wise plus | |
| deltaW_0 += multivariate_prediction_error(W_0, y_i, W, x_i) | |
| deltaW_n = numpy.multiply(numpy.add(deltaW_n, multivariate_prediction_error(W_0, y_i, W, x_i)), x_i) | |
| #print "DELTA_WN = " + str(deltaW_n) | |
| # store previous weighting values | |
| prev_w0 = W_0 | |
| prev_Wn = W | |
| # get new weighting values | |
| W_0 = W_0 + alpha*deltaW_0 | |
| W = numpy.add(W,numpy.multiply(alpha,deltaW_n)) | |
| alpha -= 0.001 | |
| # every few iterations print out current model | |
| # 1. –> (w0 + w1x1 + w2x2 + … + wnxn) | |
| variables = [( str(W[i]) + "*x" + str(i+1) + " + ") for i in range(0,len(W))] | |
| var_string = ''.join(variables) | |
| var_string = var_string[:–3] | |
| print "Current model is: " + str(W_0)+" + "+var_string | |
| # 2. –> averaged squared error over training set, using the current line | |
| summed_error = sum_of_squared_error_over_entire_dataset(W_0, W, training_examples) | |
| avg_error = summed_error/len(training_examples) | |
| print "Average Squared Error="+str(sum(avg_error)) | |
| print "" | |
| # check if we have converged | |
| if abs(prev_w0 – W_0) < 0.00001 and abs(numpy.subtract(prev_Wn, W)).all() < 0.00001: | |
| convergence = True | |
| # after convergence, print out the parameters of the trained model (w0, … wn) | |
| variables = [( "w"+str(i+1)+"="+str(W[i])+", ") for i in range(0,len(W))] | |
| var_string = ''.join(variables) | |
| var_string = var_string[:–2] | |
| print "RESULTS: " | |
| print "\tParameters of trained model are: w0="+str(W_0)+", "+var_string | |
| return W_0, W | |
| ################################ | |
| ##### MULTIVARIATE HELPERS ##### | |
| ################################ | |
| # generalize these to just take a w0, a vector of weights, and a vector x-values | |
| def multivariate_model_prediction(w0, weights, xs): | |
| return w0 + numpy.dot(weights, xs) | |
| # again, this needs to take just a w0, vector of weights, and a vector of x-values | |
| def multivariate_prediction_error(w0, y_i, weights, xs): | |
| # basically, we just take the true value (y_i) | |
| # and we subtract the predicted value from it | |
| # this gives us an error, or J(w0,w1) value | |
| return y_i – multivariate_model_prediction(w0, weights, xs) | |
| # should be the same, but use the generalize functions above, and update the weights inside the vector titself | |
| # also need to have a vector fo delta_Wn values to simplify | |
| def multivariate_sum_of_squared_error_over_entire_dataset(w0, weights, training_examples): | |
| # find the squared error over the whole training set | |
| sum = 0 | |
| for pair in training_examples: | |
| x_i = pair[0] | |
| y_i = pair[1] | |
| # cast back to values in range [1 –> 20] | |
| prediction = multivariate_model_prediction(w0,weights,x_i) / (1/20.0) | |
| actual = y_i / (1/20.0) | |
| error = abs(actual – prediction) | |
| error_sq = error ** 2 | |
| sum += error_sq | |
| return sum |
My data set is included in the full repo. But feel free to try it on your own, if you’re experimenting with this. And enjoy.
In which I peel back the curtain and outline the innerworkings of a particularly insidious artificial intelligence, whose sole purpose in life is to systematically learn the optimal strategy for a terrifyingly addictive video game, known only to the internet as: Flappy Bird… and in which I also provide code to program a similar AI of your own.
More pointedly, this short post outlines a practical way to get started using a Reinforcement Learning technique called Q-Learning, as applied to a Python Flappy Bird clone, programmed by @TimoWilken.
>> Grab the code base: https://github.com/adpoe/Flappy-AI <<
So you want to beat Flappy Bird, but after awhile it gets tedious. I agree. Instead, why don’t we program an AI to do it for us? A genius plan, but where do we start?
First, we need a Flappy Bird game to hack upate. The candidate that I suggest is a Python implementation created by Timo Wilken and available for download directly at: https://github.com/TimoWilken/flappy-bird-pygame. This Flappy Bird version is implemented using the PyGame library, which is a dependency going forward.
Here are instructions for PyGame installation. If you get this runing, the hard work is done. (apt-get or homebrew are highly recommended.)
The first challenge we’ll have in implementing the framework for a Flappy AI is determining exactly how the game workes in its original state.
By using the debugger and stepping through the game’s code during some trial runs, I was able to figure out where key decisions where made, how data flowed into the game, and exactly where I would need to position my AI-agent.
At its basic level, I created an “Agent” class, and passed that class into the running game code. Then, at each loop of the game, I examined the variables available to me, and then passed a ‘MOUSEBUTTONUP’ command to the PyGame event queue whenever the AI decided to jump. Otherwise, I did nothing.
From there, the next step was determining a way to model the problem. I decided to use follow the basic guidelines outlined by Sarvagya Vaish, here.
First, I discretized the space in which the bird sat, relative to the next pipe. I was able to get pipe data by accessing the pipe object in the original game code. Similarly, I was able to get bird data by accessing the bird object.
From there, I could determine the location of the bird and the pipes relative to each other. I discretized this space as a 25×25 grid, with the following parameters:
| # first value in state tuple | |
| height_category = 0 | |
| dist_to_pipe_bottom = pipe_bottom – bird.y | |
| if dist_to_pipe_bottom < 8: # very close | |
| height_category = 0 | |
| elif dist_to_pipe_bottom < 20: # close | |
| height_category = 1 | |
| elif dist_to_pipe_bottom < 125: #mid | |
| height_category = 2 | |
| elif dist_to_pipe_bottom < 250: # far | |
| height_category = 3 | |
| else: | |
| height_category = 4 | |
| # second value in state tuple | |
| dist_category = 0 | |
| dist_to_pipe_horz = pp.x – bird.x | |
| if dist_to_pipe_horz < 8: # very close | |
| dist_category = 0 | |
| elif dist_to_pipe_horz < 20: # close | |
| dist_category = 1 | |
| elif dist_to_pipe_horz < 125: # mid | |
| dist_category = 2 | |
| elif dist_to_pipe_horz < 250: # far | |
| dist_category = 3 | |
| else: | |
| dist_category = 4 |
Using this methodology, I created a state tuple that looked like this:
(height_category={0,1,2,3,4}, dist_category={0,1,2,3,4} , collision=True/False)
Then, each iteration of the game loop, I was able to determine the bird’s relative position, and whether it had made a collision with the pipes or not.
If there was no collision, I issued a reward of +1.
If there was a collision, I issued a reward of -1000.
I tried many different state representations here, but mostly it was matter of determining an optimal number of grid spaces and the right parameters for those spaces.
Initially, I started with a 9×9 grid, but moved to 16×16 because I got to a point in 9×9 where I just couldn’t make any more learning progress.
Very generally, we want to have a tighter grid around the pipes, as this is where most collisions happen. And we want a looser grid as we move outwards. This seemed to give me the best results, as we need different strategies at different locations on the grid.
Our next task is implementing an exploration approach. This is necessary because if we don’t randomly explore the state sometimes, there might be optimal strategies that we are never able to find, simply because we will never be in those states!
Because we have only two choices at any given state (JUMP—or—STAY), implementing exploration was relatively simple.
I started out with a high exploration factor (I used 1/time_value+1), and then I generated a random number between [0,1). If the random number was less than the exploration factor, then I explored.
Over time the exploration factor got lower, and therefore the AI explored less frequently.
Exploration essentially consisted of flipping a fair coin (generating a Boolean value randomly).
The main problem I encountered with this method is that the exploration factor was very at the beginning, and sometimes choices were made that were not representative of actual situations that the bird would encounter in ‘true’ gameplay.
BUT, because these decisions were made earlier, they were weighted more heavily in the overall Q-Learning algorithm.
This isn’t ideal, but exploration is necessary, and overall the algorithm works well. So it wasn’t a large problem, overall.
Very simply, “Learning Rates” dicatate how much we weigh new information about some state over old information. Learning rates can be an value in the range [0,1]. With 0 meaning we never update values (bad), and 1 meaning that we only EVER care about what happened the last time we were in state (short-sighted).
The first learning rate I tried was alpha=(1/time+1). However, this gave very poor results in practice.
This is because time is NOT the most important factor in determining a strategy from any given state. Rather, it is how many times we’ve been to that state.
The problem is that we make extremely poor choices at the beginning of the game (because we simply don’t know any better). But with alpha=(1/time+1), the results of these these poor choices are weighted the most highly.
Once I changed the learning factor to alpha=1/N(s,a), I immediately saw dramatically better results. (That is, where N(s,a) tracks how many times we’ve been in a given state and performed the same action.)
My final, “Smart” bird is the result of about 4 hours of training.
I don’t actually think there would be a way to make the training more efficient, aside from speeding up the gameplay in some way.
Overall, I the results I received from the investment of time I put it in reasonable.
Given more time, I would probably discretize the space even more finely (maybe a 36×36 grid) – so that I could find even more optimal strategies from a more fine-tuned set of positions in the game-space.
To use my smart bird, simply take the following steps:
Probably more instructive than using my trained bird though, is to simply start training a new bird from scratch. You will see the agony and the ecstasy as he does a terrible number of dumb things, slowly learning how to beat the game.
It’s surprisingly enjoyable (though sometimes frustrating) and highly recommended. Start the process by running:
With no other args. Then pass in the ‘qdata.txt’ file next time you run the game, to keep your learning session going.
I consulted the following resources to implement my AI. If you want to do similar work, I’d recommend these resources. These people are much smarter than me. I’m just applying their concepts.
I’ve been working on a AI project today and came across this problem.
Given input data structured like so:
[‘A’, [‘B’, (‘D’, 3), (‘E’, 5)], [‘C’, [‘F’, [‘I’,(‘K’,0), (‘L’, 7)],(‘J’,5)], [‘G’, (‘M’,7), (‘N’,8)], (‘H’,4)]]
I need to parse and build tree which has an arbitrary branching factor, and values only at the leaves.
(As for why: Later, I’ll be running Minimax and some other algorithms on this tree, in order to algorithmically determine the best possible game move. More on that in another post.)
This seemed like a good problem to solve recursively. And to avoid a soul-sucking debug session, I decided my goal was to solve it as succinctly as possible.
Here’s what I came up with. Why I’m posting: This seems like it would be a very common AI/Data-Structures problem, but my first few searches on the subject came up with nada. Nothing even closely related to the problem I’m solving. So doing my part to fix that now.
| """ @author Tony Poerio | |
| @email tony@tonypoer.io | |
| tree_parser.py –> parse a nested data string into a tree. | |
| Only leaf nodes have values. | |
| I'm intending to running minimax algorithms on these trees for a competitive game AI | |
| Data should be in the following format: | |
| ['A', ['B', ('D', 3), ('E', 5)], ['C', ['F', ['I',('K',0), ('L', 7)],('J',5)], ['G', ('M',7), ('N',8)], ('H',4)]] | |
| Note that Leaves must be **tuples** | |
| Usage: python tree_parser.py [filename] | |
| File should have data in the format shown above. | |
| """ | |
| from ast import literal_eval | |
| import sys | |
| ########################## | |
| ###### PARSE DATA ######## | |
| ########################## | |
| def parse_data_as_list(fname): | |
| with open(fname, "r") as f: | |
| data_as_string = f.read() | |
| print data_as_string | |
| data_list = literal_eval(data_as_string) | |
| return data_list | |
| class GameNode: | |
| def __init__(self, name, value=0, parent=None): | |
| self.Name = name # a char | |
| self.value = value # an int | |
| self.parent = parent # a node reference | |
| self.children = [] # a list of nodes | |
| def addChild(self, childNode): | |
| self.children.append(childNode) | |
| class GameTree: | |
| def __init__(self): | |
| self.root = None | |
| def build_tree(self, data_list): | |
| """ | |
| :param data_list: Take data in list format | |
| :return: Parse a tree from it | |
| """ | |
| self.root = GameNode(data_list.pop(0)) | |
| for elem in data_list: | |
| self.parse_subtree(elem, self.root) | |
| def parse_subtree(self, data_list, parent): | |
| # base case | |
| if type(data_list) is tuple: | |
| # make connections | |
| leaf_node = GameNode(data_list[0]) | |
| leaf_node.parent = parent | |
| parent.addChild(leaf_node) | |
| # if we're at a leaf, set the value | |
| if len(data_list) == 2: | |
| leaf_node.value = data_list[1] | |
| return | |
| # recursive case | |
| tree_node = GameNode(data_list.pop(0)) | |
| # make connections | |
| tree_node.parent = parent | |
| parent.addChild(tree_node) | |
| for elem in data_list: | |
| self.parse_subtree(elem, tree_node) | |
| # return from entire method if base case and recursive case both done running | |
| return | |
| ########################## | |
| #### MAIN ENTRY POINT #### | |
| ########################## | |
| def main(): | |
| filename = sys.argv[1] | |
| print "hello world! " + filename | |
| data_list = parse_data_as_list(filename) | |
| data_tree = GameTree() | |
| data_tree.build_tree(data_list) | |
| if __name__ == "__main__": | |
| main() |
Side note. I’m actually not sure what this tree (with weights only at the leaves) would be called technically. It reminds me of the tree made during Huffman Encoding, but it’s not quite a match for that since we aren’t summing the values in all parent nodes. If you know the technical name, let me know, so I can update.
In which I suggest, quite longwindedly, that the next great avant-garde movement in art & music & writing will be AI-Assisted Creativity. I’ll probably edit this later, but it’s something I want to think through and am happy to talk with others about. I’m genuinely very interested in the future of art/creativity and also wondering about others’ opinions and views, where mine fall short, etc.
Before I got into software, I wanted to be an artist. My main focus was on avant-garde art, doing something new, and pushing boundaries—eventually with the goal of merging the mundanities of our everyday lives with our artistic output, such that the entirety of our existence becomes a single, continuous, expressive work of art.
This was the goal of the Happenings in the sixties, the Dadaists in the 20s, even Andy Warhol when he essentially suggested art was all around us, even at the grocery store. (In a strange way this is something akin to the old zen-philosophy, of fully *being* in every moment, seeing its beauty.) And it’s still the goal of performance art that breaks the boundaries between life and performance, like Sleep No More in NYC, and many others across the world. The point is this: you no longer know where reality ends and artifice begins. Because of this, ideally, everything is a form of joyful, creative expression, nothing is ‘work’, and we get lost in an ideal world where we can be artists not workers at some job we don’t care about.
At first, this seemed like a desirable goal to me, and it seemed like it was becoming increasingly possible with more and more online media outlets like YouTube, and Instagram, Facebook and others allowing us to document and color every moment of our lives however we’d like. Every meal, every night out, every workout, all of them can become part of the artwork that is your life—as you present it anyway—a sort of of online self portrait that’s always a work in progress and might just live forever as pure electricity flowing around our planet from satellite to satellite, computer to computer, long after you’ve turned to dust.
There’s something wild and Romantic about that notion, and back in 2009 or 2008, saying those kinds of things at art classes in a University got lots of people angry. But here we are, in 2016, and that’s more or less what happened at some level. Today, I’d suggest, the dream of the avant-garde of the 20th century has largely been fully realized: all of our lives are one continuous artwork, and every moment we’re making art, working on those self-portraits, whether we like it or not. We’re writing, we’re taking photos, films, always and obsessively critiquing.
However, the dream has been realized perversely. Rather than turn everything into joyful creativity, it’s turned all of our lives into one continuous exercise in content farming—it’s not artwork, it’s just **work**, and sometimes even __getting a job__ requires social media presence as a daily necessity. And more pointedly, rather than allowing using to create artwork for our own joy and benefit, we generally cede all copyrights to companies the second we hit post, send, or click.
None of this is news, but the point I’m intending to make is this:
1) In the 20th century, experimental artists desired to merge art and life together, this was called the avant-garde
2) By the early 21st century this dream has succeeded. In countries like the United States, many people spend their entire day creating artwork (writing, photos, videos) on platforms like Instagram, or YouTube, etc, Twitter, etc.
3) But rather than freeing artists from the strictures of work and labor, turning life into a wild, creative dream, it’s generally created a more subtle dystopia, where creating artwork is an extra necessary part of daily life
4) So, while the Avant-Garde dream has succeeded, it’s also failed, and in doing so, it’s planted the seeds for the next great trend in artistic innovation, namely: where do we go from here?
Okay, so the Avant-garde dream succeeds, but it creates its own problems, at least in this conception. Now we’re all artists, but we’re giving away our artistic work & hence our very lives to companies that subtly control us in more ways than we really know, and we do so *by the very act* of creating the artwork that we’re more or less necessitated to produce in order to succeed in 21st century life. (When’s the last time you tried to apply for a job that didn’t want to see your personal ‘fun’ Github projects, your witty Twitter comments, or your LinkedIn profile?)
My suggestion is that the really innovative artists will take things one step further. They’ll attempt to merge our digital lives with the very algorithms that control them.
There’s long been a movement, in both software and art, to create programs that allow us to generate artwork, or music, or writing that is more or less indistinguishable from that created by a human. There are reasons for this, and besides being cool, it serves as a basis Turing Test of sorts for machine creativity and has implications for the P vs NP problem that forms the foundation of theoretical computer science. For instance: are all creative problems ‘solvable’ by computers in Polynomial time? And if so, aren’t we just computers, etc., etc…
That’s interesting stuff, but more interesting to me, and more groundbreaking is the idea of merging the computational infrastructure that makes up our digital lives with the artwork that we produce. That is: can we **use** AI algorithms to __supplement__ our creativity, rather than replace it altogether?
For example, here are two projects that I’ve come across recently which sparked my interest:
Both are attempts to computationally generate art that’s completely indistinguishable from human-created artwork. But they could be even better with a human touch. I think this kind of work is truly incredible, but only halfway there. We still need a human element, and by working with computers, we are taking the next step in avant-garde art, though I still wonder what the next set of repercussions may be.
The theme here is outsourcing creative work to computers, so *we* can produce higher quality work in shorter periods of time. Just like your programming IDE can generate the outline of your project, why not have an AI generate the outline of your novel?
Ideally, in doing so, we’ll be taking the next step in avant-garde art by once again rebelling against the idea of being forced to do ‘work’, outsourcing the hard/boring stuff to computers, and only making art that’s fun for us: when we feel like it, and how we feel like it. An algorithm can either subtly control us, or it can do our chores.
tonypoer.io 
You must be logged in to post a comment.