alex jones - ucl dissertation submission - not finished, but it'll do - april 2015.compressed
TRANSCRIPT
1
ASTEPTOOFAR?
HOWTHEADOPTIONOFHUMANENHANCEMENTTECHNOLOGIESWILLDRIVECYBORGISATION,THETECHNOLOGICALSINGULARITY
ANDHUMANEVOLUTION.
AlexanderJones,Nov2015
UCLBScINFORMATIONMANAGEMENTFORBUSINESSDISSERTATIONCandidateNumber:FGNS7 Wordcount:11,879
ThisdissertationissubmittedaspartrequirementforaManagementjointstudiesprogramatUniversityCollegeLondon.Itissubstantiallytheresultofmyownworkexceptwhereexplicitlyindicatedinthetext.Thedissertationwillbedistributedtotheinternalandexternalexaminers,butthereaftermaynotbecopiedordistributedexceptwithpermissionfromtheauthor.0.0.0 ABSTRACTThisdissertationdescribescurrenttechnologicaltrendsandresearcheswhatthesetrendscouldpotentiallyleadtoinregardstofuturetechnologicalproducts,businessopportunitiesandgovernmentalpolicy.AnoriginalillustrationofaHuman-CyborgContinuumispresented(below)thathighlightsthepotentialstagesoftechnologicalaugmentationhumanswillgothroughbeforebecominganewspecies;thatofaCyborg.Thesestagesare:static,mobile,wearable,augmentedandtranscendenttechnologies.ItisdescribedthatthiscontinuumnotonlypresentsavoyageofhumanevolutionbutalsoapathwaytowardsaTechnologicalSingularity.However,throughanalyzingpublicperceptionsofpossiblefutureproductsonthiscontinuum,including:aphone/watch/tablethybrid,bioniceye,nano-botinjectionandamindenhancingheadband,itisrealizedthatthegeneralpublicisgeneralfairlyresistanttoadopttechnologiesfarintothefuturethatwillleadtoadramaticchangeintheirhumanity.Coupledwithexpertinterviewshighlightingtechnologicalboundarieswithmindenhancingtechnologiesitishypothesisedthattherecouldbeapointonthiscontinuumthathumanitydoesnotprogresspast.Whatthissteptoofarcouldbethough,wecanonlyguess.
2
CONTENTSPage1………. Titlepageand0.0.0ABSTRACTPage2……….CONTENTSPage3………. 1.0.0INTRODUCTIONPage6………. 2.0.0KEYCONCEPTSPage19……….3.0.0METHODOLOGYPage21……….4.0.0RESULTSANDFINDINGSPage47……….5.0.0 DISCUSSIONSANDANALYSISPage56……….6.0.0 REJECTIONORACCEPTANCEOFHYPOTHETHISPage57……….7.0.0 EVALUATIONPage58……….8.0.0 CONCLUSIONPage59……….9.0.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSPage60……….10.0.0BIBLIOGRAPHYPage63……….11.0.0APPENDICES
4
2.0.0 KEYCONCEPTSTofullyappreciatetheresearchandsubsequentconclusionsdrawninthisworkitisimportantthatthereaderisfamiliarwiththefollowingconcepts.Ifyouclassyourselfasanexpertinthefieldoffuturetechnologiesthenthissectionmayaswellbeskipped,however,itwillbeworthwhiletobrieflylookovertheHuman-CyborgContinuumonpagesevenasthiswillbereferencedextensivelythroughout.2.1.0 WHATISAHUMANENHANCEMENTTECHNOLOGY?AHumanEnhancementTechnology(HET)isanytoolthatcandrasticallyimprovenormalbodilyfunctions.Presentdayexamplesrangefromsmartphonestomedicalpacemakers.However,HETscanbeclassedastechnologiesthousandsofyearsold,Ranisch&Sorgner(2014)goasfartoexplainthatthefirstinstanceofaHETwouldbefire(inGreekmythologygivenasagiftbytheGodPrometheus).ItcanalsobearguedthatsuchweaponsastheaxeanddevicessuchasthehorsestirruparealsoHETs;onegivestheabilitytocutdowntrees/opposingarmiesandtheothertorideahorsearoundcorners.Futuretechnologies,whichthisdissertationisprimarilyinterestedinpotentiallyincludewearabledevices,bionic/prostheticlimbs(thatarebetterthannormallimbs)andcognitiveupgradinginstruments,suchasthepreviouslyexplainedFacebookchip.2.2.0 TRANSHUMANISMANDPOSTHUMANISMAsweenhanceourselveswithtechnology,technologyis,andispredictedto,becomemoreandmoreaugmentedwithourbiologicalbody.Ifwelookatthetransitionfrommobiletechnology,towearabletechnologiestopotentialfuturebionictechnologiesitisclearthatthetechnologyformsalargerandlargerpartinhowweinteractwiththeworld.Weneedtoconcernourselveswiththequestionthatwhenwillhumansinfactbepost-humanbecauseofsuchahighleveloftechnologicalaugmentation?OrinLehmanterms:whenwillhumanshaveevolvedintoanewspeciesbecauseofouraugmentationwithtechnology?WhenwillwehaveevolvedintotheHuman2.0(Michalczak,2012)andsonolongerbeingHomosapiens?
Thereareagreatdealoftermsusedtodescribethedisciplinesdevotedtostudyingthenextstageofhumanevolution,afewhavealreadybeenmentioned(Posthumanism,Human2.0etc)andtherearesubtledifferencesbetweeneachoftheseschoolsofthought.ForamoredetailedanalysisofthedisciplinesFerrando’s(2013)papercanbereferredtowhereitisexplainedindetailthatPosthumanismsimplyconsidersthenextstageofhumanevolution,however,TranshumanismexplainshowwegettoaPosthumanisticpositionwiththedevelopmentoftechnology.Transhumanismismorerelevanttothistechnologicalfocusedessayandsowillbelookedatingreaterdetail.TheparadigmofTranshumanismwasintroducedbyVita-MoreinherTranshumanArtsManifesto(1984).Expandinguponthekeyprinciplesexplainedinhermanifesto(thatofTranshumanismaimingtoimproveandextendlife),Vita-moreexplainsin2002thattechnologyisakeytoolthatinalargepartcanreplacebiologicalfunctionsasweadvance.Inlightofthisshe
5
proposesthenotionofthePrimo-posthuman(2002).Theideaisa“theoreticalandpracticalfullbodyprosthetic,whichhasbeendevelopedtoanswerquestionsincellularbreakdown,diseaseandthefinalityofdeath”.Thisideaisstillverymuchindevelopmenttenyearson,however,thetheorybehinditisverycompelling.BelowisatableextractedfromVita-More’sworkhighlightingpotentialdifferencesbetweenwhatwewouldcallthebiologicalbodyofthe20thcenturyandthefuturebodyofthe21st:
Moreover,TranshumanismhasevolvedsomewhatsinceVita-More’s2002workanditsmoderndaymeaningisexplainedinashortvideobytheBritishInstituteofPosthumanStudies(2013);eventhisinstitutionusestrans/postaffixesinterchangeably.ThisclipisunfortunatelypartofafailedKickstarter.comcampaigntocreateaseriesofshortvideostoexplainTranshumanismtothegeneralpublic,however,thisfirstclipdoesagreatjobofsplittingdowntheTranshumanismparadigmintothreemain‘supers’.Eachofthesesupersisspecifiedtohave‘extraordinarytransformationalpotential’.ThefirstsuperofTranshumanismisconcernedwithSuperLongevity,inotherwordsmakinghumansimmortal.Ofcoursetheprospectofbiologicalimmortalityistremendouslycontroversial,however,AubreyDeGreyiscitedhereinthevideoasakeyscientist(orgerontologisttobemorespecific)inthisfieldwhopointsoutthatageingisthelargestkillerofpeopleintheworld.Whywouldwenottryandstopthelargestkillerofpeopleintheworld?DeGrey(2004)reasonsthatitisimmoralforusnottoinvestinanti-ageingtechnologiesnowandsomakethechoiceofinevitableagerelateddyingonbehalfofthefuture.ThesecondsuperiscalledSuperIntelligenceanditisverymuchlinkedwiththepreviousexampleoftheFacebookchip,withtechnologicalaugmentationwiththemindallowingtremendouslyimprovedcognitivecapabilities.Thissuperwillbeexpandeduponinalatersectionconcerning
20thCenturyBody 21stCenturyBody
Limitedlifespan Ageless
Legacygenes Replaceablegenes
Wearsout Upgrades
Randommistakes Errorcorrection
Senseofhumanity Enlightenedtranshumanity
Intelligencecapacity100trillionsynapses
Intelligencecapacity100quadrillionsynapses
Genderrestricted Genderchangeability
Pronetoenvironmentaldamage Impervioustoenvironmentaldamage
Corrosionbyirritabilityanddepression Turbochargedoptimism
Eliminationofmessygaseouswaste Recyclesandpurifieswaste
6
Kurzweil’stheoryofaTechnologicalSingularity.ThelastandthirdsuperisthatofSuperWellbeing.ThisparadigmgainedpopularattentionafterDavidPearcepublishedTheHedonisticManifestoin1995.Itistheopinionofthismanifestothattheexperienceofpainisanarchaicby-productofDarwin’stheoryofnaturalselection.Thepathwaysofpainareexplainedtohaveevolvedtosuitourancestorspastand“theiruglinesscanbereplacedbyanewmotivationsystembasedentirelyongradientsofwell-being”.Inotherwords,ourcurrentnervoussystemcanbereplacedwithanimprovedtechnologicalone.Insummary,transhumanistsbelievethatweshouldstriveforhumanlifetoexistinsuperlonglifespans,withsuperintelligenceandwithasuperwell-being.2.3.0 WHATISCYBORGISATION?WithTranshumanismexamineditisapparentthatthisprocessofhumanevolutionintoanewspecieswillnotsimplyhappenovernight.Technologyaugmentationwillnotgettothestagewherewesuddenlydeclareourselvesas‘Posthuman’;thatsoundsratherridiculous.Whatweneedisasupplementary,fluidconcepttohelpillustratetheprocessesoftechnologyalteringwhatweconceiveasthesociallyconstructedviewofhumanity.ThisessayisgoingtocallthisprocessCyborgisation,theslidingscalebetweentheHumanandtheCyborgor“CyberneticOrganism”(cyberneticmeaningmechanicalprocessessupplementingbiologicalfunctions)orthespeciesthatHumanswillevolveinto.ThetermCyborgwasdevisedin1960byClynesandKline(1965)butismoreadequatelyexplainedinDonnaHaraway’s“CyborgManifesto”(1991)aswhen“twokindsofboundariesaresimultaneouslyproblematic:1.)Thatbetweenanimalsandhumans2.)Thatbetweenselfcontrolled,selfgoverningmachinesandorganisms,especiallyhuman’s,modelsofautonomy”.Theblurringofboundariesisextensivelyimportanttoourneedsheretohelpusunderstandhowtheconstructofhumanityisgraduallybeingerodedovertime.Aswegraduallyaugmentmoreandmoretechnologywithourselves,replacingbiologicallywhatalreadyexisted,wewillgraduallyprogressourselvesintoanewspecies,whichforallsakesandpurposeswearecallingCyborg.ToillustratethisslidingscaleconceptbetweenspecieswecanturnourselvestoanoriginalideapresentedbelowcalledtheHuman-CyborgContinuum:
7
Thediagramshowsincreasingaugmentationoftechnologythatgohandinhandwithincreasinglevelsofenhancement.Itmustbenotedthateachofthesestagesareopentoconsiderabledebate,however,thegeneralthemeofthediagramshouldn’tbedampenedbecauseofthis.Awearabledevicegivesthesameadvantagesasasmartphone,plusmore,moreofthetime.Bioniclimbspromisetoprovidebetterutilisationofthehumanoidformandmedicaladvancesinnano-botsandothersuchtechnologiescouldleadtounfathomableimprovementsinlifeexpectanciesthathumanscouldendupusingthesetechnologiesformuchlongerperiodsoftimeinaproductivelifetime.Thefinaltechnologicalcategoryoftranscendencetechnologiespromisestotakethehumanmindtounimaginablelevelsofefficiencyandperhapsevenbeyondthehumanoidform;meaninghumansarenolongerrestrictedtobiologicalprocessbutmorelikethespeedoflightandtheprocessingpowersofsuperquantumcomputers.2.4.0 IMPLICATIONSOFTRANSCENDENCETECHNOLOGIESThelogicalendpointtotheHuman/Cyborgcontinuumiswhentheentirebodycanbereplacedbyuploadingmindstoamachine(Hauskeller,2012).ThisideahasbeeninsciencefictionforsometimegainingpopularattentionalongwiththegrowthoftheCyberpunkgenre,withsuchearlyworksinthisgenreincludingthebookNeuromancerbyWilliamGibson(1984).InCyberpunkliteraturethehumanbodyisoftenreferredtoasthe“meat”(Lupton,2000)thatcanliterallybecastasideoncehumansgaintheabilitytouploadtheirmindsintoacomputerorasocalled“virtualworld”.Itisthefullorpartialprocessofapersongoingthroughtheprocessofuploadingtheirmindtoacomputerthatthisessaydubs“Transcendence”.TheconceptofTranscendencehasbeendescribedinphilosophyforalongtimeas“apassagetoahigherplaneofexistence”(Piedmont,1999)thisdefinitionworksverywellbecausetheimplicationsofTranscendenceareunfathomable.Dennet(1981)describesapossiblestorywhereTranscendenceisconceivable,demonstratingitsvariousconceivableconsequences:
1. Abrainisdetachedfromabodybutcanstillcontrolthebodyfromadistance.
8
2. Thebodyisdestroyed.3. Anewbodyisnowconnectedtothebrain.Everythingfunctionsas
normalbutnowthepersonisincontrolofanewbody.4. Acopyofthebrainismade,whichisthenuploadedtoacomputerand
theoriginalbrainisthensubsequentlydestroyed.Thenewbodyisnowcontrolledbythecomputerbrain.
Withtheabovepredicamentwehavetoaskourselvesiftheoriginalpersonnowevenexists.OfcoursethereareseriousidentityissuesforapersonwhogoesthroughaprocessofTranscendence.Let’sassumethattheoriginalbrainwasnotdestroyedintheaboveexample,andthentheconsciousnessinthecomputer(aswellastheconsciousnessintheexistingbrain)willgenuinelythinkitistherealperson,butofcoursearguablythe“real”personisstillthebrain.Asolutiontothissortofconfusioninthefuture,could,hypothetically,betokeepthemindinakindof‘DigitalCryogenic’(orDigitalFreezing)whereitdoesn’tactuallyhavetheabilitytothink-itisjustdata-whichthenessentiallyleadstobackedfilesofanindividual’swholepersona.Pearson(quotedinHyland2014)proposesatrulyincrediblescenarioifthiswerepossiblewhere“whenyougetrundownbyabus,itdoesn’tmeanthatit’stheendofyourcareer.YoujustdownloadyourconsciousnessbackintoanandroidandgobacktoworkonMondayhavingattendedyourfuneralontheSundayafternoon.Thatsortofthing.Aformadigitalimmortality.”NaturallytherearehugeriskssurroundingafuturewithwidespreadTranscendence.ThesecurityissuessurroundinghavingyouractualthoughtssavedinanexternalITsystemareunimaginable.Therewouldbethepossibilitythatsomeoneorsomethingcouldtamperwithyourmindorsimplydeleteit.Springer(2000)alsopresentstherathersinisterprospectwherewhenamindisexternaltothebodyapersonmaynotonlybeatriskofbeingtorturedinthephysicalsense,butalsoinamentalsense.Forexample:rapevictimsareabletoretreatintotheirmindstoescapetheirphysicaltorments,takethepossibleretreatofthemindoutoftheequation,sorapeofthemindaswellasbody,andthisleadstotrulygruesomecruelties.Ontheothersideofthecoin,Transcendedmindsmaybeabletoenjoythebestseximaginableincyberspace(Balsamo,2000).Notonlycouldamindperhapsbestimulatedinmanymorewaysbyacomputerforpleasure;butaloverwouldalsobeabletocompletelyimmersethemselvesintheirpartner’sthoughtsandmayevenbeabletomergeconsciousnessentirely(Hyland,2014).Ifmergingconsciousnesswasdesirablethatis.Ofcoursetheseideascanseemextremelyfar-fetched,however,theymaybecloserthanwefirstthought.Scanningaportionofamousebraintoincludeallthesynapticdetailshasbeenpossiblesince2010(MedicalNews,2010).Additionally,Berger(2013)andateamfromtheUniversityofLosAngeleshaverecentlyproposedreplacingaportionofthebraincalledthehippocampal(thatdealswiththerecallandformationoflong-termmemories)with“micro-electronicsystemsthatmimicthefunctionsoftheoriginalbiologicalcircuitry”.Theteamhavesubsequentlybeensuccessfulwiththismethodinlaboratorysettings(Koene,2014).Essentiallyoncethehumanbrainhasbeenreducedto
9
dataitthendoesn’tseemthatmuchofastretchforthisdatatothenbeuploadedtoacomputer-acomputerwhichwouldbepowerfulenoughtoemulatethebrainisthenexpectedtobebuiltby2017(Hyland,2014).2.5.0 WHATISTHETECHNOLOGICALSINGULARITY?Inthe1960sMoore,oneofthecofoundersofIBMproposedatheorythateverytwoyearsthemaximumamountofpowerforacomputerchipwoulddouble.Thisisanexponentialrateofimprovementandhasheldtrueeversinceitwasproposed.TodaythereisspeculationastowhetherMoore’sLawisanaturallawdescribingtheoverallrateoftechnologicaladvancementorwhetheritisrestrictedtocomputerchips,andevenwhetheritwillholdtrueinyearstocome.AgraphconcerningMoore’slawisbelow(Raval,2014):
AscanbeseenbytheinherentmathematicalnatureofanexponentialcurvetherecouldcomeapointintimewherethecurveisessentiallyverticalwithanunlimitedamountofTechnologicalAdvancementinthesmallestamountoftime;atleasttoahumanperspective(ofcoursethelinewillneverreallybeverticalfromamathematicalviewpoint).ThispointintimeiscalledtheTechnologicalSingularity.Prominentfuturologist,RayKurzweil(2001),predictstheTechnologicalSingularitywillhappenroundabouttheyear2045.Kurzweilproposesthattheoverallrateoftechnologicaladvancementisexponential,likeMoore’slaw.Therefore,hestipulatesthat“wewon’texperienceonehundredyearsofprogressinthe21stcentury–itwillbemoreliketwentythousandyears(attoday’srate)”.Kurzweilgoesevenfurthertoexplainthatthisrateoftechnologicaladvancementwillbecomesogreatthathumanswillnolongerbeabletokeepupwithit,sowewillhavetoimprovebrainfunctionalitybyfusingwithmachines,andwhenthishappens,wewillhavereachedsingularity.ThereareofcoursemanycriticstoKurzweil’stheory.Modis(2001)calculatedthatweinfactreachedthefastestrateoftechnologicaladvancementinthe1990s.Hereachedthisanswerbyexplainingthatcomplexity(whichisstatedtobestronglylinkedwithevolutionandsotechnologicalinnovation)canbe
10
quantifiedintermsofkeyevolutionaryturningpointsor‘milestones’(suchastheevolutionofDNA)andthateachofthemilestonesfitsalogisticdescription(notanexponentialdescription)andthatforecastsfittedtothesemilestonescreateanoveralllogisticfunctionfortheUniverse’slifetime.Modiscomputesthatweareabouthalfwaythroughtheuniverseslifetimesotherateofcomplexity,andsothespeedofevolutionisstartingtotailoff.Inotherwords,Modisarguesthathumanityhasalreadyreacheditspeakrateofadvancementandtherateofwhichwemakeprogressisnowstartingtodecline,indirectconflictwithKurzweil,whopredictsourrateofinnovationisonlygoingtoincrease.Nevertheless,althoughKurzweilmaybeincorrectinhispredictionoftheexactdateoftheproposedSingularity,wecanassumethatsimilaraffectstoapotentialSingularitywillbefeltsometimeinthefuture.EveniftechnologydoesnotincreaselinearlywecanexpectittocontinueadvancingsowecanatleastexpecttoexperiencesomeofKurzweil’spredictedtechnologicaladvancementsby2145,onehundredyearslaterthaninitiallypinpointedbutthiscouldpotentiallybeinthelifetimeofchildrenbeingbornnottofarfromnow.Don’tweoweittohumanity’sfuturetoprepareforthesingularity?Thesetechnologiesinclude,butofcoursearenotlimitedto:cyborgisation(themergenceofhumanswithtechnology),lifeextension(withtheprospectofimmortality)andartificialintelligence.Eachofthesetechnologiesontheirown,withinafewdecades,coulddevelopintohavingmassiverepercussionsforhumanity;letaloneifseparatebreak-throughsweremadeallatthesametime.Suchafutureperiodofinnovationcanbecomparedwiththeindustrialrevolution.Fromabout1760to1820therewerehugeadvancementsinchemicalmanufacturing,ironproductionandachangefromwoodtocoalfuelsbroughtaboutsteampower.Advancesinsuchtechnologies,combined,influencedeveryaspectofhumanlife;especiallyinWesterncountriesliketheUnitedKingdomWecanalreadyseehowmoderndaytechnologiesarechangingmoderndaylifewiththeinventionoftheInternet.ThiswasakeybreakthroughandsubsequentapplicationinthefieldofComputerScience,butwhatwillhappenwhenequallybigbreakthroughsaremadeinthefieldsofNanotechnology,NeurologyandBiotechnology?Itcanbequiteaccuratelypresumedthatasaspeciesweshouldbepreparedforsucheventualities,notonlytotakefulladvantageofthembutalsosowedonotblindlystumbleacrossthemandsufferunforeseenconsequences.LinkingthetheoryoftheTechnologicalSingularitybacktotheHuman-CyborgContinuumweimaginethesametechnologiesbeingplottedontoanexponentialcurvewiththeendpointbeingwhentheTechnologicalSingularitycouldoccurasthislineappearsnearvertical.Inthisrespectinsteadoftryingtopredicttheveryendofthecontinuum,whentheTechnologicalSingularityislikelytooccur,wecanmeasureourprogresstowardsthispointintimewithwhenwereacheachofthetechnologieshighlightedonthecontinuum.Iftherearepointsonthecontinuumthatarekeymilestones,orobstacles,orevenpartsthathumanitymaymoveextremely
11
quicklythroughthiswillbeofupmostimportanceinpredictingandprovidingcheckpointsonourprogresstowardstheTechnologicalSingularity.Itisthisavenueofresearchthatthisdissertationwilllargelyfocusuponinthecomingsections.2.8.0 THEQUESTIONOFSCIENCEFICTIONINSPIRATIONAnotherriskrelatedtotheendoftheHuman-CyborgContinuum,andTranscendencetechnologies,istheconsequencesofpeopleactuallypreferringtostayincyberspace,wheretheycanshapetheworldhowtheyseefit,whichisobviouslyjuxtaposedtotherealityoftherealworld.TheideaofamindbeinglostinsideamachineistheexactplotoftheTron:Legacyfilm.TheplotconsistsofaCEOofalargetechnologycompanygettinglostinsideacomputerfortwentyyears.Whatcompelshimtospendtimeinthecomputerinthefirstplaceistheveryfacthecanshapetheworldasheseesfit.Hecreatesatrulydreamlikeworldandevencreatesfriendstohelphimcreatehisplayground(untiloneofthesefriendsturnsagainsthimsubsequentlylockinghiminsidethecomputerthatis)(Efthimiou,2012).Thereisnodenyingherethatwearequotingdirectlyherefromscience-fiction,andofcourseareasonablequestiontoaskis:doessciencefictionhaveanyplaceinsciencefactualdiscussion?Itistheopinionofthisessaythatsciencefictionhasanincredibleimportantroletoplayinhelpingustopredictandunderstandpossiblefutures.Studyingscience-fictionisjustasimportanttothefuturologistaspropheciesaretotheAnthropologist.Withthisismind,afterhumanshaveembeddedourbodieswithsomuchtechnology;somecouldevengoasfarastocallussuperheroes.InterestinglyDetectiveComics(DC)hasapopularcomicbooksuperherocharactercalled‘Cyborg’.Consideringallthathasbeendiscussedpreviously,itisnotbeyondtherealmsofimaginationthatwhenwehavebreakthroughsinbiotechnologieswewillnotthenbeabletoconsidercreatingwhatwecolloquiallycallsuperheroes.ThehumangenomehasbeendecodedsoisitonlyamatteroftimebeforeweunderstanditcompletelyandthenmoveontoalteringDNA.HowlonguntilweareabletocreatethelikesofCaptainAmerica(someoneoptimisedtothehighestpossiblenaturalpotentials),TheHulk(someonewhocanchangetheirbio-physicalformthroughemotionfluctuations)andWolverine(someonewithrapidhealingcapabilitiesandenhancedsenses)?Whatthenwillhappenwhenwehaveasubsetofthepopulation,whichdothenhavethesuperhumancapabilities,andanothersubsetthatdon’t?Suchalargedisparatesocietywouldhaveextremeimplications.Thesedisparateimplications,betweenthe“haves”and“have-nots”isakeypointexploredintheX-Menfilms,wherethemajorityofsocietyispetrifiedbytheadventof“mutants”whopossessawholemultitudeofsuperhumanpowers(includingcontrollingtheweather,controllingmetalandcontrollinghumanminds).Inthisfictitiousscenariothemutantsarebornwiththesepowerssothey’renotinvented,however,wecanenvisageapossiblefuturewherepeoplecouldvolunteerforthesepowerswhilstothersholdback.Therearesuchcurrent
12
argumentsatthemomentsurroundingtheuseoftechnologiesforGMcrops,toplasticsurgeryandabortions.Ofcoursetherewillbeevenmorepolarisedopinionsonthecreationofbiologicalsuperpowers,withtheseopinionsnotgettingridofthefactthattheprospectscouldstillbetechnicallyfeasiblewithsomeoneintheworldprobablygoingtogivethemselvessuperpowersanyway(suchistheplotinmanycomicbooks).However,inthisscenario,unliketheonesjustbroughttolight,thisisasituationwhereonesubsetofthepopulationhastheabilitytoveryeasilyextincttheothers.Arguablythissituationhasalreadycometofruitionwiththecreationoftheatomicbomb,albeitthispowerisnotheldbyindividuals,butbygovernments.Whatwillthenhappenwhenanindividualhasthepowertocreatehisorherownatomicbomb?“Now,IambecomeDeath,thedestroyerofworlds”(Oppenheimer,1944)couldbeutteredaroundtheworldbypotentiallymillionsofpeople.2.6.0 CULTUREENGINEERINGIntermsofpreparingpeopleoutsideoftechnology,whodonotread(incrediblyimportant)piecesofworksuchasthis,andwhodonotconsiderthepossibilityrepresentedincontemporarysciencefiction,itisimportanttofocusonthefieldofcultureengineering.Thisisanumbrellatermfortheimplementationofmarketing,politicsandphilosophyintermsofalteringsociety’sviewonHETs(Wood,2014).Thisisextremelykey,asthecultureofhumanitywilldeterminewhattechnologieswillbedevelopedandalsowhethertheyareadopted.IfthecultureofhumanityisnotacceptingofHETswhentheybecomewidelyavailablethenscenarioswhereagreatdealofoppositionispresentedinviewofHETs,adisparatesocietyislikelytodevelopwithsomepeoplehavingHETsandsomepeoplenotandgovernmentalpolicyseverelylackinginpolicingHETsareallhighlylikelyscenarios.Thisiswhyitisveryimportantforustounderstandpeople’sperceptionstowardsHETsatthemomentandwhatmethodsofcultureengineeringaremosteffective.Inapracticalsensetheculturalopinionsoftechnologywillalsodeterminefromabusinessstandpointwhatproductsaresuccessfulandwhichonesaren’t.AgreatexampleofthisistherecentfailedlaunchoftheGoogleGlasswearabletechnology.AlthoughGoogleGlassdoespresentsomehugeadvantagesoverexistingmobilephonesconsumershavebeenlargelyresistanttoadoptthetechnology.Consumershavehighlightedprivacyconcernsastheirmajorworryandun-comfortablenesswhilstusingit.IfGooglehadcarriedoutadequateresearchinregardstopeople’sopinionstowardswearingacameraandcomputerinfrontoftheireyesthentheycouldhaveaddressedthesevariousproblemshighlightedheadonintheirproductdevelopment.AmajorconcernaboutGoogleGlasswhenitwasreleasedwasthatpeopledidnotlikethefacttheydidn’tknowwhensomeonewasrecordingthemornot.Peoplehavegonesofarascallingthis‘creepy’(Pogue,2014)andevenbanningthedeviceinsomeplaces(Gray,2014).AsimpleworkaroundinretrospectwouldhavebeentoaddasmallLEDlighttoshowwhentheproductwasrecording.Whysuchasimplefeaturewasneveraddedthatreallycouldhavepotentiallysavedtheproduct’s
13
launchislaughableandreallyshowswhyunderstandingconsumerreactionstonewtechnologicalproductsissoimportant.Fromabusinessstandpointthisavenueofinvestigationwillbeincrediblyimportantandwillbedelvedintothroughoutthisdissertation’sresearch.Furthermore,themajorityoftheworld’smostpowerfulnationsaredemocratic,meaningtheyare‘governmentsofthepeople’.Bydefinitionthisthenmeansthatgovernmentalpolicyreflectsthegeneralconsensusofthecountry’spopulation,inthiscaseweareparticularlyinterestedwiththepopulation’sopinionstowardsHETsandthengovernmentalpolicyconcerningthis.ThemostrelevantcasestudyinrespecttoshowinghowcultureandgovernmentshaveinfluencedatechnologiesadvancementandadoptionisthedevelopmentofInVitroFertilisation(IVF)inthe1970sandsince.Atthetimeofthispioneeringresearchtherewasagreatdealofopposition,especiallyfromreligiousgroups,whodeemedthatthedevelopmentofIVFwasmorallywrong.Ifitweren’tfortheculturepresentinBritainatthetimeandgovernmentalopinionallowingforthefundingtobeavailableandtheresearchfrompotentiallybeingbanned,thenIVFwouldnothavecomebeenrealisedwhenitwas.Additionally,ifculturewasdifferent,thenIVFwouldnotbeaswidespreadwithnearly50,000IVFproceduresbeingcarriedoutintheUKin2011alone(HFEA,2011).Ofcoursethereistheargumentthat“necessityisthemotherinvention”(nopunintended)forcoupleswhoareunabletohavechildrenbutthereareplentyofotherexamplesofgovernmentsgettinginthewayoftechnologicaladvancementforgoodorbadreasons.Theseinclude:dronesforcommercialuseandwarfareuses,biologicalgenomicsequencingsoftwarebeingbannedbytheUS’sFDA(Seife,2013)andoppositiontoGoogleintheEU.However,withanincreasinglyglobalisedsocietybanningatechnologyinonecountrycanleadtoinfluxesoftechtourismtoanother.PrimeexamplesofthisarefertilitytourismwithcouplesfromcountriesresistanttoIVFtravellingtocountriesthataren’tanddronetourismwithAmazonnowdevelopingdronetechnologyinCanadainsteadoftheUS(Pilkington,2015).Itisclearthatifgovernmentalpolicyisnotuptodatewiththecultureofpeoplethenpeoplewillstillfindworkarounds.Thismeansthatfromagovernmentperspective,avenuesofresearchgoingintothetopicofeverincreasingtechnologicaladvancementwillbeoftheupmostimportance.2.7.0 AWARNINGONFUTURETECHNOLOGIESTheUNheldtheirfirsteverdebateontherisksofartificialintelligenceinMay2014anditcanbearguedthatevenmorehighprofiledebatesneedtooccurinregardstotheimplicationsoffutureinnovations.IfpeoplesuchasRichardSeymour(2011,citedinScott,2011)aretobebelieved,thefirstthousandyearoldhasalreadybeenborn.Never-mindrobotsgainingintelligencewhatifpeoplestoppeddying?Whataretheimplicationsinregardstomanagingtheworld’spopulation?Itistheopinionofthisessaythatwearecurrentlyhugelyuninformedastotheanswersofsuchquestionsandthattherecanbelittlewhichismoreimportantthangainingsomereliableanswerstosuchqueries.Theworst-casescenarioisthatcertaintechnologiesarecreatedinthefuturewhichwewishhadneverbeendiscovered-letalonewidelyavailableforthe
14
generalpopulation.BillJoy(thefounderofSunmicrosystems)wroteaseminalessayinWiredmagazine,in2000,consideringthissubject.InthisessayJoycoinsthetermKnowledge-EnabledMassDestruction(KMD)relatingtothefuture’spotentialcatastrophesincontrasttotoday’sWeaponsofMassDestruction(WMD).HedescribesthefactthatNuclearWeapons,althoughtheyhavethepowertodestroytheworld,areinreality,onlyavailabletoaselectfewandsorelativelylowrisk.Thisisincontrasttothefuturewherepowerfultechnologieswillbeavailabletoeveryoneandsotheriskofaworldwidecatastropheregrettablyincreases.Weneedlooknofurtherthantoday’spro-activehackingorganization“Anonymous”toseehowformidabletoday’stechnologyhasbecomeatthehandsofasmallcollectionofexpertscarryingouttheirownpersonalagendas.Whatwedon’twanttohappenisforhumanitytowalkintoaself-madetrapthatwecannotescapefrom.AkeytheorybehindthisratherdystopianstatementisthatofGradualReplacement.Joydescribesthescenariowhereweallow,andfacilitate,machinestomakemoreandmoredecisionsforusastimegoesonuntilwedon’tmakeanydecisionsatall.Forexample:atthemomentweaskmachinesthemostefficientdirectionswhenwewanttodrivesomewhere.Whenself-drivingcarsbecomeprominenttheywillsimplytakeustoourdestination.Thenthenextstageisformachinestorecommendandpredictwhereweshouldgoatacertaintime.Thenduetoadvancedalgorithms,machineswillsimplytakeuswherewemathematicallywanttobeatsuchapointintimewithoutusevenbotheringtomakesureifthemachinehasmadeacorrectdecisionornot.Whensuchascenariooccurs,wehavegraduallyreplacedallthehumandecisionmakingprocesseswithmachinedecisions.Followingthislineofthoughttoitsinevitableconclusionwewillthenreachastagewherewewouldhavetoaskourselves:whatisthenleftforhumanstodo?Itcanbearguedthatgivingourdecisionsawaytomachinestakescomputationalpowerawayfromourmindstofocusonotherthings,however,whatwillhappenwhenweinventmachinestomakedecisionsforeverydecisionweeverhavetomake?Whatwillourmindsthenbelefttofocuson?2.9.0 WHYISTHISIMPORTANT?Bringingthisessaybackroundtoperhapsmoremain-streamavenuesofinquirywecanseethatbyinventingandapplyingvarioustechnologies,withoutpriorconsideration,couldhaveprofoundconsequencesforaglobalsocietythatwejustcannotpredict.Adifficultconundrumtoconsideris:shouldwesayenoughisenoughinsomerespectsandrefuse,asaspeciestoinnovateless,inacertainareasoftechnology?Thiscouldplausiblyalleviatesomepotentialfuturerisks.InfactDeGrey(andVijg2014)explainsthatakeyhurdleinachievinghisgoalofunlimitedlifeextensionisnotnecessarilyscienceatall,but‘excessiveindustryregulation’asakeyobstacletoovercome.ShouldweimposemoreregulationonDeGrey’sworkandothersuchrelatedtechnologiesifweclassthemas“highrisk”?Thislineofactionmayhavepositiveimpacts,ofcourse,butitmayalsohavemanynegativeaffects.Afterall,howdowechoosewhichtechnologiestoregulate?Geneticallymodifyinghumanscouldpotentiallystopmillionsofpeople
15
fromdevelopinglifethreateningdiseases(fromcuresforCancertoAlzheimer’s)arewegoingtocondemntheseillpeopletodeathbecauseweareuncomfortablewithcertainimplicationsofunderstandingsomeareasofscienceingreaterdetail?Somanyoftoday’stechnologiesarealsoextensivelyinterrelatedmeaningthatstoppingonetechnologywillthenhaveknockoneffectsonothers.Forexample:ifitwasdecidedtorestrictinvestmentinComputerSciencebecauseitwasfeltthatAIwasjusttoodangerousathingtoinvent,suchanactioncouldthenhavenegativeimplicationsonotherdisciplineslikeBiologythatusesComputerSciencetechnologiestomodelvariousexperiments.Thereisalsothequestionastowhetherwecantogothroughthemotionsofevolutionorwhetherwewanttotakecontrolofourdestiny–thefactthatweareinvestinginthesetechnologiesalreadyandareevenaskingthesequestionssurelyshowsusthathumanitywantstohaveasmuchsayinourfutureaspossible(BaylisandRobert,2004).Lastly,Oppenheimer(quotedinJoy,2004),oneofthekeypeoplebehindthedevelopmentofthehydrogenbomb,wasquotedin1945asstatingthat“itisnotpossibletobeascientistunlessyoubelievethattheknowledgeoftheworld,andthepowerwhichitgives,isathingofintrinsicvaluetohumanity,andthatyouarewillingtotaketheconsequences”.Insummary,thisintroductionhassetthestagefortherestofthedissertationtoexploretheanswerstosuchquestionsbehindtherisksoffuturetechnologybeingadoublededgedsword.Thisisbecauseitisfeltthattherepercussionsoftheinventionoftechnologies,ontheworld’spopulation,hascurrentlynotbeenfullyresearchedwithagreatdealofimportantfactsremaininghidden.Thesequestionsrelatestronglytothefindingoutthethoughtsofthegeneralpopulation.Thisisbecause,attheendoftheday,itisuptogovernments,whichinturnareelectedbythepeople(inthemajorityofthemostscientificallyadvancedsocietiesintheworld)whowilldecidewhethercertainscientificresearchshouldgoaheadornot.Bymeasuringpublicopiniontosuchtechnologiesnow,canhelpinformgovernmentsonfuturepolicythatrepresentstheirpopulationandinturnhowbusinessescanstrategizethefutureinregardstotheirpotentialfuturecustomer’sneedsandwishes.Thiswillalsobeextensivelyimportanttobusinesses,asitwillprovidekeyinformationinregardstopublicperceptionoffuturetechnologicalproductsthatmaycurrentlybeinthepipelineinlargeR&Dcentresaroundtheworld.Lastly,throughattemptingtoanswer,some,ifnotallthesequestions,amodelofpredictingwhenaTechnologicalSingularitycouldtakeplaceusingtheHuman-CyborgContinuumwillbeanalysed.Arguablyonecanonlypreparehowtocopewithaneventwitharoughindicationofwhentheeventmayactuallyhappen.
16
3.0.0 METHODOLOGY3.1.0 GENERALCONSIDERATIONS
• TheCyborgisationprocesspusheshumanitycloserandclosertowardstheTechnologicalSingularity.
• TheTechnologicalSingularitywillonlyoccurifalargeproportionofthehumanpopulationparticipate(letssay50%).
• WewillassumethattechnologicaladvancementwillonedayreachthelevelexpectedattheTechnologicalSingularity,however,humanadoptionandattitudestowardssuchtechnologiesmaypreventtheTechnologicalSingularityfromeveroccurring.
• WewillassumethatAI,whendeveloped,willaidandnotdestroyhumanity.
3.2.0 HYPOTHESIS
• AshumansmovefurtheralongtheHuman-Cyborgcontinuumthereluctancetoadoptnewtechnologieswillincrease;inturnslowingdownprogresstowardsapotentialTechnologicalSingularity.
3.3.0 TESTINGHYPOTHETHESAllresearchmethodswilladoptaniterativeapproachtoresearchwithiterationsdescribedintheresultssection.
1. Questionnaire
• RankingoflikelihoodtoadoptthreepotentialfutureHETproductsalongtheHuman-CyborgContinuum.
• Askaboutpotentialrisksofeachproduct.• Askopinionsoncertainnewtechnologieslike:anti-
ageing,mind-uploadingandvitro-meat.2. Marketing
• ComparereactionsofthreepotentialfutureHETproductsalongtheHuman-CyborgContinuummarketedwiththeexactsamestrategy.
• ThemarketingstrategyincorporatesFacebookAdsthatdirecttheusertoacompanionwebsitethatthenhasemailsignupsforeachoftheproducts.
3. ExpertInterviews• Aselectgroupofexpertsinthefieldwillbeaskedtheir
opinionsonpotentialhurdlesontheroutetoatechnologicalsingularity.
• ThequestionswillbespecificallytargetedtowardsthelikelihoodadoptionofcertainHETsalongtheHuman-CyborgContinuum.
• ExpertswillbeaskedwhethertheyareoftheopinionthattheHuman-Cyborgcontinuumrepresentsafairlyaccurateprogressionoftechnologicaladoption/humanevolution,ifnot,whatwouldtheychange?
17
3.4.0 HYPOTHESISSTANDSIF• Primary
o Questionnaire:ParticipantsranktheproductsfurtheralongtheHuman-CyborgContinuumaslessfavourablethantheonescloser.Participantsarealsowellawareofpotentialrisksofadoptingthenewtechnologies.Lastly,participantsshowmisgivingsaboutthesingularfuturetechnologicalbreakthroughs.
o Marketing:UsersreactmorefavourabletowardsproductsfurtheralongtheHuman-CyborgContinuumlessfavourablythantheonescloser.ThiscanbemeasuredthroughthenumberofclicksoneachFacebookadandthentherespectivenumberofemailsignupsforeachproduct.Itisthenassumedthatthenumberofclicksandthenumberofemailsignupsrelatestotheuser’swillingnesstoadopttheproduct.
o Expertinterviews:Expertshighlighttheadoptionofcertaintechnologiesaskeyhurdlestowardsatechnologicalsingularity.ExpertsgenerallyagreethattheHuman-CyborgContinuumisanaccuraterepresentationofpotentialtechnologicaladoptionandsothemostlikelypathCyborgisationwilltaketowardstheTechnologicalSingularity.
• Alternativeo Marketing:throughdeployingdifferentmarketing
strategiesuserscanbepersuadedtoactmorefavourablytowardsproductsthantheyoriginallydid.
21
4.1.2 PUBLICSURVEY1RESULTSResponses=16Positionsareusedinthetabletosignifyhoweachoftheproductsrelatestooneanother.Forexampleahigheraveragescoreofdesirabilityforaproductranksithigherthananotherandahigheraveragenumberofrisksforaproductranksitlowerthananotherproduct.Keyfiguresareboldhighlighted.Risksforeachproductarecalculatedbyeachtimeaparticipantwroteariskforoneofthecategorieslisted.Ifaparticipantwrotemorethanoneriskforacategorythenthiswasstillrecordedasasingularscore,however,iftheuserwrotemultiplerisksfromdifferentcategoriesthesewererecordedmultipletimes.Abreakdownofthesurveyannotationforthiscanbeviewedintheappendix.
22
QuestionNumber
Findings
1Age 75%ofrespondentsin18-25agebracket2Thinkingaboutfuturetechnologies
75%ofrespondents“Occasionally”thinkaboutfuturetechnologies
3Desirabilityscores
TotalScore:sumoftotaldesirabilityanswersforeachproduct.MeanScore=32
VarianceofScores=4.7StandardDeviationofScores:2.17
3BIONEYE Score:34Positionofdesirability:3rd
3INJECTOR Score:29Positionofdesirability:1st
3MIND+ Score:33Positionofdesirability:2nd
4BIONEYErisks
Hacking/Security=5AlterationofBehaviour=7
Healthrisks=7Disparity=2
Generalproductquestions=3Repulsion=2None=1Other=2
Total=30
Position=3rd5INJECTOR
risksHacking/Security=1
AlterationofBehaviour=4Healthrisks=9Disparity=4
Generalproductquestions=3Repulsion=2None=0Other=3
Total=26
Position=1st6MIND+risks
Hacking/Security=9AlterationofBehaviour=5
Healthrisks=4Disparity=4
Generalproductquestions=3Repulsion=0None=0Other=2
Total=28
Position=2nd
23
7Knowledge
ofAI
Aboutaverage=44%Bottom20%=38%
8AIasathreat
Stronglyagree/agree=75%
4.2.0 PUBLICSURVEY2AfterconductingthissurveyitwasfeltthatafourthproductclosertopresentdaytechnologyalongtheHuman-CyborgContinuumwouldbemoreappropriate.Therefore,thesurveywasiteratedandtheproductFLEXIwascreatedandthesurveyconductedagain.4.2.1 PUBLICSURVEY2QUESTIONS
26
4.3.2 PUBLICSURVEY2RESULTSResponses=12QuestionNumber
Findings
1Age 67%ofrespondentsin18-25agebracket2Thinkingaboutfuturetechnologies
42%ofrespondents“Often”thinkaboutfuturetechnologies.92%ofrespondentsfallbetween“OccasionallyandVeryOften”
3Desirabilityscores
TotalScore:sumoftotaldesirabilityanswersforeachproduct.
MeanTotalScore=30.00VarianceofTotalScores=25.25
StandardDeviationofTotalScores:5.033FLEXI Score:30
Positionofdesirability:2nd3BIONEYE Score:36
27
Positionofdesirability:4th3INJECTOR Score:31
Positionofdesirability:3rd3MIND+ Score:23
Positionofdesirability:1st4FLEXIrisks
Hacking/Security=0AlterationofBehaviour=0
Healthrisks=0Disparity=0
Generalproductquestions=4Repulsion=0None=5Other=0
Total=9
Position=1st5BIONEYE
risks
Hacking/Security=3AlterationofBehaviour=0
Healthrisks=6Disparity=0
Generalproductquestions=2Repulsion=2None=1Other=0
Total=12
Position=4th6INJECTOR
risksHacking/Security=3
AlterationofBehaviour=0Healthrisks=3Disparity=0
Generalproductquestions=1Repulsion=0None=1Other=3
Total=11
Position=3rd7MIND+risks
Hacking/Security=0AlterationofBehaviour=4
Healthrisks=4Disparity=0
Generalproductquestions=1Repulsion=0None=1Other=1
Total=11
Position=3rd
28
8Cureforcancer
75%“Stronglysupport”acureforcancer100%“Stronglysupport/support”acureforcancer
9Cureforaging
25%“Stronglysupport”acureforageing50%“Stronglysupport/support”acureforageing
4.4.0 PUBLICSURVEY3Afterattemptingtoanalysethedegreesofdesirabilityintheprevioustwosurveyitwasnoticedthatthewaythequestionwasstructuredmadeitverydifficulttoanalyse.Byforcingeachoftheparticipantstoranktheproductsthisensuredthattherewasnowaytojudgepeople’sgeneralperceptionofalltheproductsanditalsomadeparticipantsmakeachoicebetweentwoproductsthattheymayhavefeltwereextremelysimilar.Thisleadtothissurveybeingiteratedonelast,inaslightlysmallerformat,togathermoreaccuratescoresofdesirabilityforeachproduct.4.4.1 PUBLICSURVEY3QUESTIONS
29
4.7.1 PUBLICSURVEY3RESPONSES
Product AverageScore PositionFLEXI 7.3 1st
BIONEYE 4.6 3rdINJECTOR 5.4 2ndMIND+ 4.2 4th
31
4.8.0 FACEBOOKADSFourdifferentFacebookAdswererunontheFacebookadvertisingplatformbetween28/02/2015and07/03/2015.Differentcampaignswererunwithslightlydifferentmarketingstrategiestoalleviatepotentialcampaignbiases.Afullbreakdownofthevariouscampaignscanbeviewintheappendix.TherearesignificantlyfewerappearancesforFLEXIwhencomparedwiththeothertwoproductsbecausethisproductwasaddedtothecampaignsatalaterdate(andsubstitutedMIND+).AppearancesarethenumberoftimesaFacebookAdwasviewedbyusersontheFacebookplatformandtheClicksrefertothenumberofclickseachFacebookAdreceived.Whenauserclickedonanadtheyweredirectedtotherelevantpagefortheproductonthewebsitewww.oakindustries.com(afictitiouscompanywebsitecreatedforthepurposesofthisexperiment).Thisexperimentwaslimitedtobudgetconstraints(atotalof£40wasspent)andithasbeennoticedwhilstcompilingthisreportthata“LearnMore”buttonwasaccidentlymissedofftheFLEXIFacebookAdwhichisexpectedtohavesomeunforeseenconsequencesonthefinalresults.ScreenshotsofboththeFacebookAdsandwebsitepage(thatisviewedwhentheuserclicksontheFacebookAd)areshownbelow.Theseviewsareforthedesktop,however,bothwebsiteandFacebookAdswereviewableinslightlydifferentformsonallkindsofdevices.Thewebsitedidhavethefunctionalityfortheusertosubmittheiremailaddresstofindoutmoreinformationabouttheproduct,however,theresultsofsuccessfulemailsubscriptionsarenotincludedinthisanalysisandassuchwillbegroundforfuturefollowupresearch.
39
4.11.2MIND+WEBSITESCREENSHOT
4.12.1 FACEBOOKADSRESULTSANDSTATISTICALANALYSISObservedvalues:
FLEXI BIONEYE INJECTOR MIND+ TOTAL
Clicks 27 86 77 39 229NoClicks 1135 3026 4226 2914 11301TOTAL 1162 3112 4303 2953 11530
Expectedvalues:
FLEXI BIONEYE INJECTOR MIND+
Clicks 23 62 85 59NoClicks 1139 3050 4218 2894
ChiSquaredCalculation((Observed-Expected)^2)/Expected:
FLEXI BIONEYE INJECTOR MIND+
Clicks 0.666 9.469 0.838 6.584NoClicks 0.014 0.192 0.017 0.133
TotalChiSquaredvalue:17.912Degreesoffreedom:3P-Value:0.000459Thismeansthattheresultsarestatisticallysignificant.
40
OverallmeasureofFacebookAdspublicengagement:Product ClickThroughRate
(Clicks/NoClicks)x100
Position
FLEXI 2.38% 2ndBIONEYE 2.84% 1stINJECTOR 1.82% 3rdMIND+ 1.34% 4th
4.13.0 EXPERTSURVEYQuestionsexactlythesameasPUBLICSURVEY24.13.1 EXPERTSURVEYRESULTSResponses=5QuestionNumber
Findingsaggregated
1Age 80%ofrespondentsolderthan35yearsold2Thinkingaboutfuturetechnologies
100%ofrespondents“Veryoften”thinkaboutfuturetechnologies
3Desirabilityindex
TotalScore:sumoftotaldesirabilityanswersforeachproduct.MeanTotalScore=12.5
VarianceofTotalScores=26.25StandardDeviationofTotalScores=5.12
3FLEXI Score:19Positionofdesirability:4th
3BIONEYE Score:16Positionofdesirability:3rd
3INJECTOR Score:7Positionofdesirability:1st
3MIND+ Score:8Positionofdesirability:2nd
4FLEXIrisks
Hacking/Security=1AlterationofBehaviour=1
Healthrisks=0Disparity=0
Generalproductquestions=0Repulsion=0None=5Other=1
Total=3
Position=1st5BIONEYE
risks
Hacking/Security=0AlterationofBehaviour=2
Healthrisks=2Disparity=0
Generalproductquestions=0
41
Repulsion=0None=0Other=1
Total=5
Position=2nd6INJECTOR
risksHacking/Security=0
AlterationofBehaviour=2Healthrisks=3Disparity=0
Generalproductquestions=1Repulsion=0None=0Other=0
Total=6
Position=3rd7MIND+risks
Hacking/Security=3AlterationofBehaviour=3
Healthrisks=2Disparity=0
Generalproductquestions=1Repulsion=0None=1Other=1
Total=8
Position=4th8Cureforcancer
100%“Stronglysupport”acureforcancer
9Cureforaging
100%“Stronglysupport”acureforageing
42
4.14.0 EXPERTINTERVIEWSSevenexpertinterviewswerecarriedoutinMarchandApril2015.Eachinterviewwassemi-structuredwithsetquestionsbeingasked,however,anaturaldiscussionsurroundingthetopicswasactivelyencouraged.Asagreatdealofuniqueinformationfromeachparticipantwasgleamed,butontheotherhand,thisdoesmakeithardertocompareeachinterview.Theresultsbelowareanindicationofwhateachintervieweestatedandhypons(-)suggestthatthistopicwasnotcoveredintheinterview,notthattheintervieweehadnoideaonthesubject.4.14.1 DavidWood=DWDavidischairofLondonFuturistsandhasworkedfornearly25yearsinthesmartphoneindustry.4.14.2MarkStevenson=MSMarkisafuturologistandauthoroftheincrediblysuccessfulbook“AnOptimist’sTouroftheFuture”.Mark’snextbookisprovisionallyentitled“Wedothingsdifferentlyhere:travelsonthecuttingedgeofchange”.4.14.3 IvaLazarova=ILIvaisaForesightresearcheratFastFutureResearch.4.14.4 AndersSandberg=ASAndersisaJamesMartinresearchfellowattheFutureofHumanityinstituteatOxfordUniversity.4.14.5 NickPrice=NPIsabusinessconsultanthelpingclientsdevelop“creativebusinesssolutions”(www.ofthingsimmaterial.com).4.14.6 PeterMorgan=PMPeterisanindependentresearcher,datascientistandcompanyfounder,healsopreviouslystudiedtowardsaPhDintheoreticalphysicsattheUniversityofMassachusetts.4.14.7MartinDinov=MDMartinhasabackgroundinComputerScienceandiscurrentlyworkingtowardsaPhDatImperialCollegeLondoninportablereal-timeEEG-basedneuro-feedbacktechnology.
43
4.14.8 EXPERTINTERVIEWSRESULTS
ExpertOpinion DW MS IL AS NP PM MD
Technologicalsingularityispossible
Y Y Y Y Y/N Y Y
Peoplenotprepared - Y Y Y Y Y YHivemindconclusion - Y - Y - YDisparityproblems Y Y Y - Y - -
Technologybecomingmorepowerfulinthehandsofthefew
Y Y - - - Y -
Cultureasmaindriver - Y Y Y - Y YTechnologyisdriver - - - - - Y -AIasabigdriver Y - - - Y Y YMilitaryfirst Y Y - - - - YMedicalfirst - - - - -IVFAnalogy Y Y - - - - -
Brainaugmentation/consciousness
describedasanextlevelproblem
Y Y - - Y - Y
Syntheticbiologyasakeytechnology
- Y - - Y - -
Newformofgovernment/policyneeded
- Y - Y Y Y Y
Curationofthecrowdevenmoreimportant
- Y - Y - - -
AIasadilemma - Y Y Y Y Y YExistentialriskasmajorroadblock(orconnected)
Y - - Y - Y Y
Consumersaskeydrivers - - - Y - YSportkeyareafordebate - Y - - Y - -
44
5.0.0 DISCUSSIONSANDANALYSIS5.1.0 PARTICIPANTS’DEMOGRAPHICS71%oftheparticipantsforthepublicsurveyswereintheagebracketof18-25years,althoughtheagebracketwasnotcollectedforPublicSurvey3fromcarryingoutthesurveyinquestionitcanbeassumedthatthedemographicsforthiscohortwereroughlysimilar.80%ofthepublicalsoidentifiedthemselvesas‘Occasionally’/’Often’thinkingaboutfuturetechnologies.Thisisincontrasttotheexpertswho80%of,wereovertheageof35and100%identifiedas‘VeryOften’thinkingaboutfuturetechnologies.5.2.0 PUBLICPRODUCTPERFORMANCEInjudgingwhatproductelicitedthebestreactionfromthepublicitisimportanttolookatallthreesurveysandtheFacebookAdexperimentcombined.Itisalsoimportanttolookatthescoringthepublicgavetoaproductandthenthenumberofrisksassociatedwiththeproducttojudgelevelofengagementinrelationtolikelihoodtobuy.Anoverviewofeachofthefourproduct’spositioninginalloftheassociatedresearchmethodsispresentedbelow:Key:1=1st,2=2nd,3=3rd,4=4thand-=wasnotapartofresearchmethod.
Positions Desirability
Survey1
RisksSurvey1
DesirabilitySurvey2
RisksSurvey2
DesirabilitySurvey3
FacebookAds
FLEXI - - 2 1 1 2BIONEYE 3 3 4 4 3 1INJECTOR 1 1 3 3 2 3MIND+ 2 2 1 3 4 4
TheproductthatperformedthebestacrossallexperimentswasFLEXI.Theproductscored2ndplaceintermsofelicitingareactionfromthepublicintermsofa2ndplaceClickThroughRate(CTR)ontheFacebookAds(onlybeing0.46%CTRbehindBIONEYE)andscoring1stintermsofdesirabilityinSurvey3(arguablythemostaccuratesurveyintermsofnumberofparticipantsandstructureofquestion).FLEXIwasalsohighlightedasaproductwithaperceivedminimalriskinSurvey2andscoring2ndplaceinthesamesurveyintermsofdesirabilitybehindthatofMIND+.AreasonforFLEXIperformingthebestcouldbebecauseofthefactitistheclosesttopresentdayproductsontheHuman-CyborgContinuumandsoitisseenmoreofanupgradetopresentdaywidelyusedproductsinsteadoftechnologyyearsdowntheline,indicatingahighlevelofpublicawarenessinregardstowhatistechnologicallyfeasiblenowadays.ThisislogicallycorrectasoneofthemainwaysthepublicwouldhearaboutthesetechnologieswouldbeifamajorcompanyweremarketingasimilarproducttoBIONEYE,INJECTORandMIND+tothem,whichofcoursetheyarenotpresently.InfacttheresultsoftheFacebookAdexperimentpositioneachoftheproductsintermsofwheretheyareontheHuman-Cyborgcontinuuminexactlytheorderimagined.TheonlychangeintheFacebookAdexperimentisFLEXIandBIONEYEswitchingplaceswithaverysmalldifferenceintheCTRofthesetwoproductsinanycase.
45
ThelastpointofanalysisinregardstoFLEXIcomefromtheheatmapcomputedfromSurvey3(onpage32).TheheatmapindicatesthattheresponseconcerningFLEXIseemedtobethemostlikelyresponseintermsofpredictingtheresponsesoftheotherproducts.TheheatmapillustratesthatwhenaparticipantwasparticularlyfavourableaboutFLEXItheywerethenparticularlyunfavourableconcerningBIONEYEandMIND+andvisaversa.ThisissupportingtheviewthatconsumersreactmorefavourablytoproductsclosertothepresentdayontheHuman-CyborgContinuum.IfweanalysetheheatmapevenfurtherwecanseethatINJECTORhadthebiggestspreadofparticipantsscoringitintermsofdesirability.INJECTORalsoseemstowaverquiteconsiderablyintermsofpositioningacrossalloftheothersurveysandappearsfairlymediocreintheFacebookAdexperiment.Thishighlightsapotentialconfusionwiththeproductamongstthegeneralpublic.Apossiblereasonforthiscouldbebecausetheterm“nano-bots”wasusedindescribingtheproductandperhapstothosepeoplewhohadheardofthistermbeforehandperceivedtheproductdifferentlytothosewhohadnotheardthistermbeforehand.Unfortunately,duetothispublicconfusionregardingINJECTORitisverydifficulttodrawanysignificantconclusionsapartfromthefactagreatdealofrisksassociatedwiththeproductwerehealthbased,whichmakessense,consideringitisaninjectionofasubstanceintothebody.Therefore,inrelationtoanycompanylookingtodevelopsuchaproductitwouldbeadvisablethatanypotentialhealthriskswerenexttominimalanddirectlycommunicatedtothegeneralpublicintermsofefficientmarketing.BIONEYEprovedtoelicitthemostprofoundreactionsfromthepublicconsideringitwas1stplacedintheFacebookAdsexperiment.However,thereisadegreeofapprehensionregardingtheproductsinceitscoredverypoorlyintermsofdesirabilityacrossallsurveys(cominglastinSurvey1andSurvey2)withagreatdealofperceivedriskwithusingtheproduct(havingthemostperceivedrisksinbothSurvey1andSurvey2).Apossibleconclusionfromthisinconsistency,inthepositioningofthisproductintheexperiments,isthatthepublicareextremelyinterestedinfindingoutmoreabouttheproduct(henceBIONEYE’shighCTR)simplybecauseitseemssuchashockingpropositiontothem.Apossiblereasonforthiscouldbebecausetheproductpresentsaveryvisibletechnologicalaugmentationofthebodywithoneofthemostpersonalbodyparts.ReiteratedwiththefactthatBIONEYEhadtwiceasmanypeople(acrossSurveys1and2)sayingtheywerecompletelyrepulsedbytheideaoftheproduct(withatotalof4repulsioncommentsandINJECTORhavingtheonlyotherrepulsioncommentswithatotalof2acrossbothsurveys).Examplerepulsioncommentsinclude“crazytogiveupyoureyes”and“Iwantmyowneyes.Theideaoftakingsomethingawaytoreplaceitwithsomethingelse,eventhatfunctionsbetter,isunappealing”.Clearlyanysuccessfulfutureproductinthiscategorywouldneedtoovercomesuchobstaclesinconsumerperception.AfurtherbreakdownoftherisksassociatedwithBIONEYEindicatethatmanyparticipantsperceivedhealthriskswiththeapplicationoftheproductwithahighchanceofdamageiftheproductweretomalfunction.Thisisnotsurprising
46
consideringBIONEYEisanelectronicprostheticsituatedveryclosetothebrain.InSurvey1therewerealsoanequalnumberofparticipantshighlightingrisksassociatedwithBIONEYEintermsofalteringhumanbehaviour.Commentssuchas“AddictiontotheInternetifIhadaconstantaccess”,“Escapingreality”and“BIONEYEwouldalsodrasticallyalterthewayinwhichweinteractwiththeworldimmediatelyaroundus”areallexamplesofparticipantsexpressingrisksassociatedwithBIONEYEintermsofalteringhumanbehaviour.Thisexpressesthefactthatthepublicareverywaryofanytechnologythatcoulddrasticallychangethewaytheylivetheirlives,evenifthetechnologyweretomaketheirlifebetterinsomeway.InthissensewecanexpectgreaterapprehensionfromthepublicregardingproductsfurtheralongtheHuman-CyborgContinuum,andthisisexactlywhatisapparentwiththepublic’sopinionofMIND+.MIND+’sbiggestconcernswerehowtheproductwouldchangehumanbehaviourespeciallyintermsofhowtheproductwouldchangehowhumanswouldviewknowledge,forexample:“thetechnologycouldunderminethevalueoflearnedskills”,“givingpeopleaccesstoanykindofinformationcanmakehumanitylazyanddehumaniseus”and“intelligenceisnolongerrespected”wereallhighlightedasrisksbyparticipantsinregardstoawidespreadusageofthisproduct.Furthermore,MIND+scoreswellintermsofdesirabilityacrossallsurveys.Itisunknownwhythereisaninconsistencyintermsoftheproductappearing1stindesirabilityinSurvey1andlastinSurvey3,thiscouldbeduetoadifferentstructuringinthequestionsinthesurveys,however,wewilladoptthepositionthataveragelyMIND+appearsinthemiddleinrelationtotheotherproductintermsofdesirability.However,whatisnoticeableaboutMIND+’sperformanceisthatitappearslastbysomemarginintheFacebookAdsexperiment(havingonlyaCTRofroughlyhalfasgoodasBIONEYE)whichcouldsignifythatduetotheproductbeingthefurthestalongtheHuman-CyborgContinuumthepublicarepronetoseeingitasaspoofadvertisementandsoarelesspronetoclickonit.IthasalreadybeensuggestedthatthepublichaveahighawarenessofwhatistechnologicallyfeasibleandtherelationtothatintheFacebookAdperformances,meaningthiscouldperhapsbeareasonforMIND+’spoorperformancehere.ItisalsounsurprisingthatagreatdealoftheconcernsinrelationtoMIND+includecommentsdescribinganxietiesoverhackingthemindappearingacrossbothsurveyswherethisisrelevant.5.3.0 EXPERTSVPUBLICPRODUCTPERFORMANCETheexactoppositetothepublicresultsisobservedwiththeperformanceoftheproducts,intermsofexpertdesirability,inthewaythattheproductsfurtheralongtheHuman-CyborgContinuumperformbetter(andsoaremoredesirable)thanthosecloseronthecontinuum.ThereisalsoahigherconsistencyofopinionsamongsttheexpertswithINJECTORandMIND+performingtwiceaswellinscoresofdesirabilitycomparedwithBIONEYEandFLEXI.ThevarianceandStandardDeviationforthepublicresultsinSurvey1andSurvey2weremuchsmallerthanthoseoftheexpertsurvey.INJECTORisdeemedtobeslightlymoredesirablebytheexpertsthanMIND+(bytwoscoresofdesirability)anda
47
conceivablereasonforthiscouldbeduetoahigherperceivedriskassociatedwithusingMIND+.Itisalsointerestingtoseegeneralhigherperceivedriskswithusinghigherdesiredproductswiththeexperts,whereasthistrendwasnotnoticedwiththepublicsurveys.However,thisfindingisnotsurprisingconsideringthattheexpertsdesiredmoreadvancedtechnologies(thatinherentlycomewithmorerisksassociated)thanthepublic.5.5.0 LOOKINGFORWARDFROMEXPERTINTERVIEWSThroughouttheinterviewstheexpertsgenerallyallagreedonthreemainpoints:
1. ATechnologicalSingularityispossible.2. AsaspecieswearegenerallynotpreparedforaTechnological
Singularity.3. ThecreationofAIisabigdilemmainregardstousnotreallyknowingifit
canbecreated,andifitis,howthiswillaffecthumanity.
TherewerealsosomeveryinterestingpointsmadeinregardstoaneweraofgovernmentalpolicyneededandageneralconsensusthatthelastfewstagesontheHuman-CyborgContinuumwillpresentproblemsthatareanorderofmagnitudehardertosolvethananythingthathascomebeforethem.Eachexperthasbeeninitializedthroughoutthefollowinganalysis:
• DavidWood=DW• MarkStevenson=MS• IvaLazarova=IL• AndersSandberg=AS• NickPrice=NP• PeterMorgan=PM• MartinDinov=MD
5.5.1 ATECHNOLOGICALSINGULARITYISPOSSIBLESixoutofthesevenexpertsinterviewedbelievedthatatechnologicalsingularitywasindeedpossible.OpinionsrangedfromPMdescribinghimself“totallywithKurzweil”andthattheTechnologicalSingularitywasjust“science,progress,itsinevitable”,toDW’scandidresponsewiththerebeinga“60%chancewewillgettothesingularity,40%wewillgoback”andMS’sviewthathumanityis“alreadyinthetechnologicalsingularity”.NPwastheonlyexperttoexpressanoverallopinionthatitwasunlikelythathumanitywouldreachtheTechnologicalSingularitybecause“howweunderstandthehumanbrain,mind,andconsciousnessarehighlightlimited”,thispointwillbeexpandeduponlater.AlthoughitwaslargelyunanimousthataTechnologicalSingularitywouldindeedoccurtherewassomediscrepancyonthedefinitionofaTechnologicalSingularityandwhatsuchaneventwouldactuallybelike.ASreferstoapaperhewrotethathighlightsseveraldefinitionsofaTechnologicalSingularityandhighlightsIJGoodsintelligenceexplosionasperhapsequallyprobable.Healsohadthistosayintheinterview:“Youcanmeanquitealotofdifferentthingsbythesingularity,andalotofpeoplehandwaveenoughsopeoplegetveryconfused.OnemeaningofthesingularitythatKurzweilisveryfondofistheacceleratingtechnologicalgraph.Itmightnotyetjustbetechnologicalgrowth,it
48
couldbethegrowthofagreatdealofotherstuffwecareabout,likecapability,likewealth,likefreedomandsoon”.Thisthensignifiesthatapotentialsingularitymaynotberestrictedtotechnologybutperhapsitwillincludeallaspectsofhumanitiescultureandsociety,butbecausewecannoteasilymeasuresuchfluidentities,theadvancementoftechnologyistheonlythingwecanmeasureandsothisperhapsprovidesuswithanindicatorofhowdifferentaspectsofthehumanraceisevolving.Perhapsanidealquestiontobeginwithwouldhavebeen“whatisyourdefinitionofatechnologicalsingularity”andthenproceedwiththeinterviewasplanned,however,ofcoursethisisnotthecaseandsowejusthavetosimulatetheexperts’differentdefinitionsofaTechnologicalSingularityfromtheiranswers.ThedifferencesintheviewsonaTechnologicalSingularityaremostapparentwhencomparedwithKurzweil’sviewthattheTechnologicalSingularitywillhaveimplicationsof“ultra-highlevelsofintelligencethatexpandoutwardintheuniverseatthespeedoflight.”ThisisincontrasttotheviewsofAS,MDandMSwhoallhighlightedahivemindconsciousnessofhumanityasahighlikelihood.Ifahiveminddidevolvethiswouldmeanthatonlyoneintelligenceisapparent(notmultipleasKurzweilseemstotheorize)andperhapsthisconsciousnessmaynotevenleavetheplanetasexplainedbyAS:“Youcanimaginehowyougetthispushtowardsefficiency,wheresomepeoplelikeJohnSmartandotherstalkaboutalittleblacksphereofjustcomputing,notevencommunicatingwiththeoutsideworldbecauseittakessolongwiththeslowlightspeed.Theyarejustallsittingtherebeingsuperfastandsuperintelligentanddoingwhateversuperintelligencesdo.”Furthermore,MDalsohighlightsoneoftheconclusionsofapopularvideogamecalledDeusExis“thateveryoneisaugmentedandoneoftheendingsiswheretheyallkindoftryandbecomeasinglehumanityandconsciousnessonplanetEarth.Likeahivemind.”.MDthengoesontotoexplainthat:“Ifyouthoughtoptimally,orratherifyoucouldreasonasoptimallyaspossiblegivenyourhardware,andthat’sthecaseforeveryone,Imeanandthat’sthecaseforalmosteveryone,everyonedoeshavethesamehardware,andbackgroundinformation,thentheposteriorabilitieswillonlymeanthatalltheconclusionspeoplereachwillalmostbethesame.Ifyouhavethesameknowledgebase,andthesamereasoningalgorithms,inordertostayrational,wellyoumaychoosetobeirrational,butthatwouldbeanirrationalthingtodo”.AsthestoryatthebeginningofthisessayillustratesitcertainlydoesseemahighlylogicalconclusionthatahivemindsocietyislikelytodevelopinthewakeoftranscendenttechnologiesattheveryendoftheHuman-CyborgContinuum,thisisduetocompetitivepressuresandperhapsaninnatedrivingforceofhumanitytoconstantlytryandimproveoneself,orevenaninbuiltcuriositydrivetosimplyfindoutwhatispossibleaswashighlightedbyPM.5.5.1 CHALLENGESTOOVERCOMEBEFOREATECHNOLOGICALSINGULARITYISPOSSIBLEEventhoughnearlyeveryexpertagreedthataTechnologicalSingularitywashighlyprobable(bywhateverdefinition)agreatdealofpotentialroadblockswerealsoemphasisedthatdopresentsignificantproblemstoovercome.For
49
example,ILhadsaidtheTechnologicalSingularitywasonlypossibleif“wemanagetodealwithalotofchallenges,whichwehavetosolveintheshorterterm.”Theseproblems,orpotentialriskstohumanitypotentiallystoppingprogresstowardstheTechnologicalSingularity,canbedefinedbythetermthatASandPMpresented:existentialrisk.ASdefinesthisparticularlywellbystatingthat“We’regoingtogetmoreandmoredangeroustechnologiessowemightjustwipeourselvesoutbeforewegettothesingularity.”DWalsoexplainsaconceptcalledMoore’slawoftheangryscientist“Every18monthstheIQneededtodestroytheworldgoesdownby1IQpoint.Somepeoplesay5IQpoints.Onceuponatimenobodycoulddestroytheworld,nowitstakesonlya100scientiststodoit,perhapsinthefutureitwilltakeonlyoneangrymember”ofaterroristorganisationforexample.Converselythen,itisclearthatastherateoftechnologicaladvancementincreases,sotoothenwilltheriskofsocietyexploitingthistechnologytothenpurposelyorinadvertentlydestroyitself.5.5.2 ASASPECIESWEAREGENERALLYNOTPREPAREDFORATECHNOLOGICALSINGULARITYItcanthenbeassumedthatduetotheexistentialriskoftechnologyitisvitalthatsocietypreparesitselfforthepotentialsoffuturetechnology,notonlysowecantakeadvantageoftheopportunitiesthatthesetechnologieswillofferus,butalsosowecanpre-emptanyattacksusingthesefuturetechnologies,ifofcoursethatisevenpossible.Westillhavenodefenceagainstanuclearbomb,howeverofcourseitcanbearguedthatanuclearbombisitselfadefencesincewenowhaveaMexicanstandoffaroundtheworldintermsofnocountrywantingtounleashanuclearbombinfearofretaliation(interestinglyASstillexplainsinhisinterviewthenthatthereisstillroughlya1%chanceofnuclearwarperyear).ItisnotpleasingtoseethenthatsixoutofthesevenexpertsagreedthatonthewholepeoplearenotpreparedforaTechnologicalSingularity.Somekeypointswereraisedinregardstopreparedness,forexample,PMexplainstherearetwoissuesinregardstoactuallybeingprepared“oneisknowingaboutitandbeingawareofitandthesecondoneissolvingit.”Anavenueoffurtherresearchwouldbeindeedtoaskthegeneralpubliciftheyhaveheardoftheterm“TechnologicalSingularity”andthenaskhowpreparedtheyareforsuchanevent.However,itishighlysuspectedthatthemajorityofthegeneralpublicwillnothaveheardoftheTechnologicalSingularityandthenwillnotbeprepared,especiallysinceitwasanearunanimousopinionoftheexpertsthatgovernmentsaroundtheworldwerenotprepared.5.5.4 ANEWERAOFGOVERNMENTALPOLICYISNEEDEDInregardstoknowingabouttheproblem,asPMindicated,itispromisingtoseethatarecentUKgovernmentreporttitled“Innovation:ManagingRisk,NotAvoidingIt”dealswithagreatdealoftheissuessurroundingtheexistentialrisksassociatedwithtechnologicaladvancement(especiallychapter10),however,itmustbenotedtheterm“TechnologicalSingularity”isabsentthroughout.ItisalsounclearwhetherMPsactuallyreadthesereports,andiftheydo,whaton
50
Earththeywouldtryanddoabouttheproblemsthereportdiscusses.Writingthisatthetimeofthe2015UKgeneralelection,debatessurroundingtheexistentialriskoftechnologyandhowprospectivepartieswilldealwithsuchproblemshavebeencompletelyabsent.Wethenneedtoaskourselvesifitisevenwithinanelectedparty’sinteresttohighlightproblemsassociatedwithtechnologicalgrowthif(i)thepublicarenotawareoftheseconsequencesinthefirstplace(ii)thepublicdonotwanttohearabouttheconsequencesandthereisnorealsolutioninanycase.ParallelsbetweentryingtocombatthenegativeaffectsofaTechnologicalSingularityareapparentwithaninsufficientlackofactionandwillingnesstotaketoughmeasurestocombatclimatechange.Nevertheless,thisisnottosaythatsomeaspectsofgovernmentarenotattemptingtoaddressthesymptomsoftechnologicaladvancement.MSdescribeshisworkwiththedepartmentofsportinthefollowingstatement“oneofthequestionsIamasking,thattheyhaven’tnecessarilythoughtabout,iswhatyoudowhentheParalympiansstartholdingalltheworldrecords,becausetheyareoutperformingalltheablebodiedOlympians.”MSgoesontodescribethatitispromisingtoseethatsomeinitialworkisbeingdoneinthisarea,althoughMSdoesconcludethisstatementsummarisingthedepartmentofsportslackofpreparednessinthismannerthat“theyhaven’treallygottheirheadaroundthatatall.”ThisisevenmoredeplorableconsideringOscarPistourious’srecentparticipationintheLondon2012Olympicsbroughtthismattertotheirattentionoverthreeyearsago.Ontheotherhand,theseproblemsareofcoursenoteasyonestosolveandfurthermore,anotherargumentcanbepresentedthoughthatduetogovernmentsbeingelectedbythepeople,actionneedstocomefromthepeopleforgovernmentsthentoactontheseissues.Therecent“GreenSurge”withmembersjoiningtheUKGreenPartyshowaclearinterestfromthepopulationintermsofwantingagreenergovernment.ThereisnocomparisonwithasurgeinpeoplejoiningtherecentlyformedTranshumanistParty.Thistouchesonperhapssomefundamentalworkingsofademocraticregime,nonetheless,onecanassumethatasthesetechnologiesdostarttohaveanimpactoncitizens’livesthentherewillbeastrongersurgeinsupportforapartythatdoespromotetechnologicallyfavourable/safe/sustainablepolicies.EchoingMS,NPhighlightsthatpublicinterestinCyborgisationwillperhapsbegalvanisedfirstinsport:“Howdoeselitisminsportmakeitlessattractivetopeopleasapasttime?IguessabarrierIamthinkingaboutthereishowtomakepeoplecareifpeoplefeelthatwestarttosplitsocietywheresomepeoplefeelwehaveaccesstosomethingsandsomepeopledon’t.Soratherthanbeingatechnologicallimiter,thesocietalacceptanceofmaybebeingmoredivisivetousthanmoreconnective.”Perhapsthenakeyindicatorregardingpublicinterestincyborgisationtechnologieswillfirstbenoticedinthesportingworldandsoisakeyindustryforfuturiststokeepaneyeontojudgefuturetechnologicalacceptanceinthewiderpublic.ThereisalsotheflipsideofthisargumentthatPMpresentedinhisanswertothequestionofwhyGooglearenotadvertisingtheirworkinthefieldofartificialintelligencetothegeneralpublic“Itwouldjustcausepanic.Peoplewouldstop
51
goingtowork.”Itcanthenbesurmisedthatitreallyisnotwithinagovernmentsbestinteresttoeducateitscitizensaboutfuturetechnologiessimplybecauseitistheiropinionthattheircitizenswouldnotreactinaproductivemannerandthereleaseoftheinformationmayevencausemorepanicthangood.AnanalogycanbedrawnherewiththedecisionofanastronomertotelltheworldthatanasteroidisduetoannihilatetheEarthinamatterofdays.Doestheastronomertelltheworldsotheycanenjoytheirlastfewdaysasmuchaspossible?Ordoesshekeepittoherselfonthebasisthatsheisworriedaboutcausingaworldwidepanicforthelastfewdaysofhumancivilisation.Surprisinglythereseemstobenocleargovernmentalpolicyconcerningthecommunicationtocitizensregardingpotentialmassextinctionevents.Shouldthereevenbeone?Movingontotoslightlymoremanageabletopicsforconsideration,MSalsohadagreatdealtosayconcerninganeedforaneweraofgovernmentalpolicy.Thisisthesubjectofanewbookheiscurrentlywriting.Heexplainedtheabilitytocurateacrowdwillbeakeyskill“movingonwards,towardsanetworksociety,Ithinkit’stheskillofthegovernmentabouthowtheywillaskthepeopleaboutwhatneedstohappen.”IllustratingthispointheusedtheexampleofthebiologistSamirBramachariwhohasmanagedtocurateacrowdofundergraduatebiologistsinIndiatoaidhiminhisworkinunderstandingpartsofthegenometocreatearecordbreakingdrugtohelpcureTuberculosis.Thisdrubhasbeendevelopedcheaperandfasterthananythingbeforeit.MSwentontoilluminatehowcitizensareevenevolvingpolicymakingandtakingsomeofthedecisionsawayfromgovernment“ifyougotoacommunitythathasgoneovertorenewables,theyaredoingenergypolicy,theyjustdon’tcallitthat.”and“Ifyouseegroupsofpatientsgettingtogetheronlineandsharingtheirexperiences,recommendingtherapiesforeachother,startingtocrowdfundvariouspiecesofresearch.Theyaredoinghealthpolicy–theyarejustnotcallingitthat.”ThisthenshowsacurrentinevitableshiftofpolicymakingtowardsmembersofthepublicmadepossibleintheInternetage.Remarkablythisalsosupportsoneoftheconclusionsmadepreviouslyaboutsocietybecomingahivemindedglobalconsciousness.5.5.5 THEENDOFTHEHUMAN-CYBORGCONTINUUMPRESENTSPROBLEMSANORDEROFMAGNITUDEHARDERTOSOLVEApointthatkeptbeingraisedwashowattemptingtointegratetechnologywiththehumanmindwouldbeanorderofmagnitudemoredifficultthananyproblemattemptedbeforehand.ItwassuggestedbyDW,MS,ASandMDthatthiscouldprovetobeanobstaclethatcannotbeovercomeandsohalthumanitiesprogresstowardsaTechnologicalSingularity.AtleastthesingularitydescribedbyKurzweil.MSdescribesthisproblem“let’snotforgetthehumanbrainisthemostcomplexthingintheuniverse,that’sahellofaclaim”continuingwith“theideathatwewill,within,Idon’tknow,withintwothousandyearsofmodernhistorywecanhackitisarguable.”MDalsoexpressedhisconcernswiththegeneralopinionsofpeoplewherepeoplesimplysayonceAIisdeveloped,“nowwearegoingtoputtheAIintoourheads,simplysaid.AndthenwemergewithAI.Sohereisapracticalquestion,howdowedothatifwedon’tknowhowourbrainworks?”.AswashighlightedintheintroductionNPexpressedhisconcerns
52
withthisveryproblembeinghismainreasonfornottotallybeingwiththeconceptoftheTechnologicalSingularity.ManyoftheexpertsdidhighlightvariouskeyprojectsaroundtheworldattemptingtocrackthisproblemfromtheEuropeanandAmericanbrainprojectsandhowthisthencrossesoverwithworkinartificialintelligence,especiallywithprogramssuchasGoogleDeepMindproject.Ofcoursethoughthequestionofconsciousnesshasbeenoneofthemosthotlydebatedtopicsamongstphilosophersforthousandsofyears,however,MSpresentsthatfinallyperhapsweareclosertoansweringthequestionofconsciousness,notfromworkcarriedoutbyphilosophersbutbyengineers“ifyouaretryingtobuildaconsciousmachine,youhavetoanswer“whatisconsciousness?’inawaythatisfarmoreinterestingthanifyouareagroupofphilosopherssataroundinaleatherarmchair.Youactuallyhavetogooutthereandbuildsomething,andyouwillprobablyfindoutthat‘whatisconsciousness?’isnotonequestion,butinfacteighteenquestions.”Herethenwecomeacrossaveryinterestingcaseofconvergentdisciplinescomingtogethertohelpsolveproblemshumanityhasbeenwrestlingwithforcenturies,inthiscasetheconvergenceofphilosophyandtechnology,madepossiblebecauseoftherecentexponentialgrowthintechnologicaladvancement.5.5.3 THECREATIONOFAIISABIGDILEMMAINREGARDSTOUSNOTREALLYKNOWINGIFITCANBECREATED,ANDIFITIS,HOWTHISWILLAFFECTHUMANITYSixoutofthesevenexpertsagreedthattheywereveryuncertainwhatthecreationofAIwouldmeanforhumanity.MDalsopresentedaninterestingpointaboutanimportantracebetweenunlockingthesecretsofthemindwhilstatthesametimetryingtodevelopanartificialintelligence“Ifyoubuildanartificialgeneralintelligencebeforeyouhavefiguredhowthebrainworksreallywell,youareleftinakindofawkwardposition,Ithinkinmyopinion,whereyouhavesomethingpossiblysmarterthanyou,oratleastsomethingassmartasyoubutthinksamilliontimesfasterthanyouorsomething,butbecausewehaven’tfiguredoutthebrainverywell,bydefinition,wehaven’tdevelopedtheabilitytoaugmentitwithourselves.That’sprettyawkward.Forone;wemightnotknowwhytheAIistakingcertaindecisionsthatitistaking,butevenifwedidknow,itmightnotevenbeabletotellus,soevenifitisfriendlyandsaysIamdoingthisonthisonthisbasis,butitsreasoningmaybetoocomplexforustoworkoutandforustoactuallycomprehend.Thatseemsaverytricky,badsituationandpotentiallydangerous.”ThisalsobringsusontoapreviouspointhighlightedbyASthattheTechnologicalSingularityandAIwillbesodifferenttolifeasweknowitatthemomentthatitwillbeverydifficultforustopredictwhateitherwillbelikeinanycase,whichASreferstoasthe“predictionHorizon”.Asexplainedintheintroduction,thequestionofAIisaverydifficultoneandwasnotafocusoftheinterviewsbutitmustbeexpresseditisanextremelyimportantquestionnonethelessthatneedsmoreadequateresearchoutsidethescopeofthisproject.
53
6.0.0 REJECTIONORACCEPTANCEOFHYPOTHETHIS6.1.0 PRIMARY:ASHUMANSMOVEFURTHERALONGTHEHUMAN-CYBORGCONTINUUMTHERELUCTANCETOADOPTNEWTECHNOLOGIESWILLINCREASE;INTURNSLOWINGDOWNPROGRESSTOWARDSAPOTENTIALTECHNOLOGICALSINGULARITYThishypothesiscanbeaccepted,albeitquitetenuously.FLEXIdidperformbestoutofalltheproductsinthepublic’seyeandFLEXIistheproductclosestontheHuman-CyborgContinuum.However,thereisdefinitelynoclear‘loser’productacrossallthecategories.MIND+,theproductfurthestalongthecontinuumperformedtheworstinPublicSurvey3intermsofdesirabilityandwasalsolastintheFacebookAdexperiment.However,BIONEYEandINJECTORdidbothsharepoorresultsintheresearchmethods.TakingintoaccountthatitwasverydifficulttomarketatranscendenttechnologylikeMIND+doessuggestacertainunwillingnessofthepublictoadoptitasaproduct.Thiscouldsignifythatwhentechnologiesbecomeavailableinthiscategorythepublicwillbeunwillingtofullycommittoadoption,leadingtoaslowdowninprogresstowardsasingularityduetofullhumanaugmentationseeminglyunattractive.AlthoughtheexpertsdidfavourtechnologiesfurtheralongtheHuman-CyborgContinuumitisclearthattheyalsohighlightedmorerisksassociatedwiththesetechnologies,andsoitispredictedthatasthesetechnologiesbecomemorewidelyavailable,moreregulationwillcomeintoplaythatwillpotentiallyslowdowntheadoptionofthesetechnologiesmakingthesingularityhardertoachieve.However,ofcoursewithinterstatecompetitionbeingakeyfactoroftheglobaleconomythisregulationwillmostlikelybeliftedafterawhile(evenwithanincreasingglobalisedhomogenisedculture)butthisregulationisexpectedtoslowdownthetrajectorytowardsafullTechnologicalSingularitybyanoticeableamount.
54
7.0.0 EVALUATIONOverallIthinktheresearchconductedinthisdissertationisofahighstandard.ThereisdefinitescopeforfurtherresearchincludingtestingpublicperceptiontowardsmoreproductsontheHuman-CyborgContinuumsuchasaprostheticlimbandageenhancingtechnologies.Testingextraproductssuchasthesewouldgivemoredatainrespecttogaugingpublicperceptionofdifferentproductsandwouldalsogosomewaytoalleviateanybiasindividualproductshaveinrepresentingtheirproductcategory.Thesurveyshaveprovidedagreatdealofusefulinformation,however,althoughtheiterationsdidallowthesurveytoimproveovertimethisdidhaveunwantedsideeffectsinnotallowingthedatatobecomparedaccuratelyacrosssurveys.Therefore,togainmoreaccuratedatathissurveyshouldbesentouttoagreatdealmorepeoplesoamoreindepthstatisticalcomputationcanbeachieved.Lastly,theinterviewsprovedtobethemostusefulavenueofresearchintermsofpresentingmewithinformationthatIwouldhavepreviouslynotcomeacrossbefore,andduetothefairlylargenumberandstatusoftheexpertsinterviewed,providedagreatindicationofwhatexpertsarecurrentlythinkingaboutinthefield.Ofcoursethereisnorealcorrelationbetweenexpertspredictionsandwhatactuallycomestopass,however,wecantakethisasagoodindicationforhighlikelyoutcomes.
55
8.0.0 CONCLUSIONInconclusion,thefindingsofthisdissertationoutlinekeybusinessopportunitiesinlinewithdevelopingaproductwithsimilarfunctionalitytoFLEXI.Theproductseemshighlyattractivetothegeneralpublicwithverylittlerisksassociatedwithit.Thetechnologyforthisproductisalsolikelytobedevelopedinthenextdecade.Fromagovernmentperspective,itisimportantthatpolicymakinginthefuturetakeamorecrowdsourcingroutetotakeadvantageofanever-growingnetworkedsociety.Aswashighlightedintheexpertinterviews,thecurationofacrowdisgoingtobeanintegralskillofanyorganisationandifagovernmentcanmasterthis,theoretically,thiscanimprovethelivelihoodsofallinacountry.Thiswouldalsomeanthatgovernmentscouldplayanincreasingroleinpolicingamorenetworkedsocietythatiscurrentlymainlyownedbylargeprivatecorporationswithdifferingpoliticalandbusinessagendas.ThehighcorrelationbetweenproductsfurtheralongtheHuman-CyborgContinuumhavingalowpublicperceptionandtheoppositebeingobservedwiththeexperts,pointstowardstheHuman-Cyborgcontinuumbeingagoodmodeloffuturetechnologicalprogress.ItcouldbeusedinlightofthisforproductroadmapsfortechnologycompaniessuchasApple,GoogleandMicrosoft,andasaroadmapforplanningfuturegovernmentregulation.Lastly,thissignifiesthatthecontinuumdoesrepresentafairlyaccuratedepictionofhumanitiestraversetowardsbecomingaspeciesofCyborgsandsoapathwaytowardsapotentialtechnologicalsingularity.However,itmustberealisedthattheHuman-CyborgContinuumsimplyrepresentsapossiblepathtowardsaTechnologicalSingularity;perhapsitisthemostlikelyone,andasshowninthepreviousresearch,humanitiesvoyagecouldendatanymomentontheHuman-CyborgContinuumwhetherthisisduetopublicunwillingnesstoaugmentwithtechnologyortechnologicalboundarieswithtranscendencetechnologies.Thetitleofthisdissertationsuggeststhattherecouldbeasteponthecontinuumthatweshouldn’tgopastandperhapsthispointisalreadysetinstonesomewhereinourfuture.
57
10.0.0 BIBLIOGRAPHYClynes,ME.andKline,NS.(1965)In:Gray,CH.(1995)TheCyborgHandbookLondon:Routledge.Ch.1.2Balsamo,A.(2000)In:Bell,D.andKennedy,BM.(2000)TheCyberculturesReaderLondon:Routledge.Ch.31Baylis,FandRobert,JS.(2004)TheInevitabilityofGeneticEnhancementTechnologiesIn:Bioethics18(1)pp.1467-8519.Berger,TW.etal(2012)In:He,B.(2012)NeuralEngineering2ndEditionAt:http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-5227-0_18BritishInstituteofPosthumanStudies(2013)[videoonline]Posthuman:AnIntroductiontoTranshumanismAt:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTMS9y8OVuY(Accessedon23.11.2014).DeGrey,A.(2004)[videoonline]AroadmaptoendagingAt:https://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging(Accessedon23.11.2014).Dennet,D.(1981)WhereamI?In:Brainstorms:PhilosophicalEssaysonMindandPsychologyCambridge:MITPress.pp.310-323.Efthimiou,O.(2012)Dreamingtheposthumanincyberspace:waroftheworldsandthereturnoftheun/realinTron:Legacy.DEd.CQUniversity.At:https://www.academia.edu/7765906/Dreaming_the_Posthuman_in_Cyberspace_War_of_the_Worlds_and_the_Return_of_the_Un_Real_in_Tron_Legacy(Accessedon23.11.2014).
Ferrando,F.(2013)Posthumanism,Transhumanism,Antihumanism,Metahumanism,andNewMaterialisms:DifferencesandRelationsIn:AnInternationalJournalinPhilosophy,Religion,Politics,andtheArts8(2)pp.26-32.GrayR.(2013)TheplaceswhereGoogleGlassisbannedAt:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/10494231/The-places-where-Google-Glass-is-banned.html(Accessedon23.02.2015).Harraway,D.(1991)In:Bell,D.andKennedy,BM.(2000)TheCyberculturesReaderLondon:Routledge.Ch.18Hauskeller,M.(2012)MyBrain,MyMind,AndI:SomePhilosophicalAssumptionsofMind-UploadingIn:InternationalJournalofMachineConsciousness4(1)Hyland,S.(1995)DigitalImmortalityforDummies:ImplicationsoftheCyborgAt:https://www.academia.edu/8160271/Digital_Immortality_for_Dummies_Implications_of_the_Cyborg(Accessedon23.11.2014).
58
Joy,B.(2000)Whythefuturedoesn’tneedus.At:http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html(Accessedon23.11.2014).Koene,R.(1991)In:Blackford,R..andBroderick,D.(2014)IntelligenceUnbound:TheFutureofUploadedandMachineMindsWiley:London.Ch.5Kurweil,R.(2001)TheLawofAcceleratingReturnsAt:http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns(Accessedon23.11.2014).Lupton,D.(2000)In:Bell,D.andKennedy,BM.(2000)TheCyberculturesReaderLondon:Routledge.Ch.30MedicalNews.(2010)NewImagingMethodDevelopedatStanfordRevealsStunningDetailsofBrianConnectionsAt:http://www.medicaldaily.com/new-imaging-method-developed-stanford-reveals-stunning-details-brain-connections-234704(Accessedon26.11.2014).Michalczak,R.(2012)Transhumanandposthuman–onrelevanceof“cyborgisation”onlegalandethicalissuesAt:https://www.academia.edu/1966557/Transhuman_and_posthuman_on_relevance_of_cyborgisation_on_legal_and_ethical_issues(Accessedon23.11.2014).Modis,T.(2001)ForecastingthegrowthofcomplexityandchanceIn:TechnologicalForecastingandSocialChange69(2002)pp.377-404.Pearce,D.(1995)TheHedonisticManifestoAt:http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/hedonist.htm(Accessedon23.11.2014).Pilkington,E.(2015)AmazontestsdeliverydronesatsecretCanadalocationafterUSfrustrationsAt:http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/30/amazon-tests-drones-secret-site-canada-us-faa(Accessedon30.03.2015).HFEA(2011)LatestIVFFigures:2010and2011At:http://www.hfea.gov.uk/ivf-figures-2006.html#1278(Accessedon23.03.2014).Hyland,S.(1995)DigitalImmortalityforDummies:ImplicationsoftheCyborgAt:https://www.academia.edu/8160271/Digital_Immortality_for_Dummies_Implications_of_the_Cyborg(Accessedon23.11.2014).Piedmont,R.(2001)DoesSpiritualityRepresenttheSixthFactorofPersonality?SpiritualTranscendenceandtheFive-FactorModel In:JournalofPersonality67(6)pp.985-1013.
59
Pogue,D.(2014)CanyoutellwhenGoogleGlassisrecordingyou?At:https://www.yahoo.com/tech/google-glass-may-be-a-tour-de-force-of-85928075994.html(Accessedon23.02.2015).
Ranisch,R.&Lorenz,S.(2014)Post-andTranshumanism:AnIntroduction(BeyondHumanism:trans-andPosthumanism.PeterLang:Gutenburg.
Raval,D.(2014)Brainfood:Moore’sLawExplainedAt:https://humanswlord.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/brainfood-moores-law-explained/(Accessedon26.11.2014).Scott,K.(2011)Thefirstpersontolivefor1,000yearsisprobablyalreadyaliveAt:http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/13/richard-seymour(Accessedon23.11.2014).
Seife,C.(2013)23andMeIsTerrifying,butNotfortheReasonstheFDAThinksAt:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/23andme-is-terrifying-but-not-for-reasons-fda/(Accessedon23.11.2014).Springer,C.(2000)In:Bell,D.andKennedy,BM.(2000)TheCyberculturesReaderLondon:Routledge.Ch.30Transcendence(2014)DirectedbyWallyPfister.[DVD]U.S.A.:AlconEntertainment.Vijg,JandDeGrey,A.(2014)InnovatingAging:PromisesandPitfallsontheRoadtoLifeExtensionIn:Gerontology60pp.373-380.Vita-More,N.(1983),TranshumanArtsManifestoAt:http://www.transhumanist.biz/transhumanistartsmanifesto.htm(Accessedon23.11.2014).Vita-More,N.(2002)Radicalbodydesign“PrimoPosthuman”At:http://www.kurzweilai.net/radical-body-design-primo-posthuman(Accessedon23.11.2014).X-Men(2000)DirectedbyBryanSinger.[DVD]U.S.A.:TwentiethCenturyFoxFilmCorporation.
60
11.0.0 APPENDICES11.1.0DAVIDWOODINTERVIEWTRANSCRIPT21stMarch2015
Alex(interviewer)=boldtext
David=normalweightedtextFirstpartofinterviewisnotdiscernablefromtherecording.RegardingKurzweil’stechnologicalsingularity,doyouthinkthathumanity
willeverreachthatstage?
Ithinkthatthereisariskofsocietyhavingitsowninternalproblems.Andthereisariskofhumanitybeingsplitandfragmented,bythegrowthalienatedangrypeoplewhoarefeelingmissedoutthatcouldcausesometerroristactionsthatisnotimpossible.WhatweareseeingwithISintheMiddleEast,thesituationinUkraine,stillspillingout,itdoesn’tlookasbadnowasitdid6monthsago.Thereisnothingtotakeforgrantedtotakefromsociety.Taketheglobalfinancialcrisis,thelastfinancialcrashwasnotforeseenbymostpeople,mostpeoplethoughttherewasnorisk,afterwards,somepeoplesaidtheypredicteditwasgoingtogowrong,somepeopledidn’t.SoIdothinkthereisahighriskoffailurebeforewereachthepositivesingularity.Idon’tknowhowmuchprobabilitytoputonitletssay60%chancewewillgettothesingularity,40%chancewewillgoback.Sotherearemoresocialissuesthantechnologicalissues?
Ithinkthatthetechnologywillhaveunexpectedinteractionswiththesocialplane,soastechnologybecomesmorewidelyavailable,itismucheasierforangrypeopletohaveabigbadimpact.Thereissomethingcalled,ratherhumourslyit’scalled,Moore’slawofmadscientists.Itsayssomethinglikeevery18monthstheIQneededtodestroytheworldgoesdownby1IQpoint.Somepeoplesay5IQpoints.Soonceuponatimenobodycoulddestroytheworld,nowitstakesonlya100scientiststodoit,perhapsinthefutureitwilltakeonlyoneangrymemberofISoroneangrypersoninNorthKorea,sotechnologyinteractswithsociety.Whatdoyouseeasmajordriverstowardsthetechnologicalsingularity?
Thetechnologieshavesomanygoodsideeffects,whereintheareaofimprovedmanufacturing,suchasnano-technology,improvedmedicine,suchasbiotechnology,Improvedbrain–suchasstuffwiththebrainyouknow–nichestuff-forperhapsusingmorewaystodownloadsoftwareorartificialintelligencetosortthroughlargeamountsofdata.SotherearethingsliketheIBMWatsonthatisabletomakesomesenseofthelargevolumesofmedicaldata,itsabletoreadmedicalresearchliterature.Thisliteraturewasn’tdesignedtobereadbyacomputerbutnowitcanmakesomesenseofit.Soprobablythebiggestdriverwillbethegrowthofdeeplearningandartificialintelligence,whichthenmightun-expectantlyimproveitself.Youmightfindthatdeeplearningcouldbeusedtoimprovedeeplearningalgorithms.Andthensuddenlywewouldbeafewmorestepsforwardthanpeoplewouldbeexpecting.
61
MovingontoCyborgisation,howmuchofadrivingforcedothinkthatwill
playingettingustothetechnologicalsingularity?
Soreplacingpartsofthebodywithreplacementssuchasanewhiporanewknee,inmycasehavingmyeyeslasered,soIcanseemuchbetterthanIcould5yearsago.Mymotherhadacateract.Sothesearejuststepstowardswhatisgoingtobepossiblenext.Increasinglywhatisgoingtobequiteacommonthingwewillbeabletohavepartsofourheadsenhanced.IjokethatfiveyearsagoIhadmyeyeslasered,inthenextfiveyearsIwillhavemybrainlasered.Idon’tactuallythinkthatitwillbelasered.Perhapsitwillbepossibleonedaytohavenewbraincellsaddedtomybrain.Idon’twanttobethefirstpersontohavethatexperimentdone,therearesomepeoplethatareworriedaboutbigbrainillnesses,theymaysaythattheyhavenothingtolose.Soonceithasbeenproventoworkinsomecasesitwouldthenmakesensetogiveitatry.Soyouaresayingthatthesetechnologieswillbetrialledthroughmedical
usesfirst?Ithinktheywillalsobetrialledthroughmilitaryuses,therearesoldiersthatneedtoovercomestressandstrain.Americanfighterpilotsfamouslytakevariousenhancementdrugs,ashadbeenproveninsomecourtcasesintofriendlyfire.Basicallywhathashappenedisthatpeoplehavetakentoomanydrugsandsobecomeabittootrigger-happy.SotheAmericanmilitaryisnaturallymotivatedtolookforsoldiersthataremoreeffective.Thereismilitaryresearchintorobotsthatisacombinationofrobotsandhumans,thatisinevitable.ThenyouhavethingslikeRobo-Cop,whichisscience-fictiontoday,butclearlythereissomeversionpresentedbysomepeoplethatyoushouldn’tput…..Robotswillbeusedinminedetection,theywillbeusedinsituationsthathumansdonotwanttodo.Withallthesenewtechnologiescomingabouttoimprovethehumanbody,
doyouseeanyofthesespecifictechnologies,thatconsumerswillbe
alientatedbyandsowontwanttoadoptatall?
Consumerreactionisbaseduponawholebunchoffactorsandideas,soinitiallymostpeoplewouldhavesaidthattheydidn’twanttocarryasmart-phone.AndIknowaboutthisfrommybackgroundinthesmart-phoneindustry.MostpeoplehavesaidthatIdon’twanttobeeasilycontacted,Idon’twantpeopleringingmeupallthetime,Ivaluemyprivacy.Thatwastheirview.Butthenpeoplechangedwhentheysawthebenefitsofthis.Let’stakeanotherexample,Test-tubebabies,beforeitbecamepossibleinabout1978,thegeneralpublicwereopposedtotesttubebabies.Therewereallkindsofreasonsforwhythiswasdescribedasabadidea,thechurchwereleadingthecharge,thechurchsaidthatthesepeoplewouldbesoulless,thepeoplewouldn’thaveasoul,theywouldhavethesoulsofdevils.Politiciansalsosaidthatthereweretoomanypeopleintheworldalreadyandweshouldn’tbespendingmoneyonhelpingpeoplehavemorebabies–itwasquitepopularatthetimetoworryaboutpopulation.Evendoctors,strangely,mostdoctorswereagainsttest-tubepioneersreceivinganyfunding,theysaidthatthesepeoplewantedtoplayGod.It’ssuchabadthingtoputmothersthrough.Becausebeforetherewasonesuccessfultesttubebaby,therewerethousandsofunsuccessfulones.Somotherswereputthroughallkindsof
62
abuse.Andthenpeopleeventuallyrealisedthatyouhadtotweakthehormones.Andthenafterthefirstsuccessfultest-tubebabieswereborn,peoplesawhowdelightfulthesebabieswere.Thesebabiesdidseemtohavesouls,afterall,whateverasoulis.Sameaseveryoneelseatleast.….Test-tubebabiesmaysoundterrible,butonceitisexplainedmanypeoplewillrealiseitisnotsuchastupididea.Soit’saboutrelevanteducation.
YesThelastthingthen,thishereisadiagramIhavedrawncalledthehuman-
cyborgcontinuumcanyoutellmewhatyouthinkofit?
Ithinkuptohereitisverysound(uptothelasttranscendencesection),fromhereonwardsitismorequestionable.Youaresolvingasetofmuchharderproblems,whichareanorderofmagnitudemoredifficultthananythingthathasgonepreviously:thequestionofuploadingdatafrombrains,intocomputers,andtheideaofuploadingconsciousness.Sothisisdefinedasthesingularity,whenhumanconsciousnessgoesintocomputers,Ithinktherecouldbeotherwaysinwhichthesingularitycouldcomeabout.Sothesingularitymightjustbethatthesmartestbeingsontheplanetarenolongerhumans.ThesmartestbeingsontheplanetareartificialintelligenceandIthinkartificialintelligencewilllearnwhatisgoingoninthebrain,butIamnotsuretheywillbeevolvedhumans.Sowemighthavehumansevolvedsowestayinourbodiesbutweareaugmentedinsideourbodies,insteadofthisnextstepwhereconsciousnessgoesoutsideofourbody.Thishereisanopenquestionandwedonotknowenoughaboutconsciousnessandidentity.Sothispartisgood,isagoodfuturescenario,butisnotacertainfuturescenario,butsomethingthatshoulddefinitelybediscussed.
63
11.2.0MARKSTEVENSONINTERVIEWTRANSCRIPT23rdMarch2015
Alex(interviewer)=boldtext
Mark=normalweightedtext
Let’sstartverysimple,soKurzweil’sviewofthetechnologicalsingularity,
doyouthinkhumanitywilleverreachthatstage?
Humanityisconstantlyreachingthatstage;wearealreadyinthetechnologicalsingularityaren’twe?Ifwelookbackthousandsofyearswehavealwaysaugmentedourselveswithsomeformoftechnology.However,asfarasIcanworkout,hisversionofthesingularity,isbasedonstrongAI,asin:wegetconsciousmachines,andmyfeelingis,Iamnotconvincedonewayoranother,butIthinkthejuryisverymuchoutonwhetherwecancreateaconsciousmachine.ThereasonIsaythatisnotbecauseIdon’tnotthinkitispossible,becausehumanbeings,aremachinesthatprocessconsciousness,becauseyouknowwearejustDNAcodegettinginteractedwithbyabunchofcellularmachines,whichsomehowmeanthatwearehavingaconversation.Sothefacttheconsciousnessiscomputableisunarguable,becauseyouandmearecomputingitrightnow,but,Iamyettoseeanythingthatreallylookslikeaconsciousmachine.Sorry,Ishallrephrasethat.Therearethingsthatlooklikeconsciousmachines,soifyoulookatthingsthatBostondynamicsaredoingwithBigDogandthatkindofstuff,that’sinteresting,butforme,theyallseemlike,facsimiles,soletmegiveyouanexample;IwaswithIBM,soyouhaveheardaboutWatson?Yes
SoIwasdoingthisgigwithIBM,andtheIBMengineerwasveryimpressedwithWatson,andtheysaidthegreatthingaboutWatson,isthatWatsonunderstandsthemeaningofwords,andIsaid“that’sbollocks”,andhesaid“that’sveryrude”.SoIsaid:“itsnotrude,itsjustthetruth”.SothentheyaskedmewhatdidImean?AndIsaidare,“youtellingmethatWatsonunderstandswhat‘wet’means?”Andtheysaid“ofcourseWatsonunderstandswhat‘wet’means”.Wellhowcanheifhehasneverhadacoolbeerorneverbeenswimming?And,so,therearelotsofstuffthatlookconscious,andlookliketheydothingsthatareconscious,andlookliketheydothingsthataconsciousmachinemaydo,butuntilamachineturnsroundandsays“whyamIdoingthis?”Idon’tthinkweareanywherenearaconsciousmachine.Idon’tseeanyargumentthattakesustoalevelwhereamachinetakesustoalevelwhereitbeginstoquestionitsownexistence–akindofexistentialprocess,soIdon’tthinkweareaskingtherightquestion,aboutconsciousnessyet,youknow,whatevenisconsciousness?Wehavebeendebatingthisfor2,000years.Idon’tknowwhattherightquestionis,Idon’tthinkthatanybodyelsedoes,andallthepeopleIhavedealtwith,Ithinktheyareallsayingthesamething,whichisthat,theydon’treallyknowwhatitis.Andifyoudon’tknowwhatthequestionis,howonEarthcanyouproduceananswer?Andtherefore,Kurzweil’sversionofthesingularityrequiresanartificialgeneralintelligence,andIdon’tbelievewehaveevenaskedtherightquestionastowhatthatwouldlooklike.
64
Sohowabout,notnecessarilyAGI,butperhapsadifferentversionofthe
singularitywouldbehumansfusingwithmachines.
Nowthat’smuchmorecredible,andisalreadyhappeningtoanincreasinglylargedegree.Iquiteoften,whenIamdoingspeechesnow,IwillputupavideoofHughHerr,soHughHerrisabionicsprofessoratMIT.Helosthislegsinaclimbingaccident,heisachampionshipclimber,(Markshowsthisvideo:https://www.ted.com/talks/hugh_herr_the_new_bionics_that_let_us_run_climb_and_dance?language=en)nowheisstartingtodostufflikethatandrunningaround.Itsalreadyhappeningandthereisintelligenceembodiedinthoseprosthetics,sothereisthisattitudetowhetheryouwould,wouldyouwantthoselegsback?Areyoukidding,Hughsays‘Iamgoingtoberunningaroundlikean18yearoldwhenIam80,theseareimmortal’thatsortofthing.Sothatlevelofintegration…IamhopefullydoingabitofworkwithUKSports,theOlympicspeople,andoneofthequestionsIamasking,thattheyhaven’tnecessarilythoughtabout,iswhatyoudowhentheParalympiansstartholdingalltheworldrecords,becausetheyareoutperformingalltheablebodiedOlympians.Andtheyhaven’treallygottheirheadaroundthatatall.AndIkeeppushingthemonit,andoneofthereasonsIwassointerestedinsportisbecauseithastheconceptoffairnessinit,fromthecostofentry:‘isitfair?’Sohowthesportingcommunitywilldealwiththingslikethoselegsyoujustsaw,onanathletewhoisnowoutrunning,Ithinkthatwillbeamassivedebate–aboutwhatsportisgoingtodoaboutenhancement.Itwillbeakindofforeshadowingabouthowtherestofsocietywilldealwithit.Sohowsportspeoplewilldealwithitwillbeveryinteresting,becausetheyhavetheconceptoffairness.NobodythinksitisunfairthatParalympianbasketballplayershavehighlyadaptivewheelchairs,nobodysays,‘speciallyadaptedwheelchairs,that’sterriblyunfair,howdarethey,theyshouldallbeinnormalwheelchairs!’.Youknow,nobodythinksthat.ButoncetheyhavethosesortsoflimbsthatHughhas,thatcansortofextend,andyouknowcanjumphigherthanMichaelJordan,constantly,fora90minutematch,withouttiring,whathappens?Andyouknowthereisnorightanswertothatquestion.Thereisno‘yes’or‘no’,thereisnostraightanswer.Itdepends.Sowherewedrawthelineasasociety,willfirstbeanswered,probablybysport,becausesporthasfairnessasacostofentryforbeingpartofit.Thatyoudon’thaveinbankingoranywhereelse.Butthenafterthedebatehasbeenhadinsport,youseethendebates
happeninginthewidersociety?
Soyouknowpeoplegetscaredoftechnologies,untilitstartsworking.IthinkImadethispointinthebook,GeorgeChurchmadethisgreatpointaboutIVF,whereeverybodythoughtthatIVFwaseviluntilpeoplestartedhavingcutebabies,andtheneveryonestartedaskingwhytheycouldn’tgetitontheNHS.Andit’sthesamewithroboticlimbsandbrainimplantsandallthat,everyonethinksthey’reshitanddangerous,untiltheyareallowedtowinpubquizzesandrunfasterthantheirmates.Youknow,so,Idefinitelythink,wearealreadyenhanced,Ican’tseeabloodythingwithouttheseon(Marksignifieshisglasses),so,thatintegration,buttherearetwolevelsofintegration,thereisthephysical
65
integration,whichisthethingtheHughhas,andthenthereisamentalintegration,so,Hugh’smindisnottalking,tothoseprosthetics,hismindistalkingtowhatisleftofthoselegs,whicharetransmittingthingsvia…thereisnodirectmind/technologylink.Andbecauseagainwereallydon’tknowhowconsciousnessworks,andneuroscience,forallitsadvances,isstill,youknow,runningaroundlikeablindmaninapoolwithfrogsjumpingabout.Idon’tknowwhetherwecanintegratewiththebrainsuccessfully,givenitssuchaplasticsystem,andourcurrent,systemsareso,youknowrigid,theydon’tmorph,so,Ithinkwhat’sprobablymostlikelyisthatyou’llstartthebiologicaltechnologiescompetingwithnon-biologicaltechnologies,soyouhaveprobablyseenthoserobots,wheretheactualbrainoftherobotisactuallymadeupofratbraincells.SoIdunno,ifwecangettothepoint,[wherewe]canprogrambiologytoapointwherewecangetittodothingsthatwewouldn’tnormallybeabletodo…Idon’tknow,Ihavenofuckingidea!Obviouslythephysicalinteractions,asinthebiologicalinteractions,thebrainstuff,youwouldhavetobeaverybravepersonifyouweregoingtotryandpredictwhatyouthoughtwaspossiblehere.Myownopinionisthatitsnotpossible,butIamveryhappytobeprovedwrongonthat.Soyouthinkthisareaisgoingtobeverydifficult?
Howdoyouintegrateatechnologywiththehumanbrain?Andthehumanbrainisincrediblyplastic,constantlymovesabout,yourbrainisdifferenttomybrain,thewayyouthinkisverydifferenttohowIthink,thepathwaysinyourbrainareverydifferenttothepathwaysinmybrain.Becauseofthewayyouknow,….Thediversitybetweenhowyourbrainisnow,andhowyourbrainwillbeonceyou’refortyisverydifferent.Howyouaregoingtointegratethatwithtechnology?Idon’tknow.Perhapstherewillbeasilicon-bridgingthing,Idon’tknow.Doyouknowofanything?Therehasbeensomeinterestingthingdonewiththehippocampal,inthe
brain,forAlzheimersufferers,bysomeresearchersatCaltTechIthink.
Imeantherearethingssuchasdeepbrainstimulation,whereyoucankindofgetthebraintodocertainthings,butitsnotreallyanintegration,itsjustanelectricshock.Imeanifwearetalkingabout,whereyourthoughtsare…likeyouknow,whereIknow‘Ihaveanextramathsprocessorhere’,andyoudosomethingjustlikethat.Ihaveyettoseeacrediblethinghere.Youknow,Ijustdon’tthinkweareaskingtherightquestions.Soyouthinkthiscouldbeamassiveproblemtoovercome?
Youknow,Ithinktheproblemsarephilosophical.Wearenotaskingtherightquestionswhenitcomestoconsciousness,andthisisnodisrespecttothosepeople,becauseIthinkwhattheyaretryingtodoatthemomentis,uh,isthroughuh,throughtryingtodothesethingstheywillprobablyfindoutwhatthesequestionsare,thecuttingedgeofthiswillberobotics,.Youknow,IthinkIsaidthisinthebook:ifyouaretryingtobuildaconsciousmachine,youhavetoanswer‘whatisconsciousness?’inawaythatisfarmoreinterestingthanifyouareagroupofphilosopherssataroundinaleatherarmchair.Youactuallyhavetogooutthereandbuildsomething,andyouwillprobablyfindoutthat‘whatisconsciousness?’isnotonequestion,butinfacteighteenquestions.RodneyBrooksmakesthatgreatpointwhereadogisprobablymoreconsciousthanan
66
andantandanantismoreconsciousthanawinduptoy…Clearlyconsciousnessisn’tonething,it’saspectrum,butself-awareness….?Idon’tthinkanymachinereallyhasthat.Sayingthat,ifyoulookatBigDogitissortofselfawareisn’tit…?Onadifferentlevelthough?
Dunno,it’ssuchaheadfuck.Ican’tevenrememberwhatthequestionwas.Iwasaskingaboutwhathappenswhenwegettothepointofenhancingthe
mind,andperhapsgoingontothelaststagetowardsthesingularity.
Ithinkthatisarealroadblock.Soeverythingbeforethisroadblock,isperhaps,easierincomparison?
Ithinkso.Imeanwearedoingit.Imeanphysicalsystemsweareverygoodatdealingwith,butmentalsystemsweareverybadatdealingwith.Imean,let’snotforgetthehumanbrainisthemostcomplexthingintheuniverse,that’sahellofaclaim.IT’STHEMOSTCOMPLEXTHING,LIKEEVER.LIKEEVERCREATEDASFARASWECANWORKOUT–intermsofallthebillionsofyearsoftimeandlightyearsofspaceoutthere.Theideathatwewill,within,Idon’tknow,withintwothousandyearsofmodernhistorywecanhackitisarguable.ButyouknowIammorethanhappytobeprovedwrong.TomorrowKurzweil’swebsitemightsuddenlygo,‘ohwe’vedoneit’.AndI’llgo,‘wellthat’sinteresting,howdidyoudothat?’Soyouseethisasamajorthingthatpeoplehaveperhapsglossedover,like
Kurzweil?
Ithinktheyaredoingalltherightthings,Imeantheyaregoingatiteverywaytheycan.ImeantheyaretryingtosimulatethebrainbybuildingtheBlueBrainProject,andallthatkindofstuff.Ijustthink,Ithinktheirviewisthat,youjustneedtothrowprocessingpoweratit.Thatseemstobetheview.Themoreprocessingpoweryoucanget,themoreyoucando.ForexampleHansMoravec,cameupwiththis(Isaidthisinthebook,therearevariousestimates)ofhowmanyinstructionsthatyourbraindoespersecond.Andhecameupwithsomecrazynumber.Andtherearevariousfigures,andsomeareevenbiggerthanthat.MylaptopishasaboutafifthasmanyprocessesasIdo,orcoulddo.Butmylaptopisn’tafifthassmart.Soit’snotabouttheprocessing,it’saboutthewaywethink.Youknowit’saboutthewaywethink.Youknow,thingslikefallinginlove,beliefsystems,selfdelusion,lies,they’veallgotsomekindofevolutionaryreasonforthemtoexist–reasonsforwhyweareabletodothesethings,youknow?Andtryingtogetamachinetotellandlie,andforittoknowitstellingalie,youknow,howwouldyougoaboutdoingthat?Thatwouldbeareallyinterestingquestion.Arethesequestionsbeingasked?Imeantheyprobablyare,probablyare,IamsureKurzweil’saskingthesequestions.ButatthecuttingedgeofAIIdon’tseeanythingconvincinglythatdealswiththosephilosophicalaspects,thatdealwithtruth,love,liesandallthosekindsofthings.Butthereweare,Iamnotanexpert,Iamjustawriter.Averygoodone.
67
Anaverageone.Ifwetookastepback,awayfromthefinalbittowardsthesingularity,back
slightlyawayfromthementalenhancement,focusmoreonthe
Cyborgisationofthephysicalbody,howmuchofadrivingforce,doyousee
thatplayingtowards,andthedrivingforcesbehindthisgettingpeopleto
enhancethemselves,soyoumentionedsport,andmedical.
Wellyeahmedicalforsure,youknowIthoughtHugh’scommentsaboutbeingabletorunaroundasan18yearoldwhenhe’s80,whodoesn’twanttobedoingthat?Mynextbigbirthdayis50,andIamthinkingyouknow,Iamgoingtobefallingapartquitesoon.I’dbeprettyhappyifIcouldrepaircertainbitsofme.Butyouknow,itdependsifyouaregoingtodoitvia,Cyber…whatwasthetermyouused?Cyborgisation.
Soyouknow,that’susingmetalandsteelandallthosekindsofthings.Whydon’tyoudoitusingbiology?SomymateMikeisinvolvedinabiotechstart-upthatthinkstheyhaveworkedouthowtoturnonthegenesforregenerationinthehumanbody.SothereareZebraFishforinstance,whereyoucancutoffapartofitsliveranditwillregrowanotherone,asfarasIcanworkoutZebrafishareamazing,youcandoallsortsofterriblethingstothem,cutbitsoffthem…Salamandersareslightlylessgoodatthis,theycanregrowlimbs,butyoucan’ttakeoutabitoftheirliver.Buttheir[thestart-up’s]contentionis,isthatthosegenes[switches]usedtogrowthese[new]bits,arestillinthehumanDNA,theymustbe,otherwisewewouldn’tbeabletogrowtheselimbsinitially,likeweareinthewomb.Socouldyougettoapointwhereyoucouldswitchthemonandthentheyregenerateoldtissue?Thereprobablyis.Thatwouldprobablybeamuchbetterwayofdoingitthan...Sofromabiologicalperspective?
It’sbetweenthesethings:whereyoumaintainwhatyou’vegot,andenhancement.Howfarcanyougo?So,canyoureprogram,couldyoureprogramhumanDNAorhumaneyesighttomakeitevenbetterthanitisnow?Probablynot,becausethedesignisnotinthere.Let’staketheeyeforexample.Youcouldarguablyusebiology,orsyntheticbiology,torejuvenateyoureyetoasitwaswhenyouwereachild,andthenevengetridofanydefects,soyoucouldhave20/20vision,orperhapsevenbetter.Couldyouhavenightvision?Youknow,couldyouhaveinfra-red?No–youwouldhavetoenhancewithsomethingelse,thatwouldbethecyberisationofit.Ithink,whatwoulddriveit?Wouldyou?Doyouplayalotofsport?YeahIplayfootballmostly.
Okaysoletmeaskyou,wouldyoureplaceyourleg,withsomeroboticlegthatnevertires.Soyoucoulddoafull90minuteswithoutbreakingasweat,andyourconcentrationwouldneverwaiver,soyouknewthatwhenyouconnectedwiththeball,theballwasdefinitelygoingtogointhatdirection?Anditwasgoingtogetinthatsweetspotinthebackofthenet.Wouldyoudothat?
68
Therearetwopartstothat,andIhavethoughtaboutit,youmentioned,the
conceptoffairplay.Youno,ifno-oneelsehadthem,andyouweren’t
allowedtoplayfootball,itwouldbeabitpointlessreally.Anotherthingas
well,ImeanfootballisoneofthesportsIdo,butIalsodo
Parkour/Freerunning.Andalotaboutthatsportisthatyouaretryingto
makeyourbodybetter,andabigpartofitisthetrainingbehindit,andif
thattrainingwastakenaway,andyoujustautomaticallywereabletodoa
front-fliporyouknow,what’sthepointbehindthat?
Soimmediatelyyougettothephilosophicalquestions,youknowwhat’sthepoint?AndIthinkthat’sareallygoodquestion,what’sthepoint?Butthinkaboutitanotherway.Ifyou’reafireman,andyouhavesomeenhancementinyou,thatmeansyoucangointoburningbuildingsandmaintainyourstaminaandconcentration,soyoucancontinuetofightafireforeighthours,youknow,andsavemorelives…youcanimagineasituationwheresomeservicesareonlyhiringenhancedfiremen,becausetheyarejustbetter.Iguessthesamewouldbeformilitaryusesaswell.
Yeahit’sthewholeconceptbehindRobo-Cop,essentially.Iguessitallcomesdowntothequestionofwhetheritisbetter?Andthenwehavetoask,“isitbetterforwho,andwhen,andourcurrentmodel,inthiscurrentsituation?”It’sarguably,certainlyalotbettertohavecyber-enhancedfirefighters.Isitbettertohavecyber-enhancedsoldiers?Thatcouldbeaproblem.Soperhapsthesetechnologiesareperhapsmorerelevantfor
specialisation.SoGoogleGlasshasn’treallytakenofffortheaverage
consumer,buthasinmedicine.
YeahImean,that’swhereitwillallstart.Ifyoulookatnewtechnology,thepeoplewholookatthenewtechnologynormallysayitsrubbish,anditnormallyis.Youknowwhohasa3Dprinter?Wellnobody,becausethey’rerubbish.Soyoucanprintamug,yeahgreat.Soum,thetechnologygoesofftothesenicheapplications,butifyou’reatthecuttingedgeof3Dprinting,youareseeingsomeprettyamazingthingshappening.Andthentenyearsfromnowit’llendupmid-priced,inmid-priced3Dprinters,andthentenyearsfromthere,itwillbecheaperagain.Soallthetechnologieswillinitiallybeusedinanicheapplication,andthentheywillhitthemainstream.Andyouknowthat’swhatnormallyhappenswitheverything.Itsaninterestingpoint,becauseIguessyouareaskingwhethertherewillbeaninter-generationalpointwheresuddenlyeveryoneisgettingenhancedlimbs,butthenupuntilthenithadbeenrestrictedtofire-fightersandthemilitaryetc?Andit’swhetherthatcrossingpointwouldoccurthough?
Yes–Imeanit’saquestionthatsocietyneedstotryandanswer.AndthereasonIdotheworkIdoistotryandgetpeopletotryandaskthesequestions.Youknow,whatdoyouthinkaboutthat?SowhenItalkwithUKSport,Isay‘youhavearesponsibilityhereinregardstohowdoyoudealwithtechnology’andtheysay,‘ohwellwehaven’treallythoughtaboutthatquestion’.AndIsay‘wellyoushouldprobablystartthinkingaboutthatquestion’.Andtheysay,‘wellwhatdoyouthinkMark?’AndIsay,‘Idon’tknowbutwe,asaculture,needtofindtheanswertothesequestions.Becausetheanswerstothesequestionswill
69
profoundlyaffectwhathappens’.So,does,ontheonehand,cyber-enhancementbecomeillegal?Ordoesitbecomeahumanright?Wellthat’sinterestingisn’tit.Wellyeah,itsgottobesomewhereinbetweenIguess.There’stwoendsandthetruthliessomewhereinthemiddle.Becauseforadisabledperson,uh,whocouldthenbereturnedtonormalfunction,butverysoonafter,beyondnormalfunction.Thinkcochleaimplants.Hearingaidshavegonefromshittythingsthatusedtowhistlethatyouhadtocarrysomethingaroundyourwaistwith.Nowtherearethingsthatyoucanactuallyimplantintoyourear,youknow,Iamprettysureifyoulookedatcochleaimplantsnow,Iamprettysuretherewillbeoneswhereyoucanadjust,theclearoutbackgroundnoises.Andit’sprobablygotitsownwebpage.SojuanEnriquez,whoIinterviewforthelastbook,madeaninterestingpoint:willSymphonyorchestrasonlybehiringpeoplewithcochleaimplants,becausetheycanhearbetter?Anddoyouwanttogoandlistentoasymphonyorchestrawithpeoplewithcochleaimplantsbecausetheyplaybetter?Ordoyouthink,‘wellitsnotreallycricketisit?’Andagain,thereisnorightanswer.No–ofcourse.SoIguess-fromyoutalkswithUKSport,butingeneraldo
youthinkthatpeoplearethinkingabouttheseissues?
No.Andnobodythinksaboutnewtechnologiesuntiltheyarrive.HenryFordoncesaid,ifhewouldhaveaskedpeoplewhattheywanted,theywouldhaveprobablysaid‘fasterhorses’.Sonobodythinksaboutthingslikethatuntiltheyarrive.SteveJobsoncesaid,‘it’snotmycustomer’sjobtothinkaboutwhattheywant’.Sopeoplewillnotthinkaboutituntilitbecomesaphysicalthingthattheycanmake.Butdoyouthinkitwouldperhapsbebettertotryandreversethat,
becausechangesarehappeningsomuchfasternow.
Doyouthinkitwouldbebetterifpeoplewerethinkingaboutthisinadvance?Yeah
Wellyeahforsure,that’swhyIdowhatIdo.That’swhymyentirelifeisaboutsaying‘thefutureisupforgrabs,takehold,butthinkcarefullyofthemoralandethicalpositionsofallthat’.Becausethedecisionsthatwecollectivelymakewillchangeeverything.Solet’stryandmakeitsowehaveamorejust,humanewayofhavingamoresustainable,passionateworld.Andthatwillbedriveninalargepartbytechnology.Sothequestionsyouareaskinginyourdissertation,arebrilliant,astherearenorightanswers.Butthefactyouareaskingthem,putsyouwayaheadofmostpeople–andtheyarequestionsthatweneedtoask.SoIwasonaSundaymorningbreakfastprogramtheotherday,talkingaboutwhat’shappeningtotheenergyindustry,andgovernmentcan’tregulatewhat’sgoingtohappen,sowearegoingtohavetodoit.Whathappenswhena3Dprintercanprinta3Dprinter?Youknowthattechnologyisnotthatfaraway.(Imean3Dprinterswontprint3Dprinters,butasuiteof3Dprinterswillbeabletoprintallofthecomponentsthatcouldbeusedtomakea3Dprinter).SorryIhaveforgottenwhatthequestionwasagain.
70
I’veforgottenwhatthequestionwasaswellactually.Abouttechnology…
Therewillalwaysbeniches,andthentechnologycomesoutofthenichewhenitstartsgettinggood.Andthepeoplewhowereinthenichegetallupset,liketheutilitiescompaniesandtheoilcompaniesnowadaysgetmassivelyupsetaboutpeoplegettingsolarpower,andtheyalreadyareinvariousplaces.Andthenthingsjustcrash.ImeananotherreasonIdowhatIdo,isbecausethataffectspeoplemassively,becauseifyouworkintheenergyindustryatthemoment,andyourkidsarerelyingonyoutocomehome[andputfoodonthetable],andfifteenyearsfromnowthepowerplantisnolongerneeded.Whatdoyoudotheniftherearenopowerplants?Ithinkthepowerplantmanshouldbethinkingaboutthatnow,whichiswhyIdowhatIdo.Onthatpoint,issocietycompletelyunpreparedforwhat’sgoingtocome?
WellIthink,itdependswhatyoumeanby‘prepared’,forwhatpurpose?IthinkwhatIamgettingatis,youhighlightedtheproblemofthepower
plant.Arethesecompaniesthinkingaboutthisnow?
Theyarehopelesslyunprepared.Manyofthecompanieswearetalkingaboutnow,aresounpreparedtheywillprobablydie.Butthat’sokay,becausemaybeyoudon’twantthemtobethere.Butofcourse,butwilltherebejobsinsocietyforthosepeople?
That’sagoodquestion,Imeanyouknow,therewon’tbethosejobs,thosejobswon’texistanymore,buttherewilldefinitelybejobs.Everytimeanewtechnologycomesalong,peoplego‘ohnoit’sgoingtodestroyjobs’.Yes,butitwillcreateawholebunchofotherones.Now,nobodylamentsthefactwedon’thavescribes,becauseyouknow,theprintingpressendedupcreatingmorejobsthanitdestroyed.Thisisthesamewithmosttechnologies.Socomputershavecreatedmorejobsthantheyhavedestroyed.Thequestionis,whatwillthosejobsbecome?Wearenowabletodothingsthataremorephilosophical,interesting,thanwhenweareallrunningaroundassubsistencefarmers.Nobodycouldgoanddoadegreeincomputerscience,orwhateveritis,andnobodycouldaskaboutthefutureoftechnologybecausethatwasn’tconsideredajob,itwasallabout‘goandgetthefuckingpotatoagain’.So,youknow,butsocietyisn’tprepared,forsure.Andthat’swhyIdowhatIdo,that’swhyIwritepopularbooksandrunaconsultancythatdealswithaskingcompaniestoaskthesesortofquestions.Becausemyfeelingisthatthingsaregoingtochangequitealotandcertainlyifyou’reaskingtherightquestions…SoIusetheanalogyofhowyoudriveacar.Mostpeople,orasfarasIamaware,ormostcompanies,they’vegotthismachine,theircompanyorwhatever,anditdrivesinacertainwayandtheyarejustpassengersinit.Theinstitutionjustkeepsongoing.Theproblemisthoughisthattheroadisgoingtogetincreasinglytwistyandturnyasyougointothefuture,andtheywon’tbeabletotakethoseturns.Andwhatthoseturnsaregoingtobe,nobodyknows.ButwhatIdoknowisifyouareabletotakethoseturns,inthedrivingseatofyourowncarthatisnippy…Ifyouarenotinthatposition,you’refucked.Soyouknow,Ihavetosaytopeople,whentheyaskmeabouttheircareer,Isay‘yourcareerwon’tmakesenseinthewindscreen,itwillonlymakesenseintherearviewmirror,anditwillonlydothatifyouare
71
drivingyourowncar’.Andit’sthesameforsociety.Sotryingtoanswerthequestionsnow,wecan’tanswerthemnow,becausewearenotthereyet.Whatwecandoisarchitectoursocieties,ourinstitutions,forthegenerationcominguptobeagileenough,smartenoughandhumanenoughtobetakethosecurvessensibly.Andanyonewhotriestopredictthefutureisincrediblyvainglorious,becausethe2nd,3rdand4thorderoftechnologyeffects,veryfewpeoplecandiscern.Internetgreat,youpredictemail,onceyouhavegottheInternetitseasytopredictemail,nobodypredictedtheworldwideweb,nobodypredictedsocialmedia,andhowsocialmediastartstoplayaroleinhowgovernmentsandcitizensbegintointeractandallthatkindofstuff.Sonobodyseesthatstuffaspredictable,veryfewpeopledo.Soyoucan’tpredictthefuture,theonlythingthatIthinkyoucanreallydo,whichiswhatRaydoes,istotryandpredictwhencertaintechnologieswillreachacertainlevelofpower-becauseofthelawofacceleratingreturns.BecauseitwillbethecostofX(unlesssomemajorthinghappens,orthereissomephysicallimitthatwehaven’trealisedwewillhit)…ifitgoesatthisratethisiswhatitwillbelikethisthen.Buthowsocietywilldealwiththat?Youknowwithsolarpower…ourgovernmentishavingarightgoatthemomentconcerningsolarpowerandtheenergy.Theyaresayingthatanyonewhomakestheirownenergyhastothenselltheirenergytothebigsix.Soitdoesn’tmakesense.AndyoucanseetheexactdifferenceinhowrenewableenergyisworkinghereandthenhowitisworkinginGermany.BecauseGermanyhasamuchmoreagilesystemfordealingwithcommunityownedstuff.Becauseithasitsownsystemofmunicipalgovernmentswhateverthatisjustdifferenttooursthatactuallymakesitaloteasierforpeopleandcommunitiestocreatetheirownrenewables.WhichiswhyE-onhasstartedsellingalltheirpowerplantsjustbeforeChristmas.I,nprivatetheyaresayingthattheydon’tthinktheywillbeabletosellthematacarbootsaleintenyearstime.Whereashere,wearethinkingaboutwhetherweshouldbuildafewmorebigpowerstations.Isee,soyoumentionedagilealotthen.Soperhapsit’snot,necessarily
preparingforspecificthings,butmakinggovernmentsleanerandmaking
themabletochangequicker.
Ormakingthemintosomethingbetter.Sooneoftheconclusionscomingoutofmycurrentbook,isinthefuture,thereisgoingtobelessandlessforgovernmentstodo.SooneoftheconclusionsthatiscomingoutofmycurrentbookisthatpeoplearecodingaroundwhatIcallthebraindamageofgovernmentusingtechnology.Soifyougotoacommunitythathasgoneovertorenewables,therearenumerousoneslikethesenowifyoulookitup,theyaredoingenergypolicy,theyjustdon’tcallitthat.Ifyouseegroupsofpatientsgettingtogetheronlineandsharingtheirexperiences,recommendingtherapiesforeachother,startingtocrowdfundvariouspiecesofresearch.Theyaredoinghealthpolicy–theyarejustnotcallingitthat.Whenstudentsgettogetherandtheysay‘IamnotgoingtoUCL,IamgoingtodownloadthestatisticsclassfromMITandsitathome,savemyself£27,000andgetadegreefromMIT’...Therearelotsofreasonsforgoingtouniversityandthecontentmaynotbeoneofthem.It’sprobablythesexIwouldimagine,butyoucanbuyalotofsexfor£27,000.Butthatstudent?Heorsheisdoingeducationpolicy,theyjustdon’tcallitthat.
72
Soalotofthethingsthatweusedtoaskgovernmentsfor,ortheythoughttheyhadtheresponsibilitytoprovidefor,arenow,orcanbeprovidedformuchbetterthroughnetworksorcrowds,throughcrowdsandcollaboration.Andthatleadsusontothemostsuccessfulskillthatpeoplewillneedinthefuture,ishowdopeoplecurateacrowd,todotherightthing?Toanswertherightquestion?SoIwasoffinDelhirecentlylookingatsomethingcalledOpenSourceDrugDiscovery[OSDD].TherearesomescientistsinDelhiwhoarelookingatawayofdevelopingnewdrugs,andtheyaredoingthisopensource,andtheyareinthefirsthumantrialforadrugagainstTuberculosissince1963.Theydiditallfromastandingstartin3years.Andtheydiditallforlessthantenmilliondollars.AndtheaveragecostofdrugdevelopmentintheUSismuchhigher[$1billion].Sosuddenlytheyaredevelopingdrugsquicker,stupidlycheap,andgivingawaytheintellectualpropertyforfree.Howaretheydoingthis?
Wellthisisthething:it’sthecurationofthecrowd.SamirBramacharisaid‘weneedtocomeupwithacureforTuberculosis,becauseTuberculosisisadiseaseofthepoor,sothebigdrugcompaniesarenotinterested.TheydevelopdrugsforobesitybecausefatAmericanswillpay,sotheysaidwehavegottocomeupwithabettersystem’.Therearewaystodevelopdrugsandthereisaprocessyougothrough.Sotheyasked,‘howcanyoumakeoneofthesebitsmoreefficient?’Sotheydidthisthingcalledgenomeannotation.Thereare27,000papersonthetuberculosisgenome,somesaying‘thisgenedoesthisthing,bitssayingwethinkthisgenedoesthis,andthisgenedoesthat’.Sogenomeannotationisliketakingallthatinformationandgoing‘okay’,andusingittolookatthegenomeandgoing‘that’saword,thatmakesasentence,thatbitmakesaparagraph’.Nowwekindofknowhowthegenomeisworking.Buthowtoget27,000papersandalltheinformationinthereturnedintoamodelthatdescribeswhatthegenomeactuallydoes?Wellyougoandaskthecrowdtodoit.Sowhattheysaidwas‘right,letsgetabunchofundergraduatestodothis,whoarealreadyworkingonthisthingontheirundergraduatecourses,butwewillgetthemtoworkonarealproblem,andwewillcreateascoringmechanismwherethebeststudentswhodothebestannotations,gettoproduceapaperthatisco-authoredwithSamir,whoisoneofthemostinfluentialscientistsinIndia’–whichisaprettygoodthingifyouareanundergraduate.Sotheycreatedasystem:wehavecertainbits,thatarenotacrowdproblem.‘Welookatthat,itneedstositinaroomwithVashnuforlikefourhours–andthencomeupwiththerightquestion.Thentheyspendthreeweeksinalabthinkingaboutthequestion.Thentheysay‘rightwewanttofindthatout’andthentheysenditouttothecrowd.Theycreatedasystembasicallythatisdrugdevelopmentthatwasbrilliant,astheycuratedacrowdbrilliantly.But,justbecausenetworksandcrowdscandothingsbetterthanthehierarchicalsystems,doesn’tmeanthattheywill.Butifyoucancuratethis,andyoucangolookathowthey[OSDD]haveworkedouthowtoutilisethecrowdtosolvethisproblem,thenthatistheultimateskill.That’swhat[today’s]organisationsare,theyarethecurationofacrowd.Butitisaveryverybad,crappyboringwayofcuratingacrowd,fordealingwithourpresentproblems.Somovingonwards,towardsanetworksociety,Ithinkit’stheskillofthegovernmentabouthowtheywillaskthepeopleaboutwhatneedstohappen.
73
Soweareseeingmoreknowledgebeingcreatedbypeoplethantherewas
before,becauseoftechnologiesabilitytogalvanisenetworks.
Yeah–butIthinkthathasalwayshappened.MarkTwain–“historydoesn’talwaysrepeatitself,butitoftenrhymes”.Nobodycanprovehesaidthat.ButIdothinkthatisquiteinteresting,therearestepchanges,youknowtherearethingsbecauseyouhavetobecareful,asyouhavetobasethingsonwhatyouhaveseeninthepast.Looktherearestepchangesthough,andyouhavetobecareful,becausepeoplebasetheirviewsonwhathashappenedinthepast.Andthat’skindofsilly.LookatBlockbuster,lookatKodak.Lookathowourgovernmenthasn’tchangedsince1750.WouldwehavehadthesystemofgovernmentthatwehavenowifthefoundingfathersofdemocracyhadhadtheInternet?No,sowhyarewestillstuckwithit?Sotherearestepchangesthatcanhappenandtheywillbequitemessy.Andthat’swhyIamfascinatedbytheworkthatIdo.SoIgivepeopleahardtimetothinkaboutthem.Ithinkaboutthemverybadly,butatleastIdogetpeopletothinkaboutthem.No,Ithinkthathasreallyopenedmyeyes,especiallythatdrugexample
youusedinIndia.Thatwasfascinating.
‘Howdoyoucurateacrowd?’isafascinatingquestion.IhavetriedtosetupthisthingcalledTheLeagueofPragmaticOptimists,whereIamtryingtogetpeopletocometogetherfromallaroundtheworldtodogreatstuff.AndIhavecurateditespeciallybadly,andithasn’treallygonewhereIwanteditto,becauseIreallydonothavetheskills,sonowIamgettingabunchofpeopletogethertohelpmetakeitsomewhere.Thereisapopularmantrawhereit’s“thecrowdwillsolveit”.Buttheystillneedmanaging.ButIusetheterm‘curation’morenow,morelikeanartist.Howdowecollaboratetogether?Soleadershipisaboutgivingpowertopeople,nothavingpoweroverpeople.Andifyoucangivepowertothepeople,thenyouwillhaveinfluenceinlife.Thankyou,Ireallydidn’tseeitgoinginthatdirection.
Mynewbookishowdowerebootsociety,andwhoisshowingustheway?----Trilemmasarethismantrainmostbusinessesthatsaythatyoucan’thaveitcheap,youcan’tgiveittoeverybodyandyoucan’thaveitethical.Youcanhavetwoofthethreebutyoucan’thaveallthree.Theyaremutuallyexclusive.Likeenergy,energyistheclassicexample.Youcan’thaveenergythatischeap,availabletoeveryone,andenvironmentallysustainable.Theycallit‘theenergytrilemma’.Howdowedealwiththisproblem?Andtheysay‘wedealwithitthebestwecan,butit’sacompromise’.Sameinhealthcare,youcan’thavehealthcarethatischeap,accessibletoeverybodyandethicallyresponsible.Soyoucanhaveethicalhealthcare,thatisexpensive,butonlysomethingthatAmericanscanget.Therearethesetrilemmas,andthosetrilemmasweretruewhenthesystemstarted,butarenotnecessarilytrueanymore.SoifyougotothistowncalledGüssing(Austria)theywillsaytheyarecompletelyreliantonrenewableenergynow.Theywillsay‘it’sbetter,cheaperandmoreethical’.Butthebigenergycompaniesdon’tlikethis,andwhatyoufindisthatthesetrilemmas,thatindustriesweresetuptosolve,havenowbecomeentrenchedin
74
thethinkingofthepeoplethatarenowthere.Theyarenowdefinedbythesetrilemmas,andtheythinkthatitwillneverchange,insteadofgoingabouthowtochangeit.Ifyouthinkaboutsociety,itisbeingdrivenbyeconomiesofscale,wearedriventobuildbigthings,thatasthingsgetbiggertheycandeliverthingsmorecheaply.Energyisagreatexample;itwascheaperinthepasttobuildabigcoalplantoverthere,burnabunchoffuelandthensellittoeveryone.It’snotthesameanymore,withsolarpanelsandrenewablesandallthatkindofstuff.Buttheenergycompaniescannotgettheirheadsaroundit.Soifyoulookatthepast,it’sallabouttheefficienciesofscale,andIthinkthefuturewillallbeabouttheefficienciesofdistribution.Andsothecurationofthecrowdisthebestwayofdistributingtheinformationaroundthegreatestnumberofpeople.Youknowifenhancementwillallowyoutodothat,ifyoucouldgo‘right,thebestwayistoworkwiththecrowd,istohavesomesortofartificialintelligencethatispartofthecrowd,ordowewantafewofthosechapswithmathschipsstuckintheirheads,wewantthosepeopleontheproblem….’Oryouknow,weareallconnected,likeahivemind.LiketheBorg…Humanbeingsareaco-inspirationalnetwork,andwecaninspiregoodthingsandbadthings.Thequestionthatyouareaskingreallyis…Thesetechnologiesaregoingtocomeatsomepoint,thesetechnologiesaregoingtocomeatsomepoint,atsomelevel,andtherealquestionis:whatarewegoingtodo,whatkindofsocietydowewant?Thatwillbetheanswertothequestionofhowwewillgetthere,andifwedon’tconsiderwhatkindofsocietydowewant,itwillgetansweredforus,byotherpeoplewhowanttoprofit.ThereisagreatAfricanproverb,‘thatiftheliondoesn’ttellyouthestory,thehunterwill’.Andifwearenotthinking-whichiswhythequestionsyouareaskingaresoimportant-aboutthetypeoffuturethatwewantthenwewon’tguidethosetechnologiesinausefulway.Cantheybeguided?
Yeah–Iamnotsayingtheycanbeabsolutelyguided.Thecultureofaplacesayswhatisrightandwhatiswrong,soyouknow,gunsforexample.Theideathatyoucanuseaguntoinawarsituationisacceptable,buttheideathatyoucanuseaguntokillpheasantsisonlyacceptableincertaincultures,andtheideathatyoucantakeagunandshootachildisnotacceptableiftheyareaneighbour.Soinsomewaywehavesaid‘thistechnologyisacceptableinsomesituationsandnotothers’.Andyoucanargueyourviewonthat,inAmericatheyhaveadifferentviewtowardsthingsthatwehavehere,andweneedtodecidewhatwethinkisacceptableandwhatisnotacceptable.ThesamegoesforIVF,wehavekindofacceptedit,eventhoughCatholicsdon’tlikeit,officiallytheCatholicchurchisagainstit,weareokaywiththat.Butsurelyitwillbecomehardertoguidetechnology,takethehydrogen
bombforexample,itonlytakesaverysmallnumberofpeopletocreatea
largerproblem.
Exactly,andthatiswhyIamfascinatedbyculture.Ifyouhavesomepartofhumanity,wheretheunderlyingassumptionsofculture,wherewebelievethatitisbetterforustobetogether,andthatitisbetterifweallworktogether,andwe
75
believeinsocialjustice…thenthosetechnologiesaremorelikelytobeguidedinapositiveway.Butit’snotabouttheregulationsthatgovernmentscangiveus.It’sgoingtobeabouttheindividualthat’simportant.Whichiswhyyourgenerationissoimportant,andIthinkthatgenerallyyourgenerationseemtogetit.Youknow,Iwatchedthisfilmcalled21JumpStreet,butIwasreallyintriguedbyamomentinthatfilmwherethehandsomecop,whowasalwaysreallycoolinschool,andthentherewastheyoungerlessattractivecopwhowassaying‘Ireallydon’twanttogobacktoschoolIwasalwaysgettingbeatenup’.Andhesays‘youknow,whatdidyoudo?’,andhegoes‘wellIjust,ifanyonewastryinghardIwouldjustsays‘that’srubbish’,ifanyonewasdoingsomethinggoodIwouldputthemdown’.Itsthiswholekindof80sAmericanjockkindofthing.Andtheygettotheschoolandtheyseeallthecoolkidsandtheyaskwhattheyaredoingandtheysaytheyarecampaigningforclimatechange,andhegoes‘whywouldyoudothat?That’sreallystupid’.Andtheysay‘areyoufuckingserious?’Sotimeschange,sotobecoolinthe80swastobeabitofanarsereally,andthenthecoolkidsnowgrowahipsterbeard,growtheirownvegandareworriedaboutsociety.Youknow,soyourgenerationhaskindofgotit.Butit’sanongoingbattlethatwillneverbewon,thatwillkeepongoing.SoinconclusionIguess,thatjust,wellnotjust,butwereallyneedtotry
andfocusonthecultureandthesociety.
ThewisestthingIthinkthathaseverbeensaidaboutbusinessororganisationswasbysomeonecalledPeterDrucker:“cultureeatsstrategyforbreakfast”.Youcanhaveasmanyrulesandregulationsasyoulike,butifthecultureoftheplaceisdifferent,thingswillbefucked,itwillguideeverything,thesamegoeswithUCL.UCLisaculture,thewholeplaceisfilledwithpeopletryingtodothingsdifferently,andtheyenduprealisingtheyendupbackatthesamestagetheywerealreadyat:‘I’vebeentryingtodosomethingdifferentforayearnow,andIhaveendedupjuststuck’.Socultureeatsstrategyforbreakfast,therefore,wehavetowinthoseculturalbattles,aboutfairness,aboutjusticeandcompassion.Andhumanity.Allthethingsthatweallgiveashitabout,thegreatpromiseoftechnologyisthattechnologyallowsustofinallydeliveronthosegreatideals,becauseresourcesarenolongerheldbymonopoliesandvestedinterests.Nomatterhowbenigntheyaretheynormallyendupinefficientatbest,andcorruptatworst.Butwheneveryoneownstheirownsolarpowerintheirbackyardandsotheydon’thavetopaytheirownelectricitybills,that’sit.SomostatheistsandChristiansnormallyrubalongallrightwhentheyhavefoodandwater,it’swhentheydon’tandthenthereisaperceivedinjusticeaboutwhohaswhatresources.That’swhenpeoplestartkickingtheshitoutofeachother.Sotechnologycouldfinallyhelpusdeliveronthegreathumanproject.Oritmaynot.ThereisyouononesideandthenthereisRupertMurdochontheother.Andyouhavetodecidewhatsideyou’reon.AndI’monthesideofbelievingthatpeoplearebasicallydecentandthattheyshouldbegivenpower,andthemoreyougivetopeoplethelesstheywillfight.
76
11.3.0IVALAZAROVAINTERVIEWTRANSCRIPT30thMarch2015
Alex(interviewer)=boldtext
Iva=normalweightedtextRegardingKurzweil’stechnologicalsingularity,doyouthinkthathumanity
willeverreachthatstage?
Sothatisagoodquestion,andIthinkthatwecanreachthatstagepotentiallyifwemanagetodealwithalotofchallenges,whichwehavetosolveintheshorterterm.Imean–becausetherearealotofthingsthataregoingwronginourworld,wehavesustainabilitychallenges,climatechange,theenvironmentisbeingdestructed,andIdon’tknowifwecanreachthatstagebeforewedestructourselves.Butifwedomanagetogetoverallthosechallenges,Ithinkthereisachancethatthesingularity,orwereachthatstagewheremanandmachinemergeandwebecomeone.Soyouseethemainchallengesasbeingenvironmental?Froma
sustainabilityperspective.
Yeah–environmentalandeconomic.Idon’tthinkthatthewaytheworldisgoingatthemomentisright.Imeancertainlyeveryone’sperceptionisthateconomicgrowthisgreatsinceitcreatesjobsandpeoplehavenormallifestyles,butIdon’tknowhowlongthiscancontinue.Becauseasyouseeeconomicgrowthandyouseeithappen,youcanfeelitverywellhereinSouthEastAsia,andyouseehowithappens,yourealisethatitiscoolbut,itsnotthatitcan’tgoonlikethatbecausepeoplearegettingstressed,resourcesarebeingdepletedandIkindofthinkthatwewillhavealotofchallengesinthenearfuture,thatifwemanagetodealwiththose,wemighthaveenoughtimetoreachtothatstagethatKurzweilistalkingabout,Ithinkhewastalkingabout2050or2030Iforgetwhathewastalkingaboutnow.2045washisdateoftheproposedsingularity.
Soifwehaveenoughtime,wemightbeabletoreachsingularity,butIamnotsureitwillbearound2045.Wemightneedsomemoretime.Sodoyouthinkitswithinhumanitiesbestinteresttotryandreachthe
technologicalsingularity?
Urm,Iamnotsureifitswithinhumanitiesbestinterests,probablybecausewehavetofindawaytoupgradeourselvesandthisiscertainlyawayforustodoso.AndwhatImeanbythatis,ifwelookathuman’snow,weliveinthe21stcentury,andwethinkwehaveverymodernlifestyles,andeverything,butifyouthinkaboutitreally,wehaven’tchangedmuchintermsofemotionsandmindsetfromthedirect…..Callcutoff.Wehaven’treallyenhancedourselvesthatmuchintermsofmentalandbraincapabilities,andifyouthinkabouthoweverythingisdeveloping,thingsaredevelopingatamuchfasterpacenowsoIthinkthatitwouldbebeneficialifwe
77
couldenhanceourselvesinsomeway,andalsoifyouthinkaboutevolutionandnaturalselection,itactuallydoesn’tworkanymore.Somaybethat’souronlychancetogettothenextstageifweusetechnologytoenhanceourselves.Youseehumanenhancementasakeydrivingforceforustogettothe
technologicalsingularity,becauseyouknow,itjustseemsanaturalway,
becauseevolutionisn’thappeninganymore.
Yeah,itsnotnatural,butmaybeitslogical,it’stheonlywaywecanimproveourselves,somaybepeoplewillwanttotranscendourselves,asahumanspecies,technologywillbeakeypartofthat.Wecannotdothatwithouttechnology.Soculturally,regardinghumanenhancement,wheretoyouthinkhumanity
isgenerallyinacceptingthesetechnologies.
SorryIdidn’tgetthat.Sureokay,humanenhancementhastheabilitytoreallychangeculturally
howsocietyviewstechnology,Imeanhowdoyouthinksocietyisprepared
fortheadoptionofthesefuturetechnologies.
Itprobablyvariesacrosstheworld,ifyoutalkaboutEurope,thesituationisdifferentifyoucompareitwiththeAsia,anditmightbedifferentifyoutalkaboutAfrica.Ithinkitdependson,Ithinkitgenerallydependsonpeople’sattitudestowardstechnology.AndyoucanseethatforexamplehereinSouthEastAsia,peoplearereallyhookedontheirdevices,andtheykindoflivethroughthat,throughtheirphonesandtabletsorwhenevertheywalkthroughthetube,whenevertheytalktopeople,theyarestaringattheirphones.Thiskindofcrazyhabitwhereyoucan’tlivewithouttechnology.Ididn’trealiseitwasalotdifferentinSingapore.
IdoseethatinLondonaswell,butitsnottothatextent.Peopleusemobilephones,ofcourseeverybodyusesthem,buthereit’sabitcrazy.Itslike,Ithinkthatamobilephoneoratabletit’saperson’sbestfriend,youseethatwithpeoplealwayswiththeirtablet,whetheritstalkingtoyourmotheroryourboyfriendorwhatever.Forsure,definitely.
Ithinkthatpeoplewilladoptthesetechnologiesatadifferentpaceandsosomewillriseabovethemandthensomemighthavearesistancetothem.Butitreallydependsonhowpeoplecomeacrossthesealternatives.Imeanwhenpeoplefirsthearofatechnologyorsomething,whichyoucanusetoenhanceyourself,howdowepresentthattopeopleIthinkthatisalsoimportant.Doyouthinkthatpeoplethemselveswillcomeacrossthoseopportunitiestoenhancethemselves,ordoyouthinkthattherewillbeabusinessinterestoracompanythatoffersthosesolutionstoconsumersandtryingtosellthehumanenhancement?Upgradesandsoon?YeahImeanforsure,itsgoingtobefromabusinessperspectiveand
marketingisreallykeyinthatrespect.Ithinkitjustdependsifwegettoa
stagewherethetechnologychangeshumanity,somuch,thatpeopleare
78
unwillingtoadoptthesetechnologies.Forexample;mindenhancement,so
iftherewastheabilitytocompletelyinfuseahumanwithitmachine,it
reallydependsifwewillthentakethatpathtowardstranscendence.
You’reright,itdependsonpeople’srelationshipwithtechnology,andasfarasIseehereis,peoplealreadyhaveakindofintimaterelationship,Ican’tseewhysomeonewhospends24hourswiththeirmobilephone,wouldn’tbeinterestedinmind/brainenhancementorsomethinglikethat.Ifyouthinkabouttheenhancedeyesorthosetypesoftechnologies,butIthinkitwillbeverydifferentacrosstheworld.Imeansomesocietiesmaybereluctanttodothat,andembraceit,andthat’sthewaytechnologiesgoes,itsbeenthesamerightbacktoeverymajordiscovery,sinceithasbeeninventedaroundtheworld.Andthetechnologybehavesdifferentlywhenitcomestosocietylater.Astechnologyadvancesateverincreasingrates,ifwearetobelieve
Kurzweil’slawofacceleratingreturns,youhighlightthatsomepeoplewill
adoptthesetechnologiesandsomepeoplewon’t.Soyouthinktherewillbe
abiggerdisparitybetweenthosewhoadoptthosetechnologiesandand
thosewhodon’tadoptthosetechnologiesinthefuture,towhatthereis
now?
…thisisoneofthethingstoreallywatch,Idon’tthinkwecanreallyeasilysayyesorno,wehavetomonitorhowthisisdeveloping.Butmostprobablytherewillbegreaterdisparitybetweenpeoplewhoadoptthesetechnologiesandthosewhodon’t.Thatdisparitymightevengiverisetodifferent‘classes’ofhumanity–the‘superhumans’vs.the‘organicapes’
Thelastquestionthen,ishow,howprepareddoyouthinksocietyisin
termsofcopingwiththerapidchangesthatareduetotakeplaceinthe
nextfifteenyears?
Ifeelthatsocietyisnotreallywellprepared,aboutthosechanges,eventhoughwethinkthatwearekindoftechsavvy,atleastinsomecountriesandsocietieslikehere,Idon’tthinkthatpeoplerealisethefullpotentialofthefullconsequencesofwhatisgoingtohappen,sothereiscertainlyanopportunityfororganisationsandinstitutionstoeducatepeopleandtotalkabouttheimplicationsofhumanenhancement.BecauseIthinktheremightbesomebadthingsabouthumanenhancement,whichwehaven’ttalkedaboutit,becausewedon’tknowthatmuchabouthowthehumanenhancementstechnologieswillimpactourselves,Ithinkthatthereisalotofopportunityfordebatethere,totalktopeopleandto,engagethepublicintermsofhumanenhancementandwhatitmeans,andwhatitmeans.Andhowitcouldchangetheirlives.Whatarethosenegativeaspectsofhumanenhancementthatyousee?
Icannotsayexactlywhatthesearebecausewehaven’tdoneanytests,Imean,weknowifyouusebrainimplants,thesemighthelpyou,insomecognitivefunctions,butwedon’tknowifthesewillleadtoanylongtermnegativeconsequences,sointheoryitallsoundsgreat,butinpracticesomeofthehumanenhancementmethodologiesarealsopotentiallydangerous.Ifyouthinkaboutchemicalhumanenhancement,youknowthatstudentsusedtotake,actually
79
studentsintheUSusedtotakethosepillsModafinilandRitalin,whichimmediatelyboostedtheirexamresults,butpeopledon’tknowifthosestudentshadsomebrainchangesoccurringperhapslater,asaresultoftakingthosepills.Soweactuallydon’tknow,aseverythingthereissomething,astherearealwaystwosidestoastory.Iamsuretherewillbebenefitsbutwemightalsoneedtoanticipatebadoutcomesofhumanenhancement.Andwemightneedtodealwiththose.Isthereanythingelsewithinthisareathatyouthinkdefinitelydeserves
moreresearch?
WellIthinkthatpeoplehavebeentalkingaboutthetechsingularityandartificialintelligence,whereartificialintelligencewilloutstriphumanintelligence,somaybeit’sagoodideatolookintothat.Sowhetherartificialintelligencewillexceedhumanintelligence,orwillhumansbeabletokindofembraceartificialintelligenceandkindofupgradeourselves,sowillitbemachinesvshumans,orwillitbe,humansembracingtechnologyandthenupgradingourselves.Whatdoyouthinkismorelikely?
WellIliketothinkthathumanswillbeabletoimprovethemselveswithtechnologyandbecomeabetterspecies,Idon’twanttothinkthemachineswillbecomemoreintelligentthanhumans,andwillrulehumanityasawhole,butthat’smypersonalpreference.Wewillhavetoseewhatwillhappen.Wewillhavetofindoutofcourse.
Somethingcomestomymindnow,Idon’tknowifyouhavelookedattheAvatarproject.NoIhaven’t.
Avatar2045,Icansendyouthelinkafterthechat.Itsquiteinteresting,he’stalkingaboutcreatingadifferentspeciesbasedonhumanityandsomethingthatismuchmorespiritual,andheistryingtodothiswiththecreationofanAvatar.Andtherearefourstagestowhichthatguyenvisions,andhesaysthatwecouldbecomejustspiritualbeings,andsowecangetridofthesebodies.
80
11.4.0ANDERSSANDBERGINTERVIEWTRANSCRIPT1stApril2015
Alex(interviewer)=boldtext
Anders=normalweightedtextRegardingKurzweil’stechnologicalsingularity,wherehuman’swillinfuse
ourselveswithmachinesandthenwillgoonafasterthaneverrateof
technologicaladvancement,doyouthinkthathumanitywilleverreach
thatstage?
That’sagoodquestion,becauseKurzweilisconflatingseveralmeaningsofthewordsingularity.Idon’tknowifyouhavecomeacrossmypaperaboutthemodelsofthetechnologicalsingularity?(http://agi-conf.org/2010/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/agi10singmodels2.pdf)NobutIshalldefinitelytryandhavealookatthat.
Thatonemightactuallybekindofuseful,ifonlytotryandorganiseyourwriting.SothebulkofthepaperisessentiallywhereItrytoreviewwherepeoplehavebeentryingtodomathematicstomodelthesingularity,butwhatIthinkismostusefulistheintroductionwhereItrytoseewhatmeaningspeopleactuallyusefortheword.Theproblemhereisthatyoucanmeanquitealotofdifferentthingsbythesingularity,andalotofpeoplehandwaveenoughsopeoplegetveryconfused.OnemeaningofthesingularitythatKurzweilisveryfondofistheacceleratingtechnologicalgraph.Itmightnotyetjustbetechnologicalgrowth,itcouldbethegrowthofagreatdealofotherstuffwecareabout,likecapability,likewealth,likefreedomandsoon.Hetellsyoutoassumethattheygowelltogether,andthereissometruthtothat.Bythisaccountyouwouldhaveanexponentialgrowth,butthereisnoparticularpointtosuchacurvethatisspecial.Youneedtotryandcompareitwithournormaltimescales,assumingthatwehaveakindofcircletimescaleonhowweliveourlives,youmightsaythesingularityoccurswhenadvancementissofast,thatchangeshappeninveryshortstandards,byhumanstandards.However,thereareothermeanings,whichIthinkarereallyimportant.IfyougobackandlookatIJGood’sideasabouttheintelligenceexplosion,yougetbetterandbettertechnologythatmeansyoucandostuffthathumanscando,andmakingbettertechnologiesisonethinghumanscando,andsoeventuallyyoumightmakemachinesthatcanhelpusmakebettermachines.Kurzweilisofcoursetalkingaboutthisatthesametime,heisevenarguingthatitisevendrivingsomeofthatexponential.Ifyoureallyreadhimcarefullyyouactuallyfindoutthatitisfasterthanexponential,onceyougettotheaffectofmachineshelpingtobuildmachines.I.J.Goodisnotnecessarilytalkingaboutanythinggoingexponential,atanyparticularspeed,yougetmachinesmakingbettermachinesthatmeansyougettosomething,whichhecallsanultraintelligence.Ashenotesthatwouldbethelastinventionwewouldeverneedtodo.Becauseofcoursetheultraintelligencewouldbemuchbetterthanusatinventingstuff.Nowthatisofcourselinkedtotheideathatwewillgetsuperintelligence,whichisaninferredmeaning,youcouldimaginetheviewwhereperhapswearehavingthisaccelerationforeverandwearegettingsmarterandsmarter,butthereisnothingthatisparticularlyweirdaboutit.Oryousay,okay,wearegoingtogetmindsthataregoingtothinkaboutstuffthat
81
wecannotconceiveofrightnow.Andthatmeansthattherulesaregoingtobevery,verydifferent.Sothatnaturallyleadsontoafourthmeaning.SoVernorVingewhoinapaperbroughtupthesingularity,hasbeenkindoftalkingaboutthesepreviousmeaningsandcomesupwiththefactthatitsgoingtobeveryhardtopredictanythingbeyondthesingularity.Soyoucanseethatthereisgoingtobeakindofpredictionhorizon,wherethefutureisgoingtobesobrightyouaregoingtohavetowearsunglasses.Youcannotimaginewhatisgoingonbeyondthat.Sothismeansthatthisisverybadnewsforasciencefictionwriter,asagoodsciencefictionstoryafterthesingularitywouldbeincomprehensible,thereisquitealotofeffortthatgoesintowritingaboutthesingularitywithouttouchingit.Iseesothatmakesalotofsensethen.Sowhichoneofthesesingularities
doyouthinkismostprobable?
Ithinkallofthemarepossible.Iaminthephilosophydepartment,Icanthinkofaridiculousamountofthingsthatarepossible.Butexponentialgrowthforexample,ifyoulookattheeconomicoutputofhumanity,youcanfitthatnicelyfitsonaneconomiccurve.Atleastthelasttwothousandyears.Afewblipsfortheromanempireandtheblackdeathbutthat’saboutit.Overallitisvery,very,stable.Thisisakindofpredictionagainstacertainpointintimewheretherulestotallychange.Ifitsjustaboutbeingexponential,sobeforetheBlackDeath,thefalloftheRomanEmpireandtheindustrialrevolution,didn’tactuallychangeit,whatdoesitactuallytaketochangethis2%growthacrossmillennia?Theproblemisthatyoumightarguewhyyoushouldn’tbelieveinthesingularity.Ithinkthatthemostinterestingoneistheintelligenceexplosion,andhonestlyIhavenoideawhetherthatispossibleornot.Ithinkit’saveryprofoundquestion.Anotherreallyimportantquestionisofcourse,howfastitwouldbe?Becausethattotallychangestherulesforwhetherwewanttobeverycarefulaboutit,orwewanttoembraceitandjusttryandrushtowardsit.SoIwouldsayexponential,yeah,unlesssomethingreallybadhappenswearegoingtocontinuouslyseeanexponentialgrowthforaverylongtime.Self-improvingtechnology?Ithinkthatthisisquitepossible,anditspossibleenoughthatweshouldbeveryseriousaboutmakingself-improvementtechnologiessafer.Rapidintelligenceexplosion,perhapsonechanceinfourorsomethinglikethat.Iamkindofhandwavinghere,wedon’tknowenoughtoputagoodboundonit.Thefunniestthingisthepredictionhorizon.Iactuallydon’tbelieveinthatverymuch,itsnotbecauseIthinkwecanpredictthingsthatarecrystalclearafterthesingularity,Ithinkitsbecauseweareparticularlybadatpredictingevennormalfutures.Ifyoulookattraditionalpredictionstheygenerallydon’tworkthatwell.Eveninsciencepeopleareonlygoodatpredictingwhattheyaregoodatpredicting.Ingeneralifyouareanexpertonsomethinglikenuclearreactors,peoplewillaskwhetherthatnuclearreactorwillhandlethattypeofearthquakeandsoon,theywillbeabletogiveagoodanswerbecausetheyareanexpert.However,ifsomebodyasksyou,sowhatarenuclearreactorsgoingtobelikeinfiftyyears?Yourpredictionwilltypicallybefairlyworthless,becauseyouareanexpertonnuclearreactors,youarenotanexpertonthefutureofnuclearreactorsandpeopletendtoassumethatifyouareanexpertonXyouarealsoanexpertonthefutureofX,whichismuchharder.Generallymakingpredictionsis
82
verytough.SoStaurtArmstrongandKajSotalahavedoneaverynicereviewofthepredictionsonartificialintelligencebetweenamateursandexpertsandtheygiveroughlythesamepredictions(https://intelligence.org/files/PredictingAI.pdf).Andtheydon’tchangeovertime.Predictionsweknowhavebeenwrong,orindistinguishablefromthepredictionswearedoingrightnow.Andtherearegoodreasonstotalkabout,yeahwealousyattalkingaboutAIintwentyyearsornot,wecan’tfigureoutotherthingsbetter.Theydiscussthisinthepaper,it’saverygoodoneactually.It’sworthreading,becauseit’saniceoverviewofnotonlyweirdpredictions,butalsoquestionsonexpertisewhichinthemselvesaresuperusefulwhenyoutryandbecomeanexpertinsomething.Sothecoolthingis,isthatifyouhaveasuperintelligencearound,yeah,youcan’tpredicthowitsgoingtosolveitsproblems,butyoucanpredictthatitwillgetwhatitwants.NickBostrom,inhisbook,usedthisanalogywhereifyouplaychessagainstacomputeryoucannotactuallyfigureoutwhatmovesitisgoingtodo,butyoucanbeprettyconfidentthatitsgoingtobeatyou.Therearesomethingsthatweactuallyknowprettywellabouthowthesingularitywillwork.Weknowthatthelawofenergyconservationisunlikelytodisappear,soyouaregoingtobeabletosaysomethingsbasedonthermodynamics,forexamplewhatkindofinformationprocessingisgoingon.Okay,sotakingastepbackthen,beforeweactuallyreachasingularity,one
oftheonesyouhavepointedout,whatdoyouseeassomeofthemajor
roadblocksthatcouldhaltourprogressgoingtowardsthesingularity?
Thefirstandmostimportantoneisexistentialrisk,sothereisa1%chanceayearofanuclearwar,roughlyspeaking,youcancalculatethisindifferentwaysandsomepeoplegiveaslightlydifferentestimate.ThisismyfavouriteonewhichiskindofbasedonBaysianpriorandtherebeing70yearsofnowarandsoon.Andyouhaveotherscarytechnologiescomingup,likesyntheticbiology,whichrightnowisprettyharmless,butitisnottoohardtocomeupwithnaughtyusesthatmightbequitedangerous.We’regoingtogetmoreandmoredangeroustechnologiessowemightjustwipeourselvesoutbeforewegettothesingularity.Indeedthiswasthebaseofthemotivationformanypeoplewhowantedthesingularity.IntheninetiesIrememberElliotkindofstorminginthe….Mailinglistsayingweneedasingularitynowasthingsaresoriskyandhorribleintheworldandweneedtospeedthingsup.Lateronherealisedthatperhapswedon’tneedtospeedthingsupifwecan’tmakeasafesingularity.That’sthefirstgroup.Anotherthingofcourseisthatwemightbefundamentallywrongonquestionsofintelligenceandgrowthandprogress.Whenweactuallystopandthinkaboutit,whatisintelligence?Whatisgrowth?Whatisprogress,philosophically?Theseareopentargets,thesearereallymessyconceptsandwemightbewrongaboutthese.YouhavesomepeoplelikePeterThielandGaryKasparovwhoareactuallyworriedthatwearehavingstagnationinsteadofacceleratingprogressandthefactthattheycankindofmeanthesamething,andbeinthesameroomasKurzweilwhosaysthateverythingisgoingexponentiallyisquiteinteresting.Becausethedataisabitambiguous,itisnotentirelyclear.WearegettingmoreandmorethingsinsomedomainsbutyoumightarguethatwearegettingappsandTwitterinsteadofcarsandthecomputer.
83
Dependingonwhichcampyouareinthenitseithergoingtobecultural
problemsortechnologicalproblems.SoPeterThielisinacampwhere
perhapsitstechnologicalproblemsandthenthere’sanothercampwhere
thereisariskofnuclearwarandthenthisisculturalproblems.Itseems
very,verysplit.
Theriskissueisobjective,thecrashdoesn’thavetobetheendoftheworld,asmallnuclearwarmaywipeoutmuchoftheinternetandthenwejustneedtospendtwentyyearsre-buildingcivilisation.Thatmightdelayusquiteabit.ThenofcoursewemightbetotallywrongaboutthingslikeAI,Ithinkthatthisislesslikelythatwedon’tgetthesingularity,simplybecausetherearealotofwayswecouldgetsomethingthatissingularitylike.ThosedifferentdefinitionsImentionedwasabouthalfofmylistandthereareotheronesonthelisttoo,somereallyweird.Itmightturnoutthatinahundredyearstimewearekindoflaughingandlookingbackatthetalkofthesingularity,likeVictoriansreallyworryingaboutthelowerclasses,outbreedingtheupperclassesandspreadingbadgenes.Buttheydidn’treallyunderstandgeneticsorsociologyandhowculturewillchange.Sotheothersideofthemeta-systemtransitionwehavethecollectivegroupintelligence.Thenwewillunderstandthingssomuchbetter.Butyouhighlightalotofproblemsinyourchapter(inanticipating2025)aboutgroupcognition.
Butsupposeyousolvedsomeofthesethings?Andyoumadeiteasiertoco-ordinatelargegroups.Inthatcaseyoumayfindveryempoweredgroups.IntheWestwedolargelythinkofaninternalizedfuture,technologyisempoweringusindividually.Ifyoulookatmylaptopandmysmartphonearekindofgivingmealotofpower.PreviouslyIwouldhaveneededalotofotherpeopletodothis.Icanharnessthepowerofothersbutitisformyindividualaims.Butsupposewedidhaveareallygoodgroupsystemthatbelongstopoliticalparties,associationsandfamilies.MaybethefutureistheBorg.Almostlikeahivemindofhumanity.
Thereisaprettylousy,butinterestingscience-fictionnovelcalledEarthwebbyMarkStiegler(perhaps),whereinthefuturepeopleareusingtheseinformationmarketstotryandmakegoodguessesforstrategiesandsolutions.SobasicallythisisarealideadevelopedbyRobinHansen,thisisnovelforhumanityasawhole.Whenitisthreatenedbysomealienforce,wellyouhaveseveralbillionpeopletryingtosolveproblems.Theastronautsontheboardingmissionhavegotbillionsofmindstryingtofigurethingsoutforthem,sotheyarekindofactuatorsfortheplanetaryconsciousnessinasense.Acceptthattheconsciousnessisdoneusingcomputersandmarkets.Almostthentherecanbeapossibilitywheregovernmentsevolveinto
somethingcompletelynewinawayforsmarterpolicymaking.
Tosomeextentweseetheemergencealmostnominalwhereindividualswouldn’t.Andinsomecasesthiscanbeseenasratherbad.Butwemightthenhaveanoptimisticfuturewherewecanfigureoutthattheremightbegoodwaysofdoingthiswheretheremightbegovernmentsthatkindofemergentlytryand
84
figureoutwhattheyoughttobedoingandwhatthevotersreallywantandforthemtodothisproactively.Doyouthinkgovernmentsarepreparedforthatchange?
No,theyarenotatall.Idon’tthinkanyoneispreparedforit.Thethingisthatmanygovernmentsbelievethey’realreadydoingthisandtheyarekindofwrongaboutit.Andthatself-delusionisfuellingalotofthefailuresofgovernment.Doyouseealotofdemandsfromcitizensforthesenewtypesofpolicy
making?
Theproblemis,mostcitizensdon’twanttogetinvolvedinpolicymaking,becausetheyhaveakindofrationalignorance.Youwanttospendyourtimelivingyourlife,notreallygettinginvolvedinpolicymaking.Unlessyouhappentolikeitalotandthinkit’sagreatcareerchoice.Mostpeoplewouldlikebetterpolicy,buttheygenerallyregardbetterassomethingthatbenefitstheminsomekindofvaguesense,forexample,theyknowtheywantsomekindofsmartpolicybuttheydon’tnecessarilyknowwhatitis.Itisprettyobviousthatwedon’twantastupidevilpolicy.Sothereisnotastrongpushforit.Oncepeoplefigureoutagoodwayofcoordinatingpeople,itmightshowupinacompany,oranonlineassociation,theymightbecomeverypowerful,andthenofcourserelativelyquicklygovernmentsmightwanttoadoptthat.Butitmightbehardtothenputthatintohowyouwouldrunastate.Itmightbeeasiertoputthatintohowyourunagovernmentagency,theremightbesuperintelligentagenciesbutyoustillhavethesamestupidstatepretendingtorunthem.Soit’snotonlyaboutco-ordinationbutalsoabouttheintelligenceand
incentivetocoordinatepeople.
Yesexactly.Regardingtherelevantdrivingforcesgoingtowardsthesingularity.Doyou
thinkthesewillbedrivenbypeopleinuniversity,suchasyourself
developingtechnologies?Fromconsumersdemandingnewtechnologies?
Fromgovernments?Wheredoyouseethesemaindrivingforcescoming
from?
AlotofthiscomesdowntowhydowehaveMoore’slawincomputing.Itisbecauseconsumerswantbettercomputersandtheyrewardthosewhoproducethem.Asyougetcheapercomputersyoualsofindnewusessothevaluegoesupandsoon.Yougetthisself-reinforcingloopbetweentheconsumersandproduces.Nowinmanycasesthetechnologiesaren’tnecessaryinmakingasingularity,theymightjustworklikethat.Ifyoucanautomatesomethingyouwillhavevariousconsumers,inthiscasecompaniesthatwantthisautomation.Sotheywillmaketheproducers,thesemightberesearchgroups,orothercompaniestomakethem.Thenyouhavethetrickypart,andthisbitisideas.OneofthereasonsmanypeopleworkonAIisjustbecauseitscoolandfascinatingandtheywanttosolvedeepproblems.That’snotreallyapull,that’sapush.Theyaretryingtocomeupwithgoodideasandthenspreadthemintheworld.Thatisveryunpredictable.YoucanpredictMoore’slawfairlywellbecauseitsalotofsmallthingsaddingontopofeachother.Andyougetafairlycontinuousgrowth.
85
Butinthecaseofideas,yougetjumps.Whenanewalgorithmshowsupthecomplexityofdoingsomethingcangodown,waydown.ThinkaboutthedifferencebetweendoingaFouriertransformer,fromtheobviousway,ofdoingafasttransformer.Inoncaseittakesnsquaredtimes,nowyoucandoitinnlogntime.That’sanenormousdifference.Forexample,thedatacompressionweareusinghereforthevisualandsound,thatcouldn’tbepossiblebeforethat.Thequestionisthough,canyoupredictthatyoucanmakesuchonalgorithm?Nonotreally.LookingbackitturnsoutthatGuassianprobablyworkedoutthefastforwardtransformation,inthe1700sbuthehasalwaysfiguredsomethingoutitsjustthatwedon’trecogniseitinhismessynotesuntilwehaveworkeditoutourselves.Recentlytherewasasmallimprovementinthefastforwardtransform,butIdon’tthinkitissignificantenoughtoreallychangestuff.Thereareprobablysometheoremstellinguswhattheupperlimitishere.Butintheotherdomainswedon’tknowthelimit.Sothestudyofcompetitionandcomplexity,Idon’tknowhowmuchofthatyouhavebeenstudying?Alittlebit,Ihavebeengoingintoit.
Ah,onpaperitssoundsawesome.Youhavepproblemsandyouhavenpcompleteproblemsthataresuperhardandyougetscaredbythetravellingsalesmanproblem.Andyouknowyoucannotdothatthatfast.ButifyouareactuallyacompanylikeFedExandwanttosolveaproblemlikethetravellingsalesmanproblem,youhavetoapproximateit.Youdon’tneedtheglobaloptimum.Youjustneedsomethingthatisclosetoit.Anditturnsoutthattheapproximationalgorithmsarefast,efficientandgetyouveryclosetooptimumsolutions.Thereisabeautifultheoreticalthingaboutthestructureofproblems,itsactuallyirrelevanttoFedExandthepeoplesolvingtheseproblems.SotheSatssoversthatsolvedthesatisfyingprobabilityproblemout,arebynowridiculouslygood.Soalotoftheproblemsthatyoureadinthetextbookthatkindofsaythatthisisimpossibletosolve,butinpracticeyoujustre-formulatesomeofthesatisfiersandsatisfactionyoujustsolvetheminlognlogntime.Soamajorproblemwillbetheconsumerfeedbackcycleandthedriveto
makethingbetterwithtechnology.
Yes,andoncesomethingisbetteritsveryrareyougobacktosomethingthatislessefficient,unlessyoucangobacktosomespecialvalue.Peoplelikehandcraftedthingsbecausetheyarerare.Theyhavesomesignallingvalue.Itsnotlikeyouwantyourtea-cuptobehandcraftedjustbecauseitshandcrafted,veryfewpeoplecareaboutthat,it’stheuniquenessthatreallymattersthatyoucansignalthat‘ohIhavegotnotamassproducedteacupbutaproperteacup,withahistory’.Butinmanydomainsyoudon’twantthat.Ofcourseyoudon’twantahand-craftedtoiletpaperunlessyouwanttoshowoffridiculouslyhowmuchwealthyouhaveansoon.Sowegenerallytryandsticktowhatisefficientbecausethenwecanuseotherresourcestobuymoreinterestingstuff.Includingthecustomisedstuffwecareabout.Likethesignallinghandcrafteditems.Soyoucanimaginehowyougetthispushtowardsefficiency,wheresomepeoplelikeJohnSmartandotherstalkaboutalittleblacksphereofjustcomputing,notevencommunicatingwiththeoutsideworldbecauseittakessolongwiththeslowlightspeed.Theyarejustallsittingtherebeingsuperfastandsuperintelligentanddoingwhateversuperintelligencesdo.
86
I’mmildlyscepticastowhethereveryonewillgointothislittleblackball.ButIthinktherewillbeastrongtendencytodoso.IamnotsureIwouldgoforitmyselfmindyou!Lastquestion,focusingon
Cyborgisation,humansbecomingcyborgswiththeaugmentationof
technologies,doyouseehumanitywantingtogodownthatroute,ordo
youseealotofconsumersdrawingalinewheretheysaythat’salinethata
don’twanttocross?Orperhapstheywillbeforcedtogoovertheline
throughpeerpressure?
IthinkthatoneofthemostinterestingenhancementpapersthatIhavereadistherecentSimmonspaper(http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=neuroethics_pubs)ontheinterestinusenhancingourselvesasafunctionasafundamentalfunctiontotheself.Itwaspublishedinamarketingjournal,whichisaninterestingsidestory,butbasicallytheyaskedstudentsaboutvarioustraitsandaskediftheywantedtotakeapilltoenhancethatparticulartrait.Andtheydemonstratedthatatraitthatpeopleregardedasfundamentaltothem,suchasempathyandkindness,peopledidn’twanttoenhance,whereasthingssuchasalertnessandmemory,wellthat’skindofusefulbutitsnotreallyme.There’saveryniceanti-correlationhere.Sopeoplewillwanttocyborgisestuffthatdoesn’tactuallychangetheiridentity.Therearesomepeoplethatwillalwaysbewillingtogofaroutanddoweirdstuff.Buttheyareaverysmallminority.Themainstreamaregoingtodostuffthattheythinkisuseful.However,what’susefulandnormaltendstoshiftovertime.Backinthelate70speoplewerekindofoutragedbytheideaoftest-tubebabiesandthenpeoplegotusedtoitandtodayarguingthattesttubebabieslacksolesorsomethingweird,that’skindofcrazy.That’swherepeoplesortofsaynonono,that’sweirdIdon’twanttotalktoyou.Wetendtoadaptquiteabitonceitsusedwellenough.Thoseenhancementpills,peoplewerealsoreadytorejectthemastheywerehappytosaythattheydon’texist.However,ifyoucouldgotoBootsandbuythem,manymorepeoplewouldbewillingtotakeitasnowitiskindofaconcretepartofreality.Thenofcoursethesocialpressuresdoexist.Ofcourseyouhaveaneconomicincentivetobeefficient.IfIwrotemyacademicpapersonparchment,usingaquill,insteadofusingawordprocessor,Iwouldnotdoaverygoodjob,andmybossanduniversitywouldsaythat’sstylishAndersbutit’snottherightwayofdoingit!WaitI’dratherusethephoneinsteadofpigeons.Notusingaphonetodaymeansthatyouarenotgoingtobeabletofunction.Soinasensemyoptionsaregettinglimitedherebecauseofsocietyforcingyoutousephonesandwordprocessors.However,ofcourseinthiscasetheimpositioniskindofokay.Itgetstroublesomewhenyoustarttochangewhoorwhatyouare.Itsonethingtohavesomeweirdworkflowtoyourjobandthenitisanotherthingifyouneedtotakeapilleverymorning.Andanotherthingifyouhavetohaveaninterfacegoingintoyourbrainthatdoessomethingwithyourconsciousness.Soperhapsasthesetechnologicaladvancementsincrease,sotowill
people’sunwillingnesstoadoptthem?Untiltheyareproventoacertain
level?
87
Wearehavingthisproblemwithriskaversioninsociety.Rightnow,wedon’treallywantstuffthatisatrisk.Whichistotallycrazy,aseverythingisatrisk.Wecan’tgetnewmedications,becausetherearealwayssomesideeffectsandsomerisktosomepeople.AndmanpeoplearereallyworriedaboutallowingkidsaccesstotechnologyX,thatmightdosomething,andweneedtodoanexperimentandseewhatourkidsaregrowingupinto.Theproblemhereisofcoursepeopleareusingriskasanexcusenottodostuff.Whilebeingpressuredbyefficiencyandotherforcesnottodothings.Peoplelovetotalkaboutbeautyideasandabout,howyes,weshouldn’tbeenforcingbeauty.Anywaythesesamepeoplewillgoandgetplasticsurgeryandthenlookdownonotherpeoplethatdon’tfittheirsocialcircle’sviewofbeauty.Wehavethisproblemofwhereweareveryhypocriticalandrathermessedupinourpriorities.Soriskaversionisaverykeyaspectlookingforwardtothefuture.
Yes,andthatiswhatisalsoadriverforquitealotofthings.Ifyouareworriedabouttheworld,youneedmoresensorstomeasurethestateandyouneedmoreprocessingtounderstandwhatthosesensorsaredoing.ThefactthattheNSAandeveryotherintelligenceservicesarejustsuckingupdata,partofthatisofcoursethattheykindofwanttofeelthattheyareincontrolasthereisjustsomuchgoingon.AndthentheyneedAItosiftthroughthedatatotryandfindoutwhetherthisconversationissomethingparticularlysinisterorshoulditbefocussingonsomethingelse.Andtheproblemisthatthisisspreadingtomanydomains.Youareprobablygoingtohavemoreandmoreagentsandotherstuffhelpingustohandleinformationstress,andintheprocessfeedingittosomeextent.Soriskaversionworksbothwaysthen,onequallevels?
Yes.
88
11.5.0NICKPRICEINTERVIEWTRANSCRIPT1stApril2015
Alex(interviewer)=boldtext
Nick=normalweightedtextRegardingKurzweilstheoryofthetechnologicalsingularitydoyouthink
thathumanitywilleverreachthatstage?
Youmeanupliftintotechnologyyoumean?Yessotheaugmentationofhumanitywithmachinesthatwillthenleadtoa
fasterrateoftechnologicaladvancementthathasneverbeenseenbefore.
Meaninghumanitywillneverbethesameagain.Doyouthinkthat’sa
possibility?
Iquestionitbecauseofthewayweunderstandthehumanbrain,themindandhowconsciousnessishighlylimited.Surewecanextrapolateandcreatetechnology,IhavejustwrittenaboutablogpostinwhichIammorefascinatedin,thatisconcernedwithwheresyntheticbiologywilltakeus.Asopposedtosiliconbasedtechnology.What’syourdefinitionofsyntheticbiology?
Sothat’swhereyouareusingorganicmaterial,thatisselfformingandgrowsbyitselfthatcoulddevelopitsownlogicfromitsenvironmentit’splacedin.Howwillthatconsciousnessdevelopandhowwillthatdiffertohumanconsciousness?Soformetheinterestingdiscussionisabouthowwecanhavecompletelyalienintelligencethathasdevelopedinitsownnon-humanform,whichwillhaveitsownlogicandconsciousnessthatisverydifferenttohumans.Transplantingthefrailtiesofthehumanexperienceintoavesselwill,howwillthatwork?Willthetransplantationofhumanlife;ofhumanconsciousnessisthatthennolongerhuman?Havewethenreallyevolvedintosomethingdifferent,isthatacompletelydifferentlifeform?Sodoyouthinkthenthatthesameargumentcanbeappliedwithsynthetic
biologydevelopingitsownconsciousnessrelatingthesametoAI?
Yeah–ifanorganicform,andthat’stheinterestingthingforme,isanartificialintelligencesynonymouswithsiliconbasedthinking?Itisinterestingtothinkhowwillthatdifferwithsyntheticbiology.Willtheefficienciesofthehumanbrainandstructure,willtherebedifferentoptimalformsofintelligencehousingthatwillbedevelopedthroughnon-biologicalmeans.Theremightbeaninterconnectedconsciousness,theremightbeanetwork.Butwilltheyworkinadifferentway?Soifwethinkaboutemergentintelligencefrombehavioursorlittlethings,fromtheantcolonyandasuperanttypeformofconsciousnesshasitsownpatternofevolution.Thereisagreaterlevelofhumaninteractionthatsitsabovethatofhumanbehaviour,thinkingandsofor.Spreadingacrosstheplanetandthenoutsidetheplanet.Howwillthatsyntheticbiologyorintelligencebehavedifferently?Syntheticbiologyisonetechnology…
89
Ithinkwehavecalleditatechnologybutit’sinteresting.Ifyouthinkthattechnologyisanextensionofhumantoolmaking,biologyhasalifeofitsown.Wecancontrolhowitstartsoff,buthowitwillevolveandinteractwithitsenvironmentcanbeverydifferent.AndIthinkthatistheinterestingthingwithtechnologyisthatnowweareconnectingsensorsandactuatorstocreateitsownlogicalfeedbackloopsandsoforth.Youquestionthiswholepropositionofasingularitybywhatever
definition?
Ithinkitsupfordebate.Youknow,itsonefuture.It’satechnologicalfuture.Theveryeventwemetat(thefutureofworkevent)thatwasraisingsomeveryinterestingquestionsaboutwhatitmeanstobeahuman.Ifourhumanexperienceistosurviveandinteractwithourenvironmentandthereissomenaturalsatisfactionloopsinthere,asidefromsatisfyingyourneedsandthenreproducingandsocialisingandsoon,ifsomeofthosepremisesaresuddenlychallenged,andwecan’tsatisfythoseneedswheresomeoneputstheeffortandtheydon’tgetareturnonthateffort,perhapssomeofthosecorevalueswillneedtoberevisited.Soonthetranshumanloopwestarttolookatstructuresofeffortandrewardsassatisfiersperhapsbecomeirrelevantasourconsciousnessoperatesonadifferentrewardlevel.Sowhatisthereward?Isitmovingoutintothesolarsystemandbeyond?AndIthinkthatissomeoftheinterestingthingswhereArtificialIntelligenceismorelikelytobethehumanrepresentativeinreachingoutbeyondtheplanetinsteadofthehumanvesselorbody.Perhapsthen,ifwedomanagetogetoutsideofoursolarsystemitwon’tbe
ahumanbodyitwillbemorelikeahumanmind?
Absolutely,ifyoulookattheseponderingsaboutthepseudoMarsmissionandsoforth,alotoftherestraintsoninterplanetarytravelarebasedonthehuman,andtransportingthehumanbodywithsocialproblemsandpsychologicalproblems,andsoonandsoforth.Whycan’tthatbeaself-enhancing,self-sustainingentity?Forthepurposesofexplorationthiscanleadtoexpeditionsundertheocean.Ithinktheextensionofthehumanrace,byproxyofartificialintelligenceisaninterestingprospect.Andthatisquitelikely.However,Iguesstherewouldbeagreatdealofoppositiontodoingthat.
Wherewereallyhavetoquestionhumanityintermsofwhatweshoulddo
andthenwhatAIshoulddoaswell.
Itsalsointerestingwhereifyouhaveanartificialintelligencethatisdoingtheexplorationbecausetheycouldbeculturallyandsocietallyagnostic.OtherthanhavingnationscompetingtherewillbecollaborationwhereanentityisallowedtorepresenthumanityinsteadofjustBritain,China,America,soonasoforth.Becausetheywouldn’tnecessarilybecarryingculturalbaggage.Theywouldbesomewhatpassiveintheirculture.Wellthat’sfascinatingIhadneverreallythoughtaboutthat.
Yeahitis.ThereisthatobservationwheretheEastseesrobotsinapositivewayinthemediaandtheWestseesthemasthreats,whereasinfactrobotscanbeagreatenablerforsociety.
90
Exactly,thatisdefinitelyshowninthecontrastingelementsofJapanese
AnimeandHollywoodfilms.
It’sthefear.AndIthinkthatcomesbacktoyourthinkingaboutTranshumanismandthehumanvaluesandwhatareyouandwhatdoyouloosewhenyoutransferintoaformthatdoesnothavealotofthedrivingforcesbehinditthatforcesyoutobehuman?IthinkthatsomeoftheproblemsthatHawkingandothershavestartedtovoiceistheproblemoftheintelligencesthatwecreate,willtheystillvaluehumansoraretheystilllikeanimpedimentintermsofwhattheydeemsuccess.Whichmightbeexploration.Iguessthereisanotheranglehere,Ialwaystryandlookatitfromthehumanangle.Andthatistheculturalterrainofbeliefsystemsaswell,howisthatrepresented?Ifyoulookatreligion,andyoucandothisinmanydifferentways,andsomeofthewaysarethatitisatoolofcollaborationwhereyoutryanddobasicthingstogetherwithoutkillingeachother.Andasidefromthespiritualaspectsofit,whichmightbetryingtostretchforthingsthatwedon’tknow,ortryingtostretchforgreatermeaningtolifewhilstsurviving,sohowmightthoseberepresentedinartificialintelligences?Aretheyjustdiscarded?Thenweareonlyrepresentingoneview,thetechnocentricview,whereeverythinghasadatapoint,andnoteverythingcanbemeasuredyet.Soit’sthatabilitytoreachbeyondtodayandthinkindifferentways.Creativityincontrivedintelligenceissomethingwereallyneedtothinkabout.Whatdoyoumeanbycontrivedintelligence?
Ithinkmypointwasthattheintelligencewecreateourselvesarebasedonaconceitthatwearecreatinganotherlevelofperfection,orthattheyarecontrivedonourlimitedunderstandingoftheworld.Ofcourse,anotherintelligencecouldcreateandseetheworldcompletely
differently.
Whichmakesmeinterestedinmentaldisordersasthesepeopledoseetheworlddifferently.Oftentherecanbetruthsinthewaythattheyseethingsbecausetheydon’thavethesamesocietalfilterthatotherpeopledo.Tomethatisinteresting.Thewholeideaofexperimentationisinterestingherebecausecouldwecreateanimperfectintelligencetoseewhatwouldhappentothem.Ihadn’tthoughtaboutthat,theethicaldilemmasbehindthatwouldbevery
interestingtodebate.
Andalsowhenaretheydeemedalive.Ifyoujustturnsomethingoffatwhatpointaretheydeemedtobeabeingintheirownright?AndAIisinterestingtomeintermsofbusiness,ifonabasiclevel,ifanorganisationcreatesanartificialintelligence,isitanassetthatcanbeboughtorsold?Wetalkedalotaboutartificialintelligenceandperhapsalotofstuff
happeningwiththemindandconsciousness,perhapstakingastepback
towardsbodyenhancement.Towardshumansbecomingcyborgs.Going
alongthispath,whatmajorroadblocksthathumansormorewidely
consumerswillbeaversetoadopting?
91
Ithinkthatoneofthethingsthatisinterestingishowsportisgoingtocopewithphysicalaugmentationanddrugaugmentation.Andeventrainingenhancementliketakingpeopletotraininhighaltitudesforexample.Howdoeselitisminsportmakeitlessattractivetopeopleasapasttime?IguessabarrierIamthinkingaboutthereishowtomakepeoplecareifpeoplefeelthatwestarttosplitsocietywheresomepeoplefeelwehaveaccesstosomethingsandsomepeopledon’t.Soratherthanbeingatechnologicallimiter,thesocietalacceptanceofmaybebeingmoredivisivetousthanmoreconnective.Iguessinsport,becauseithastheconceptoffairnessbuiltintoit.
Andalsobecauseitisaglobalthingwiththerebeingagreatdealofparticipationbetweenpeople.Itisaneutralgroundwherenationswithveryconflictingviewsareencouragedtocompetein.Alsoit’sachannelforsocietytohaveahealthycompetitionasopposedtotribalismorgangsvtribalismthroughsport.Sotheargumentsaroundthisthenwillonlyincreaseastheenhancements
increaseintheireffectiveness?
Itwillbeinterestingtoseethefirstpersonwhohasanablelimbtakenoffbecausethereisabio-mechanicalonethatcangivethembetterperformance.Insteadofsupplementingadisabilitytheyuseitforenhancement.Wherethenwillthatend?Andalsothereisthatkindofmaturity.Itsbitliketattoos.Whenareyoulegallyallowedtohaveatattoomade?Orearspierced,orsomesortofbodymodificationmade?Byacertainagebecauseitisfeltthatyouarenotabletomakethedecisionyourselfbeforeacertainage.That’sthesamewithbodyaugmentation,willtherebeagelimitsthatyougothrough?It’sinterestingtolookattheareaofgendertransitionandhowpeoplegothroughthatprocess.Howsocietyputsthemonapathwaythatmakesthemhavetimetothinkaboutitandimplementit.Willtherebesimilarpathsforaugmentation?Itislikepeoplewhodoextremebodypiercingsorextremetattoostheyfindthemselvesostracizedfromsocietyandsosocietyhastohelpthemre-integrate.Therightsofpeopletodothisalsowilldependonfinancialabilities,soatwhatpointwillhumanaugmentationbecomearight?Oraspartofthehealthcaresystem?Ofcourseenhancementalsogoesbeyondthephysicaltothingslikeorganenhancementsowithissuesofobesity,couldthingslikethatbeovercomewithenhancingpartsofourinternalprocesses.Goingbacktothequestionofsport.Iguessthedebatewillbehadinthe
sportingarenafirst,arerelevantpeopleaskingquestionsnowasto
whetherweshouldallowthis?Oraretheycompletelyunpreparedforwhat
technologywillhavetoofferinthecomingyears?
Idon’tknowiftheythinkahead.Wedohavethisproblemofshort-termismwherepeopletendtoreacttothingsinsteadoftakingastrategicorlongviewofthings.Doyouthinkthathumanityingeneralispreparedfortheseeverincreasing
changes?
92
No,butIdon’tthinkwehaveeverbeenprepared.Ithinkthereisalwaysadialoguebetweenthenewtechnology,oranewideacomingintotermandgoingintothewildandthenfindingouthowsocietymouldsaroundittoseehowtheideaisintegrated.Andperhapssomeoftheplacestolookatthatareperhapsthemanufacturing.Theissueswehavewithmanufactureddrugs.Recreationaldrugsseemtobebeingmadefasterthanwecanlegislateagainst.Andsoit’sinterestingtoseehowsocietydealswiththat.Youlookatedgecasesinthecurrentworldwhereinnovationoutstripsregulation.Likee-cigarettesthesemightseemlikeasmallexample,butitisinterestingtoseehowregulationhasn’tcaughtupwiththee-cigarettes.Youhavesmallmanufacturerswhohavebeenaheadofthegame.It’sinterestingtolookforedgecaseswheresocietytriestolookforedgecasesandtechnologytriestoworkoutwhatitisneededtodo.Perhapskeybusinessopportunitiesmovingforwardthenwouldbegetting
productsouttherebeforeregulationhasbecomeapossibility.
23andMeranintosimilarproblemshere,wherethat’swheretheyoutstrippedtheabilityofregulationtopredicatewhattheyweredoing.Oratleastquestionwhattheyweredoingoranalysewhattheyweredoing.Ithinktherewillbeinterestingcaseswhereinnovationdoesoutstripregulationandcaseswhereweareworkingwiththingsthatmightbringintheideaofacentralisedgovernmentandcentralisedcontrol.Andarepeopleinaplacetomaketheirownself-judgement.AndIthinkthisisinterestinginperhapsEuropewherepeoplehaveperhapshandedalotoftrustovertoacentralisedauthority.Wherethatauthorityisn’tabletoactontheirbehalf.Aretheydoinganythingtotrainpeopletobecomemoreself-sufficient?Asalastquestionrelatingtogovernments,howdoyouseethefutureof
policymakingchanging,withthesenewtechnologiesandourabilityto
communicateonaglobalscalenow?
Ithinkthattheproblemofregulationisinteresting.Sowhenyouaregoingtomovefromperhapshardimplausiblepolicy,toperhapsmoremanifestosofintent.Whichinanoddwaybringsusbacktospiritualityandsystemsthathavesomecoolpremisesattheirheart.Soopposedtousgettingusedtolookingupthroughscreensandscreensofregulationthatcanchangeonaveryfastbasis,whetherwehavesomeverystrongsocialtenanciesthatwecirculatearound.Asaniceclosingpointthenforustoworkoutthefutureofpolicymaking
wealsothenneedtoworkoutthespiritualitybehinditaswell.
Itsnotnecessarilythespirituality,it’stheideathatsimplerulescreateagreatdealofdiversitybutsimplerulesalsoallowsimplethingstooperateandsucceed.Soforexample;ChristianityhastheTenCommandments,tensimplerules,buttheyallowagreatdealofdiversityaroundthemandarequiteunderstandable.BruceMau’sDesignManifestooncreativityforexamplehassomeinterestingthingsandpremisesoutthereandthenhowdoesthedecisionsthatIammakingrelatetothatcorepremise.Aswetalkaboutallthediverseculturesaroundtheworldtherearesomecoretenantsinthat,andiftheyareapartthatisaroundcollaborationyoumaybeabletocreatesomesimplerules,orsomesimpleguidancepointsthathelpspeoplemakedecisionsontheirownwithouthavingtoconstantlyrefertolotsandlotsofregulation.
93
11.6.0PETERMORGANINTERVIEWTRANSCRIPT2ndApril2015
Alex(interviewer)=boldtext
Peter=normalweightedtextRegardingKurzweil’stechnologicalsingularity,wherehumanswillinfuse
ourselveswithmachinesandthengoonareallyfastexponentialgrowthof
technologicaladvancement,doyouthinkthathumanitywilleverreach
thatstage?
Yeah,IamtotallywithKurzweil.Noteveryoneis,butIam.WhyareyoutotallywithKurzweilthen?
Ikindofcametotheconclusionindependentlyactually,andthenIreadhim,andthenIrealisedIamnottheonlycrazypersonontheplanetthen.Itisabitofanobrainer,IhaveaPhysicsbackground,aPhDintheoreticalphysics,soyouknowaskingbigquestionsanddeepquestionsabouttheuniverse,basedonwherewearegoingispartandparcelofthewayIthink.NowKurzweiliscomingatitfromaslightlydifferentanglewithartificialintelligenceandacomputerscientistangle,whichheisanincrediblygiftedgeniusatwhenitcomestothissortofthing,andIamcomingatitfromanatomsandcosmologyangle.Sowhyisitobvioustome?Well,becauseattheendofthedayitsaboutevolution,soifyoubelieveinthebigbangtheuniverseis14billionyearsoldorsomethinglikethatandherewearewithhumansbeingsonthisplanetcalledEarthandtherearealotofplanetsinourgalaxyandthentherearealotofgalaxiesinouruniverse.Idon’tbelievewearetheonlyintelligentlife,statistically,thenifthatisthecase,thenwherearewegoing?Wehaveonlyeverevolvedtobecomemoreandmoreintelligentso,ifthereareotherplanetsthenitisprettylikelythatthereismoreintelligentlifethanusintheuniverse.Itwouldbeincrediblyself-centredtothinkweweretheonlyintelligentlife,Idon’tknowasascientist,it’satheory,butthehypothesisthatIhaveisthattheuniverseisteemingwithlife.Sohowfarareweawayfromthesingularity?Well,thatiswhereKurzweilisprettycool.Hesays2029,whichisonlyfourteenyearsawaywecouldbelivinginaveryuniquetimewhichIfindincrediblyexciting.Howdidyouarriveatthisconclusionfromaphysicsbackgroundthen?
Icheatedalittlebit,IreadtheSingularityIsNear,IreadHowToCreateAMind,MichioKakuTheFutureOfTheMind,Ireadquiteafewtranshumanistbooks,OurFinalInventionbyJamesBarrat,youmayhaveseenthatbook?SoIguess,thesingularityitselfasawordwascoinedbyKurzweil,soIcannotclaimthat.Butultimatelyweareonlylimitedbythenumberofatomsintheuniverseasaphysicist,soourbrainis3poundsandislimitedbyourskullandassoonasyoumakeitbiggerthanthatyoucangowaybeyondourintelligence.Thebrainenergyratenowisabout20Wattsandit’sacomputerthatcannotbematchedbyasupercomputerthatusesGigaWatts(ofenergy),soit’sveryefficientbutit’shad14billionyearstogethere.Itsquiteremarkabletothinkthatin14yearswithMoore’slawandtheexponentialthatKurzweilgoesonabout,thateverytwoyearswewillhaveadoublingincapacity,wemaybeabletobringthattothe
94
pointwhereartificialintelligenceisasgoodasahumanlevelintelligencethenafterthatit’safactoroftwoeverytwoyearssoitkeepsadvancingexponentially.Thethingaboutthesingularity,andthisiswhatyouprobablyknow,isthatnobodyreallyknowswhathappensatthatpoint,sowereallydon’tknow,andthat’swhyitiscalledasingularity,becauseinphysicsthesingularityhasadifferentdefinitionwhereagravitationalfieldissostrongthatnothingcanescape,it’saverynicewayofsayingitincomputerscience,soatthatpointwedonotknowwhatisbeyondit.Onahumanwidescale,whatdoyouseeassomemajorpotentialroad
blocksthatcouldstophumanitygettingtothesingularity?
Barringsomethinglikeanucleardisasterorsomeinsaneterroristact,itsjustscience,progress,itsinevitableandthereisnothinganyonecandoaboutit.Thekeydrivingforcesthentowardsatechnologicaladvancement,will
simplybetechnologyitselfanditsnaturalprogression?
Andcuriosityinfact.Sopartofintelligenceandthereasoningwehavegottowhereweareisthatcuriosityisapartofintelligence,it’sadrivingforce,aninnatedrivingforceinallofthatmakesuswanttotravel,makesuswanttokindofaskwhyistheskyblue?Whatarethestarsmadeof?Andthatjustdrivesus.That’sjustakindofforceofnature,whichwillkeepgoingandisunstoppable.Doyouthinkthatcuriosityisincreasingaswellaswegoon?Orisitatthe
sameleveljustwithexpoundingaffects?
That’sagreatquestion,Ihadneverthoughtofitthatway.IguesswhatIamtryingtogetatisaswedevelopmoretechnologyandwe
seemorepossibilities,dowethengetmorecuriousandtryandfigure
thingsout?
It’sprobablyafunctionofintelligenceIguess,yes.Itmaystayfairlysimilar,buttherearesevenbillionpeopleontheplanetrightnow,peoplearegettingliftedoutofpoverty,morepeoplearegoingintoeducation,itsonlygoingtoincreasethenumberofpeopleworkinginscienceandrelatedtechnologyfields.Ofcourse,soIguesswithmorehighlyskilledjobsandhighlyskilled
intelligencethiswillthenleadtomoretechnologicalbreakthroughs.Isthat
whatyouaretryingtosayaswell?
Yeah,therewasatimewheresciencewasanelitekindofthing,mostpeoplewereforcedtoworkinmeniallabour,onfarms,downcoalminesetc.,forgetaboutthirdworldcountriesright,however,nowadaysIndia,Chinaarekindofbeingliftedupwithtechnology.BillGatesistryingtosayby2030let’sendpoverty.Whenhesaysstuffitsusuallyprettymeaningful.SothesepeoplelikeKurzweilandBillGates,ElonMuskandStevenHawking,whoarebigthinkers,whentheysaystuff,andtheyareallsortofsayingthesamethingactually,wedoneedtotakenotice.Itreallydoesaddweight.Youmentionedthatitisimpossibletoseepastthesingularity,butdoyou
thinkthatgovernmentsarepreparedenoughforwhatispotentiallyafter
thesingularity?
95
No,completelynot!Whoisprepared?Wellnotmanypeople.Youareinaverygoodpositionbecauseyouarestudyingit;themanonthestreetknowsnothingaboutit,itskindoffrighteningactually.SounfortunatelyGovernmentsarenotthinkingabouttheseproblemsatall
then?
Welltherearetwoissues,oneisknowingaboutitandbeingawareofitandthesecondoneissolvingit.TheUK’schiefscientificofficerhaswrittena200pagereportandchaptertenisallaboutthesingularitysothe[UKgovernment]areactuallythinkingaboutthis.TheBritishgovernmentdoestendtobeslightlyaheadoftherestoftheworld.Idon’tknowwhatothergovernmentsaredoingmindyou,Ireadthisanditisthereinblackandwhite,andMPswillbereadingthisandkindofscratchingthebackoftheirheads.AtleastthegovernmentareawareofitIguess;Iwilldefinitelygivethata
read.Doyouknowhowthechiefscienceofficercameacrossthe
technologicalsingularity?
Ithinkaguylikethatisappointedbecauseheisactuallyaveryhighlyregardedscientist,sohewouldknowpeopleinthatfield.SopeoplelikethefutureofhumanityinstitutewithNickBostrom,CSERatCambridge,thechiefscienceofficer’sjobistoliaisewiththosekindsofinstitutionsandheisthegovernmentmaninthemiddle.Hisreportisactuallyquitewellwritten.Isthereanythingelseinthisfieldthatyouthinkisreallyimportantthatwe
haven’ttalkedaboutyet?
Thequestioniswhattodoaboutit?SotheonusisontheFutureofHumanityInstituteatOxford,CSERatCambridge,theFLIinMITandtheMIRIguysinBerkeley.Thosefourinstitutionsinparticulararedevoted,andhavebeensetupespecially,andElonMuskhasjustdonated10milliondollarstotheFLIsotheyareactuallytryingtoanswerthatquestion.Andthesearesomeofthebiggestthinkersintheworld.Therearephysicists,philosophersandAIpeople.GoogleDeepMindhavejustsetupanethicscommitteewithLarryPageandeverybodysayingthingslikewearedevelopingthesetechnologiesandwemightbeoneofthefirstcompaniestodothis,sowhatifwearetheguysthatdoit?Sotheyhavesetupanethicscommittee,andtheyhavenottoldanyonewhoisactuallyonit,whichiskindofscary,thenyouhavegottothink,ifGooglearedoingthissortofstuffandtakingitthatseriously,imaginewhattheMOD,DARPAandChinaandRussiaaredoing.Webasicallygettotheconclusionwhereitisaracetoseewhocangettherefirst.Becauseassoonasyougethumanlevelintelligence,orabove,youhavesolvedalotofproblems.Alotofscienceproblems,alotofpoliticalproblemsandalotofeconomicproblems.Therearetwosides:onethatgoes,wellthisisgoingtobegoodwearegoingtobeabletosolveeconomicproblems,politicalproblemsmeaningthattherewillbenomorefightingorpovertyandthenthereistheothersidethatissaying,butit’sthesingularitywedon’tknowwhatisontheotherside.IfyouhaveeverreadNickBostrom’sbookSuperintelligencehegoesonaboutthecontainmentproblem,onceyougetsomeonesmarterthanEinsteinor100timessmarterthereisnowayofknowingwhatthehelltheyaregoingtothinkorwhattheythinkis
96
thebestforhumanity.Sotherearepeoplegoing,wellifwedon’tknowit,itcouldbeeithergoodorbad.Ifit’sbad,howthehellarewegoingtostopthem.Pulltheplug?Wellwecan’treally,theyaremoreintelligentthanthat.Doyoulegislatenow,stopallresearch?Isthatevenpossible?No-oneisgoingtodothat.Soreallyit’salmostlike,andIhavecometothephilosophicalconclusionthatitsgoingtohappen,wedon’tknowwhat’sgoingtohappen,wekindofjusthavetoacceptit.Kindoflikean‘it’sbiggerthanussortofthing’.It’saforceofnaturethatwecan’treallycontrol.
Yes,inaway,andthat’snotacopouteither,itsgoingtohappen.ThewayIkindofreconcilethat,becauseyoukindofhavetoright,isthat,andthismaysoundabitcliché,thiswholethinguptillnow,thisevolutionaryprocesswasinorderforustogetwhereweare.Itjustmeansthatwearearungonthatladderofintelligencesotherehasgottobearungthatcomesafterusandwhetherornottheykeepusaroundornot,wedon’tknow.AndthatiswhereIkindofamrightnow,andnobodyhasgottheanswerforme.Theseareveryhardquestions.It’scalledexistentialrisk.Youknowwhenwedevelopednuclearpower,wenearlyblewourselvesup,butwedidn’t,andthisisasimilarthing,wewillseewhathappens.Wejustdon’tknow.Youpickedonareallyinterestingpointthere,wherealthoughthiscouldbe
disastrous,peoplearoundtheworldarecompetingtotryandgetthere
first.SoIguessalmostthisisthespaceraceofourtime.Whocandevelop
AIfirst?
Whoknowswhattheconsequenceswillbeofthat?IfyouandIkindoflookatthatanditallgoesswimminglywell,itcouldbeamazing.Tohavesuper-intelligencearoundwecouldbeminingasteroidsquitequickly,wecouldbemovingoutintothestarsquitequickly,wecouldbesolvingalotofproblemshereonEarthquitequickly.I’mabitofanoptimistbutatthesametimekeepingacloseeyeontheseinstitutesliketheFutureOfHumanityInstitute,youknowtoreallyseewhatkindofresearchiscomingoutofthoseplaces.AndIwouldloveifGooglewerealittlebitmoreopenabouttheirresearch,theirDeepMindstuff.Theyarereallybuildingsomeinterestingpiecesofintelligence,recentlytheyevenmanagedtobeatfiftyAtarigames,wayabovehumanlevel.Andtheyreallydohavesomeofthesmartestpeopleintheworld,inonecompany,workingonthisoneproblem.Andtheyarehidingitandplayingitdown.Theyhavejustboughtallofthoserobotcompaniesandyouimagineputtingintelligenceinsidetherobotandyouarereallyworkingyourwaytowards2029,quitenicelyreally.WhydoyouthinkGooglearenotadvertisingtheirworkinthisareatoo
much?
Itwouldjustcausepanic.Peoplewouldstopgoingtowork.
97
11.7.0MARTINDINOVINTERVIEWTRANSCRIPT1rdApril2015
Alex(interviewer)=boldtext
Martin=normalweightedtext
RegardingKurzweil’stheoryofthetechnologicalsingularity,doyouthink
thathumanitywilleverreachthatstage?
Canwedefinethatstagefirstalittlebit?Whatdoyouhaveinmindwhenyousaythat?ThemergenceofhumanswithatypeofAI,orcomputers,thatwillthen
almosttakehumanstoanewlevel,anewspecies,andaneweraof
technologicaladvancement.
Ithinktheanswertothatisalmostcertainlyyesifwegetthat.Ifwedon’tdestroyourselvesthatis,andIthinkthechancesofthatareprettylow.ButIhaveotherconcerns,thatforsomereasonRay,andothersinthefuturistcommunitydon’traiseafewthings.SoAIcanbesuperpowerfulanditalreadyissotoday,youuseyourphoneandhalfthefunctionalityisdependentonmachinelearningalgorithms,andthat’sgreatitworksgreat,andthenyougetArtificialGeneralIntelligenceandthat’ssupercoolbecauseitcanthinkaboutanything,almost,andthinkfasterthanhumans.Butthenpeoplesay,okay,nowwearegoingtoputtheAIintoourheads,simplysaid.AndthenwemergewithAI.Sohereisapracticalquestion,howdowedothatifwedon’tknowhowourbrainworks?Andwedon’tknowhowtointerfacewiththebrain?Andsoonechallengeisthatifwedon’tknowhowthebrainworks,wecansendandreceivedatafromitverywell.Bydefinition.Andthat’saprettybigchallenge.Soletslookatthatoneforamoment.Ifyoubuildanartificialgeneralintelligencebeforeyouhavefiguredhowthebrainworksreallywell,youareleftinakindofawkwardposition,Ithinkinmyopinion,whereyouhavesomethingpossiblysmarterthanyou,oratleastsomethingassmartasyoubutthinksamilliontimesfasterthanyouorsomething,butbecausewehaven’tfiguredoutthebrainverywell,bydefinitionwehaven’tdevelopedtheabilitytoaugmentitwithourselves.That’sprettyawkward.Forone;wemightnotknowwhytheAIistakingcertaindecisionsthatitistaking,butevenifwedidknow,itmightnotevenbeabletotellus,soevenifitisfriendlyandsaysIamdoingthisonthisonthisbasis,butitsreasoningmaybetoocomplexforustoworkoutandforustoactuallycomprehend.Thatseemsaverytricky,badsituationandpotentiallydangerous.Doyouthinkthatthatisamoreprobablescenario?WhereAIiscreatedbut
thenwecannotaugmentourselveswithitatthesametime.
Ithinkthat’squitepossible.Ithinkitsoneofthemostlikelyscenarios,andperhapsoneofthemostlikelycases,whichiswhyIamresearchingthebrain.Iwanttohelpusoffsetthatprobabilityalittlebit.Whereareweactuallyalongthepathofactuallyunderstandinghowthe
brainworks?Isitstillamassivemessthatwestilldon’tunderstand?
No,itsnotamassivemess,welltherearestillmassivepiecesthatwedon’tunderstand,butitsnotentirelyathingthatwedon’tunderstand.Therearebrain
98
interfaces,therearecranialinterfaces,Ithinkalotofitdependsonpublicinterestandhowmanypeopleactuallygetintothefield,toresearchandsupportitinvariousways,andintermsofbusinessesandsoonintermsofresearch,andhowmuchfundingthereisthroughthefield.InterestseemstobepickingupnowwiththeEuropeanBrainProjectandtheUSBrainInitiativeandifthatgoesonmaybewewillgetthereintimewherewewon’tendupinastrangepositionwhereweendupwithsomethingfarsmarterthanusandnotbeingabletocommunicatewiththis.Thatmaycomeaboutinthenextfewdecadeswecouldstartaddingchipsandstufftoourheads.That’sinteresting,notonlyshouldwefocusourattentiononAI,ifwe
shouldcreateAIthatis,butalsoatthesametimetryandunderstandthe
humanbrain.OtherwiseifwedevelopAIbeforehandwewon’tknowwhat
it’sdoing.
IdefinitelythinkweshoulddevelopAIandexactly.That’sonescenario,anotherinterestingthing:let’ssaywedofigureoutthebrain,beforewefigureoutAGIandlet’ssaywestartaugmentingourselves,andwearekindofstartingnowalittlebit,withvariousbitsofstimulationandsoon,thenlet’sthinkabout,IactuallywroteaboutthiswithEliasmyfriendinthechapteryoureadIguessandthenthereisanotherinterestingscenario,whichpeopledon’tseemtoliketalkingabout,itseemsthatpeopledon’tlikefacingtheharshrealitiessometimes,whichisthis:let’ssaywecanaugmentthebrain.Let’ssayyoucanessentiallyinsertchipsthatcanlearnfromyourbrainactivityandcanbecomepartofyourbrainandthenyoucanloadAIsoftwareontothemandsoon,itsoundsallverygood,butlet’ssaythechipswiththeAIsoftwareismorerationalthanournativebrainhardware.Whichisdefinitelygoingtobethecase.Wearenotveryrationalcreatures,andit’seasytodesignprobablycorrectalgorithmsthataregoingtoworkbetterthanhowwethink,forsomanycases.Inregardstomakinggeneraldecisionsineverydaylife?
Wellinregardstomakingspecificdecisionsineverydaylife.Butwearegettingbetterandgeneralisingaswegetbetteratdeeplearningandsoon.Andallsortsofthings.Sookay,nowwehaveaugmentation,wearesmarterhumansaswegraduallygetsmarteranddothesethingswhenyou’reareababyitismucheasiertoaccessthebrain,youknowtheskullisverysoft,maybeyoudothiswithsomekindofmicro-botlateroninlife,whichisacoolthingthatiskindofemergingthatyouhaveprobablyreadabout.Nowwhathappensthough,wearesmarterbutwehavethesealgorithmsthathaveaccesstoourbraindataandthatareessentiallypartofus,almostbydefinition.Butthenwouldn’twestartusingthese,bydefinition,smartermorerationalcomputationaltools.IknowthatasacomputerscientistmyselfIamallforrationality,ifIcandosomethingbetterandfasterandwillpickthebetterandfasterway.Andsonow,youstartusingthebetterandfasterAIsimplantedtechnologyandthat’sgreat,butthen,essentiallyyoukidofbecometheAI.Butatthatpointyoudon’tknowwhywouldn’tyoutryanduseyouoldhumancentricwaysofthinking,andhumancentricbeliefs,whywouldtheystillbecentralifyoucanfindbetterwaysofthinkingthatcouldleadyoutoverydifferentconclusions?That’skindofscarybecauseyoumightkindofcometoallsortsofsociopathicconclusions.Thatseemsquitepossible.Imeanthereareallsortsofpeoplethatarenotverybeneficialtosociety,orarealso
99
dangeroustosociety,whatwoulddoyoudowithcriminals?Idon’tknow,Idon’twanttosaywhatyoushoulddowithcriminals,soinasense,yes,youmightbecometheAI,thefirstpeoplewhodothis,butveryquickly,ifyoubecometheAIinthatway,youmightnothaveanyreasonatalltouseyourhumanhistoryorhumanthoughtsofthinkingpatternsthatdefinesyouasahuman.Youareoutofyourhumanbody,buthaveanAImind.
Forsometimeyouhaveahumanbody,untilsometimeyoudecidethathumanbodiesarekindofcrappyandlet’smovetoasteelbodyorwhatever.That’sfascinating.Sowhatwouldbethedrivingforcesbehindthat.Iguess
competitiontotryandbeasgoodasyoucouldpossiblybe.Ifthereisone
companyusingtheseenhancementthingsandyouareupagainsta
companythatisn’tIguessyouwouldforceyouremployeestobecome
enhanced.
Yes–forexample.Orifalltheotherchildreninschoolareenhancedandimplanted,butyoursisnot.Wellyoucansaythat’smychoice,anditis,untilallthekidshaveIQsof200andthey’redoinglongjumpsof20metresorwhatever.Thenyourkidisgoingtobeleftout.Sothereisgoingtohavetobeawholenewtypeoflegislationthatperhaps
dealswiththis.
Yes,andthat’sveryinteresting.Becauseitdoesn’texistrightnow,largely.Doyouthinkgovernmentsarepreparedfortheselargechanges?
IwastalkingtoalawyerfriendofmineinVienna,justafewdaysago,andshemadeaveryinterestingpoint,whichis(ofcoursesheisbiasedbecausesheisalawyer)butshemadethepointthatlawdoesnotnecessarilyhavetocatchupwithtechnology,whichitcan’t,becauselawistypicallyquitegeneralizable.Typicallyifyoudon’thavealawforsomethingthenyoutakethemostsimilarlawthatismostlikelytoapply.Sointhecaseofdrugsforexample,ifadrugisverysimilartoanotheroneyouhave,soifadrugisverysimilartococainebutactuallyisn’tcocaine,anditactuallyhasverysimilarpropertiesitwillstillbeillegalbecausecocaineisillegal.However,ofcoursetheargumentwithcocaineisthatithasadverseside
affects,whereasenhancementcouldjustmakeyoujumpreallyfar.Well
youcouldatleastimaginewheretherewouldbenoadversesideaffects.
Movingonthen,culturally,asyoupersonallyarecreatingaproductinthis
enhancementareayou’vegotthelegislationoneside,andtheconsumers
theotherside.Whenyoutalktopeopleperhapsoutsideofthissphereof
computerscience,aboutyourproductwhatistheirgeneralperceptionof
it?Aretheyscaredofit,ordotheyfinditawesome?Orreallysplit?
WellmyAuntcallsmetheanti-Christ,butthataside!Somepeoplesaythat’sreallycool,Iwouldliketobeabletoimprovemyattention,ormonitormyattentionorsomething,andsomepeoplesay,asoneoftheusecasesIhaveinmindisineducation,whereitwouldbereallycoolifyoucouldmonitoryourstudent’sattentionlevelandkindofoptimisetheclassroomenvironmentandteachingstyletomaximisetheattentionofthestudents.Thatwouldbepretty
100
useful.Ofcoursepeopleareeasilydistractedattimes,butthatcanbeeasilytrained.Ifyouknowthatthestudentsarenotpayingattentionyouwillseethatonthescreenandthenyoucandosomethingaboutit.Wellyeah,ifateacherseesthatnobodyislisteningtowhattheyaresaying,
theyareobviouslydoingsomethingwrong.
Somepeoplesaythat’scool,butthenItellthem,wellmaybeIshouldn’ttellthem,butaneventualgoalformeisto,ifthatworks,takeitastepfurther,takeitintra-cranialandbringinthemicro-botsandAI,andIaminterestedindoingthatbecausethepotentialissomuchgreater.Ofcourse,andthatiswherepeopleareslightlyscared.
Well,verysqueamish,yeah.Theysay:whataboutourhumanity?Whataboutouremotions?AndthenIsay,wellwhataboutthem?Itsnotliketheyhavetogoaway,theycouldifyouwantthemto,ifnot,youcankeepthem.Culturewillchangeobviouslywiththetechnology,sohowimportantdo
youseemarketingasameansofgettingthesetechnologiesoutthere?
Itshugelyimportant,Ican’ttalkaboutittoomuchbecauseIdon’tunderstandit,Ishould,butIdon’t.Iamtryingtostudyitalittlebitbecauseitwillbeimportantobviously.IfbymarketingyoumeankindofPR,typestuff.Yeah,sonotmakingpeoplesqueamishwhenyouaretalkingaboutthissort
ofstuff.
Ofcoursethisisincreasinglyimportantforincreasingpublicinterestinthesethings.Haveyouread,orcomeacrosstheworksofProfessorHugoLagariss?No,notyet.
Wellmypointwouldhavebeenthatifyoudon’tincreasepublicinterestinthesethingsyouwilldefinitelygetascenariolikewhathesayswhereyougetabigwarandaclashbetweenpeoplewhosay,let’simproveourselveswithAIorwhatever,orotherways,andthereareotherswhosay,especiallyreligiouspeople,butprobablynotjustreligiouspeople,whosaylet’snotenhanceourselves.Andhemakesaverygoodcaseforthat.Iwillgivethataread.Withyourmainspecialitybeingresearchintothe
mindandAI,doyouseethatasbeingthemainfrontierintheenhancement
ofthebody?Ordoyouseethemindasseparatefromthebody?
Forthefirstone,itswhatIworkon.Therearepeoplewhoworkonregenerativemedicineandsoon,andongeneengineeringandthat’scoolstuff.Iamallforit.Idon’tthinkthosethingswillbeperfectedbeforeAI,andmaybeevenbrainaugmentationisperfected.Ithinkthatisgreatifwehavethosethingsasanaside,asdifferentwaysofimprovingourselves,butIdon’tthinkwewillsee,orreaphugebenefitsfromthat,untilwestartstrugglinganddealingwiththegoodandbadissueswithAIandthatkindofbrainaugmentation.ThatisoneofthereasonswhyIamworkingwiththebrainandAI.Therearesmartdrugs,Idon’tknowifyouhaveheardofeutropics?Quiteusedaswellactually.Ibelieveabout20%ofstudentsintheUKactuallyusethem,regularly.
101
ModafrinylandRitalinIhaveheardarepopular.
Theyaremoreonthestimulantside.Whatyouaresuggestingthen,isthatalltheseotherenhancement
technologieswillalmostpaleincomparison,butthenoncewesolvethe
mindproblem…
Eventually,probablyinthenextfewdecadessometime.Imeanit’shardtopinthisdown.Youcan’tsayit’sgoingtobelessthantwodecades.Idon’tthinkitsgoingtobemorethanahundred,hundredandfiftyyears,anditsnotgoingtobelessthanfifteentwentyyears.Andthat’sabigrangebuttherearealotofvariables.Ofcourse,butallprobabilitypointstowardstheseproblemsfadingaway.
Yes,Ithinkso,unlesswestopprogress,it’sgoingtohappen.AndIdon’tseeusstoppingprogress.Whatcouldstopthatprogress?
Idon’tknow,let’sgetcreative,ahugefire!Comets,super-volcanoes.Weareconcludingthen,thattechnologyisgoinginthatdirectionand
unlessthereisabigculturalsocietycatastrophewewillprobablygetthere.
Ithinkso,prettymuchyeah.Isthelogicalconclusionthentodiscardthebodyandthenliveinsome
kindofcyberspace?
Wellwearenotjustarebodies.Ifyoujusthadabrain,withnoinputsandoutputstotheworld,soyoucan’tseewhat’saroundyouandyoucan’thearwhat’saroundyou,youareliterallyjustabraincontainedinitself,itwon’tbeconscious.Oritwouldn’tbeasconscious.Itwouldn’tbeconsciousoftheworldanyway,bydefinition.Ithasnoinputsandoutputs,soitcan’tseetheworld,itcan’theartheworld.That’sareallystrangeexistence.Ican’timagineit.Wewouldhavenolanguage,unlessyoukindofpre-programmedit,buteventhenitwouldbereallyweird.Aconsciousnessweneedsomewayofinteractingwiththeworldthen,yesbutnotjustthroughinputs,butalsothroughoutputs.Sobeingabletoaffecttheworld,whateverthatis.Soifit’savirtualrealityyouneedtobeabletoaffectthevirtualrealityworldinwhichitexists.Themotoractionsthatwehavearehugelyimportant.Wedevelopthesenseswehaveoftheworldbasedonmovement.Sofromthatperspective,bodiesareimportant.Thenobviouslytheyareveryuseful.Soanybreakthroughswemakeinthemind,thereisnopointjuststicking
anuploadedbrainintoacomputerthatisnotconnectedwithanything,it
wouldneedsomekindofAndroidbody,orsomewayofinteractingwith
theworld.
DidyouseethemovieTranscendence?Yes
102
OnethingthatIthinkisdecentlyportrayedisthatheloseshisbodyforashorttimeandstillhashisabilitytointeractwiththeworld.Butit’squiteminimalthroughawebcametc,butthenyougetaccesstotheworldsfinancialmarketsetcandthenverysoonyoucanstartuploadingyourselfintomorelocalisedbodies,likehedidinthemovie.Evenifthat’swhathappenedfirst,aslongasyoucaneventuallygetroundtomanipulatingtheworld,evenifnotdirectly,thenthat’sapossibility.Youcanuploadtoacomputer,youcandirectlydothings,butwhatiftheAIwereapersonthatescapes,youknowwhatifitcouldcontrolrobots.AndthereareactuallyloadsofrobotshookeduptotheInternet,likemostcarsnowadays.Acceptthosecouldbeaninputandoutput,notjustahumanoidbody,andthatwouldgiveaverydifferenttypeofconsciousness,adifferentkindofcreature.Tofinishoffonamorephilosophicalnote,wouldthereberoominthe
worldformorethanoneArtificialGeneralIntelligence?
That’sareallygoodquestion.Ihavenoidea.Ihavethoughtaboutit,Ithinkitdependsonhowgeneralandhowitiswhenitfirstappears.Becauseifitsreallysmartandsoon,oneofthedecisionsitmaytakeisthatitdoesn’twanttoomuchcompetitionsoitmightmakeitsoanotheronemaynotappear.Forexample;ifitsinterestedinself-preservation,whichisaprettygoodthingtohaveifyouareintelligententity.Ifyoudon’tbelieveinself-preservationthenyouwillquicklydisappear.OnewouldassumethenthatAGIwouldhavesomesortofself-preservation
builtin?
Ithinkso,therearepeoplethatwoulddisagree.PeopledoworkonfriendlyAIandIthinkthat’sgreatstuff.AndIthinkAIscouldbefriendly,butIthinkpreservationisgoingtoemerge.Itshardtokeepitfromemerging,ifanentityisintelligentandcuriousandwantstoknowmoretofigureoutmoreabouttheworld,theneventuallyitwillreasonaboutitselfandthenitwillreasonthatifitdiesitcannotcontinuereasoningabouttheworld.Itcan’tkeeplearning,if‘I’mdead’.Solet’snotdie,sowhatdoIdotonotdie?ImaybekillhumansoranotherAI.Inthatrespectthen,whoeverdevelopsthefirstAGIwillhaveamassive
competitiveadvantageovertherestoftheworld.
NowitdependsonhowsmartandhowquicklytheAGIdevelops,itcouldbethecasewhereyouhaveAGIdevelopmentinparallel,orthemappearingwithindaysofeachotherthismeansthatperhapsthereisenoughtimefortheretobemultipleAGIs.That’shardtopredict,butofcourseitispossiblethatwewillgetmultipleones.IwouldpreferitifthereweremultipleAGIsactually,butthenagainwhatiftheAGIscollude?Theythink‘we’resmarter’wecanhavealeanerbetterexistentthanhumans,solet’sgetridofthehumansfirstandthenwewilltalk.Whodoyouthinkiswinningtheraceatthemoment?
Idon’tknow.IthinkAGIisaprettyhardproblem,andinthatnobodyisreallyleadingtherace.ButtherearehugeprogressesinkindsofweakerAI,sofor
103
specificpurposes.SoWatson,Tesla.Idon’tknow,themilitaryaredoingcoolthings,theyaredevelopingthingsaswell.Arealotofthesethingskeptsecret,orawayfromthegeneralpublic?
TherearethingsdevelopedinsecretbutalotoftheAIexpertsandmathematiciansandsoon,manydon’tworkforthegovernment,manyoftheseworkforGoogleandallsortsofcompanies.Theonlythingthatthemilitaryhasagainstthosecompaniesistonnesofresources.Butsomecompaniesdohavethat,so,Iamnotsureinpracticethatthereareagreatdealofthingshappeninginthemilitarythatwehavenoideaabout.Lastquestionthen,whatelseinthisarea,thatIhaven’ttouchedonthatyou
thinkisreallyinterestingandisworthgoinginto?
Ithinkthatthequestionofidentityisquiteanimportantone.Specifically,letsassumethatbadthingsdon’thappenandpeopledomanagetomergewithAI,orAIisappearingandthereisnothingthatgoesboom.Thenyouhaveanissueofpotentially,peoplecanmuchmoreefficientlysynchronisewitheachotherbecauseofthesechipsthatwehavepreviouslydiscussed,ifyoucansynchronouswithanotherperson,really,reallywell.Soyoucanchoosewhatdataandmemoriesyouhaveandcansendthemoverandgetthemfromanotherpersonandsendthemovertoyou,ifyoucandothat,Imean,thenyoucan,wheredoesthelinebetweenmeandmygirlfriendend,ifIcangetallhermemoriesandshegetsallofmineifwehavedifferentbodies.Wecanalmostcloneeachother’smindstemporarily.Thenwegoourseparatewaysinourdifferentbodiesforinstance.Thenwegetthishugekindofidentitycrisis,notnecessarilyinanegativeway,butitsquiteinteresting,forexampleifyoucouldconstantlybesynchronisedwithpeople,wouldyoudothatallthetime.Idon’tknow.ThereisanicegamecalledDeusEx,haveyouplayedit?No
Wellyoushouldbeforeyoufinishyourthesis.Itishighlyrelevant.Andinoneofthegames,oneoftheconclusionsisthateveryoneisaugmentedandoneoftheendingsiswheretheyallkindoftryandbecomeasinglehumanityandconsciousnessonplanetEarth.Likeahivemind.Thiscouldbeasemi-voluntarything.Itdoesn’thavetobebad.Wearealready,somewhathivemindedtoday.ThereisalotofoverlapbetweenwhatyouknowandwhatIknoweventhoughthereisabigdifferenceinhowwethink.YesItotallygetthat,forexample,withtheInternetifthereissomethingI
don’tknowyoutellmeandwithinminutesIcouldhavelearntit.Almost
thestagebeforeinstantaneouscommunicationandthehivemind.
Wedoallspeakthesamelanguageandsoon,itisalreadyhappeningtoday.SynchronisationoftheentitieswhetheritishumansandAIorhumansplusAIisquiteinteresting.Orhuman-human,orAIAI,sothequestionofidentityisveryinteresting.TherewillbenodifferencesbetweenhumansandAIactuallyifeverythingdoesjustendupmergingandsynchronised.Rather,therewillbeadifference,butwhatonEarthisthedifference?
104
Ifeveryonewasthinkingthesamethingsandhadthesameabilitytodo
everythingwhereistheline?
Yeah–soifyouthoughtoptimally,orratherifyoucouldreasonasoptimallyaspossiblegivenyourhardware,andthat’sthecaseforeveryone,Imeanandthat’sthecaseforalmosteveryone,everyonedoeshavethesamehardware,andbackgroundinformation,thentheposteriorabilitieswillonlymeanthatalltheconclusionspeoplereachwillalmostbethesame.Ifyouhavethesameknowledgebase,andthesamereasoningalgorithms,inordertostayrational,wellyoumaychoosetobeirrational,butthatwouldbeanirrationalthingtodo,ifyouarearationalentity,whichyouwouldbemoresoafteraugmentation(Ithink)thenitslesslikelythatyouwouldchoosetothinkirrationally.Therefore,wearemorelikelytoreachasimilarconclusion,whateverthatmaybe.WhichgoesagainstDarwinianevolutioninawayasthisprocesswouldget
ridofnaturalselection.
Wellwecouldstillhaveakindofnaturalselectionintheformofhowtheintelligence,ofthewaythatthekindofhivemindintelligenceifkindofbodyalised.Youcouldstillhaveloadsofdifferentbodiesgoingaboutexploringtheworld.Therecouldbeakindofnaturalselectioninthose.Youcouldkindofstillreason,andbeverysimilarwiththesameknowledgebasebutyoustillwanttoexploreandaffecttheworld.Andthewayyoudothatmayhavedifferentadvantages.Soonebodymaybebetterontheseafloor,othersbetterinspace,youwillstillhaveakindofselectionsprocess.Isee,andthatwouldaddanamountofindividuality.
Yeahmaybe.Ifyouwanttotalkabouttheacceptanceinsocietyofthesekindofcognitiveenhancementtechnologies,talktoImreBárd,heisaPHDstudentatLSE,fundedbytheEU,andthat’sexactlywhatheisworkingon.Thepublicviewsandthelevelsofacceptanceofsocietytowardsthesetypesoftechnology.Heistheguywhoorganisedthebrainhackathonheretwoweeksago.Yessoinmypersonalviewthatisgoingtobeaveryimportantview.Itis
notonlyaboutdevelopingnewtechnologies,butunlessyoucangetthem
outofImperialandgetpeopleusingthemtheycouldjuststopthere.
Absolutely.However,ifAIisdevelopeditmayjustbreakoutsideofthefourwalls
anyway.
Wellifitsdoesn’t,itsprettyscarytothinkthatwhoevermayownanAGIitsprettyscaryfortherestofus,evenifitsnotmaliciouslyused.It’salreadythecasetoday,withtoday’sAIalgorithms.Intermsofmystart-upeffort,Idowanttoseethesethingsaswidelyunderstoodandsupportedbeforethesethingsreallyemerge.Andtherecouldbealotofoppositiontothetechnologiesthatyouwouldbecreating.
105
Doyoufacemuchoppositiontothat?Doyougetemailsfrompeoplesaying
don’tdothat,that’sagainstGod’swishes?
Idon’tgetthoseemailsyet,Imightsomeday.Inthepresenteventodaysomepeoplesaydon’tdothat,evenmybrotheractually,heiskindofontheothersideofthespectruminsomeways.Heisprettyscared,heisquiteintouchwithhumancentricthingsandtheselfandthingslikethat.That’sokayIguess,that’sunderstandable.Doyouseethatthepeoplewhounderstandthesetechnologiesmore,are
perhapsmoresupportiveofyourwork?
Ithink,notalways,themoreeducatedpeopleare,especiallyaboutthesetopics,themorelikely,andopenmindedyouaretodifferentthings,andmorelikelythereistheviewthatyouwillatleastconsiderthesethingswithoutfirstdismissingthemandsayingtheyareagainstourwayoflife.
Soyougetveryfewpeoplewhoyouperhapscallanexpertinthefield
sayingnodon’tdothat?
Proportionallyfewer.Aretherekeyplayersinthefieldthenwhoaretryingtowarnpeopleabout
AI?
IamsureyouhavereadrecentlythattherewasStephenHawkingandElonMuskandotherswhowerewarningaboutthis,buttheywerenotreallypeopleinthefield.ElonMuskmoresothanStephenHawking.StephenHawkingdoesnothinginthefield.Heisaphysicist.AtleastElonknowssomethingaboutitasthereisagreatdealofmachinelearningintheTeslacars.Andhereallyhasn’tsaidanythingapartfrombecarefulastherearegreatbenefitsputalsohugepotentialgreatdangersandsoweshouldthinkaboutthisaheadoftime.Whichisveryreasonable.SoapartfromElonMuskandStephenHawkingthereisnomainpeople
presentingoppositiontothework?
Welltherearepeopleinthefuturistcommunitytowho,somewellknownandwhohavealotofmoney,whowouldspeakandareworriedaboutthesethings.IguesswhatIamtryingtodetermineisthat,inthefieldthatyouare
workingin,iseveryonesimplyploughingaheadwiththesetechnologies
andreallytryingtomakebreakthroughs,oraretherepeopleinthis
communitywhoarereallytryingtoholdthereignsslightly?
Ithinkalotofpeopleare,whoonlyworkinthebrainsciencesoronlyinAItendtobepessimisticthanpeoplewhotryandworkinmultiplekindsoffieldsatthesametime.Insomeways.Soforexample,ifyouaskalotofneuroscientiststheyaremorelikelytothinkthateventuallyAIwillhappen,,yeahwellIamgoingtofocusonmynarrowavenueofresearch,sodementiaforexample,andthat’sgood,andeventuallythingswillconvergeandleadtogreatbenefitsleadingtoatechnologicalsingularitybutIdon’tknowaboutthat.That’sanokaypointofviewinsomerespect,youdoneedtofocusonyourimmediateresearchatworkaswell.It’shardtosay,youdogetalotofdifferentperspectivesindifferentfields.However,Idefinitelythinkthatpeoplewhostraddlemultiplefieldsare
106
definitelythosewhorealisewhatisgoingonmore.Andtheyknowwhatisabouttohappenmoresoandseethebenefitsandrisksandmakesomekindofwarning.Doyouthinkthereisagreaterneedforscientiststobemultidisciplinary
goingforwards?
Ithinksoyeah,Imeanit’shard,becauseyouneedtoknowmoresubjects.Doyouclassyourselfasmultidisciplinary?
Iam,somewhat.WhenIstartedmyPHDforexampleIhadnoformaltraininginneuro-scienceandminimaltraininginbiology,quiteminimal,andsothereisnaturallyalotofbrain,neuroscienceandpsychologythingsandthattakestimeandeffort.Sonoteveryoneisinvestedinthis.