The Bewilderness

Masking enhancement

As I am always on the lookout for news of potential technologies that enhance the sensorium, I was gratified of some recent work at the Royal College of Art in London. First was the gratifying surprise that such work has been undertaken outside of the expected environment: laboratories run under Big Science grants or via corporate investment. Not to decry these sources, but a greater diversity of institutional sources for these projects should lead to more competition and innovation. Good to see the arts involved.

The art students developed masks which could provide an ability to single out ambient sounds (such as a single performer in an orchestra) using a directional microphone or utilising video to enhance sight. Early but important steps!

  

There will only be one Singularity

In the current landscape of slow growth, declining living standards and the blame game, few will raise their eyes above the contemporary to contemplate life in five or ten years. For one faction of the transhumanist community, the events during this timescale will bring forth evidence of how close the technological Singularity will be. The evidence will also enhance our understanding of its potential underpinnings.

Rick Searle sets out an interesting scenario in his discussion of the Singularity: that the event could be triggered more than once by a multiplicity of technologies. The path of the event will be determined by the successful research program. Where Searle departs from the overwhelming concept of the Singularity is his reduction of event by country and culture. This subordination of the event to human seedcorn is a critical attempt to grapple with the ideology of its proponents, not the prophecy itself.

Any event will be structured by its context. Yet, arguments of different Singularities in different countries does not work. Part of the beauty of the Singularity is its overwhelming, universal threshold: beyond which we cannot see, in the original Vingean. That is probably why I am unsure as to the reasoning for AGI as the basis: my preference is the increasing pace of change based upon the effective use of information.

Life will get faster!

We need questions, not answers

Zero State is a new grouping that has emerged out of the inchoate slew of groups and personnel straddling futurism and transhumanism in the United Kingdom. Following the mutations amongst these associations over the last decade, one could get cynical about the lack of 'take off' one finds in a movement. A similar parallel could be drawn in the quest for liberty.

So, we find that the latest permutation seeks not to mainstream transhumanism, but to embrace the values and broaden participation. Admirable goals, no doubt and mood music to the major focal point of this post. Without quoting from the text, a troubling manifesto was put up for comment on a mailing list as a response to the financial crisis. The first paragraph blamed the financial crisis on capitalism and deliberate actions by a cross-section of government and the richest 1%. The result was that the middle class were paying a redistribution to the rich. The redistribution to the rich exists but I was loath to recognise agency in such a confusing and unknown situation. Within the text, such sentiments did denote class war and the politics of envy; sentiments indistinguishable from any utterance of the Labour Party or the radical left. This led me to think: if we are unable to understand what has occurred so far (since we can read a slew of competing narratives), what would transhumanist interests bring to the table? And I think that this is an important question, since these interests, these values distinguish us from the peddlers of traditional fictions.

One of the key factors of the banks has been a misreading of risk; part of the area that plays into the research on cognitive bias and other factors that can skew thought and action. Should we ensure that there are women traders to break up the dominant effects of testosterone? Should we ensure that all risk officers are women (the mother of all Battles?) Do we need to consider the effect of archaic institutional perspectives on what has occurred? Corporations, regulators and hedge funds all date from the twentieth century. They find it difficult to receive, process and act upon information; the complexities are too tangled in certain circumstances. (That does not prevent us from identifying those companies that were just stupid: loading themselves up on badly rated debt and foudering as a result).

The emphasis should be on questions, not an narratives. Adopt a story and you will instantly slot yourself into an existing narrative; one based on its own assumptions, not the evidence.

 

 

Religion, Demographics and the Singularity

Ray Kurzweil was in town this week to attend the premiere of a biographic documentary: "Transcendant Man". I attended the showing at the IMAX cinema in the Science Museum, graciously financed by Google UK. Barry Ptolemy's film was insightful, presenting a more complex overlay of Kurzweil's drives with an ambiguous tension between spiritual motivations and rational explanations. The film revealed this ambiguity but did not pierce the veil.

To follow up, Humanity + organised a talk at Birkbeck yesterday. A panel of five speakers spoke on the film, their views of Kurzweil, whether inspirational or sceptical, and wider issues of transhumanism. It was revealing how some moved from support for Kurzweil's certainty to doubts when asked to pin down their own predictions. Subscribers to the meme, sceptical as individuals.

One question did come to mind for me. How did this cornucopia of change interact with the existing demographic forecasts of population growth in the developing world and population decline in the advanced industrial countries. For such an interaction leads to a question of religious growth.....

The countries that are in decline mostly subscribe to a secular civilisation, becoming more vigorous as its population dies back. The more populous a country is in the twenty-first century; the more probable that the vast majority of its population will be people of faith.

With this trend, we see scenarios of transhumanist technology interacting with people of faith. A story of 'religion versus science' is not a suitable model. Competition within and between nations will drive this landscape: look for some odd spirituality ahead. And if health extension does come into play:

If our early steps in understanding longevity, lifespan, and aging develop and proliferate in a way analogous to the advances we have seen in biotechnology, aeronautics, DNA, computers, and communications, precipitous declines in mortality could be on the horizon. If so, then today's demographic projections may constitute serious underestimates of earth's future populations and may lull us into an exceedingly dangerous state of complacency and inaction. We should appreciate, therefore, that dramatic or unexpected declines in mortality may be capable of cancelling-out anticipated gains that we otherwise expect based on declining fertility.

Further examination and speculation on these questions is worthwhile. Perhaps Kurzweil's spiritual discourse will prove more advantageous in the battle of ideas than all of our debates.

Danger, difficulty and wonder: a commonplace future

Glenn Reynolds, of Instapundit fame, reviewed Michio Kaku's new book, "Physics of the Future", for the Wall Street Journal. Yet, is it wise to allow an optimistic review of an optimistic book? For Reynolds, with some personal touches, treats the book as a survey of what he believes possible. I could not find any phrase where Reynolds disagrees with the author.

This is not meant as a criticism of Reynold's review. His approach is to promote his enthusiasm and acceptance of Kaku's visions of the future, a goal that I share. But there are other views: opposed to such technological advances, or more attentive to the risks. Reynolds alludes to these with his quote from Vernor Vinge:

I am inclined to agree with Mr. Kaku's largely optimistic view of the future. But I am also reminded of science-fiction writer Vernor Vinge's warning about technology empowering individuals to the point that it could put "world-killer weapons in the hands of anyone having a bad hair day."

The message of what technology could potentially do for you is a strong advertisement for optimism about the future. Yet, at the same time, the future is in danger of becoming commonplace.

We all share that sense of wonder derived from science and science fiction, where we are imbued with the shock of the new. But as change as picked up: the next Ipad, the next smartphone, the newest drug becomes expected. I can not be sure, from Reynold's review, that Kaku's latest vision carries the wonders, the dangers and the difficulties of the future. Best to read it then!

Can dentists survive the Singularity?

Did the Singularity begin on "Jeopardy"? This is part of John Rentoul's suite of questions to which the answer is "no". We could ask "will there be dentists after the Singularity?" Is it a question worth asking? Probably not! What is the answer? A vague "Unlikely!"

Call me crazy, but when we reach a point where the most trusted doctor you can turn to is a hard drive, and that hard drive can repair and update itself, I think we’ve hit The Singularity.

This is one of those difficult quotes that says too much and too little. The role of the computer is seen as a simple trade-off between sources of knowledge: profession swapped for a diagnostic database. An alternative could be: the Singularity has arrived when we become our own doctors.

Even here, we would still need an external agent to deal with mouths and surgery. Perhaps dentists will survive the Singularity?

Humanity + UK: some thoughts

I was at the Humanity + conference organised by Extrobritannia (actual name: the illimitable David Wood to whom much applause for organisation): a whole day of talks and discussions on H+ subjects. Just when you think that we involved are all jaded by the same suite of ideas and predictions (God! not another round of "what is the Singularity?"); we need to bring ourselves together into one place with a whole group of interesting speakers, to remind ourselves that there is a lot of stuff going on. If I was jaded, it was because I was  not digging deep enough.

To critique particular talks would leave me in unfriendly mode, not carping, but disagreeing as is my wont. The balance of the subject matter was good, with some talented diversions into meditation and existentialism. I will keep an eye on Peter Bonte for example.

To my eyes, the debates of the earlier years have deepened and enriched, due to a combination of new interest and reflection on the part of the pioneers. Most gratifying is the expansion of the subculture from any particular set of traditions: extropian, libertarian, socialist and so on. Even more rewarding is the sense of interdisciplinary work used for popularising the values: extending into the arts (though less of the humanities). Yet one is still haunted here by a chasm of artists quoting cultural studies and H+ activists speaking in the tongues of science and IT: that chasm in discourse can be bridged. 

Make my robot moral, Lord, but not for a while yet

Wendell Wallach's recent piece on converging technologies and the future was recently presented at the World Future Society. ZDNet blog has undertaken a succinct survey of his presentation, with the keynote slides. Apart from the joke about soap (only funny outside prison), Wallach zeroes in on the role that culture now performs in shaping humanity. It is a simple truism:

We now evolve culturally and are as much as product of our culture as our biology.

This statement disguises complex processes and links natural selection to cultural change, a thesis that has not been proven. Nor is it clear whether culture and biology are equally powerful in their shaping, or if one dominates the other.

Assumptions about the convergence of 'theories of cultural selection' and progress shape the arguments of Singularitarians and their 'friendly sceptics'. I count myself as one, though its deterministic teleology can constrain debate.

Wallach's talk concerned how we craft an ethical framework for these changes and why our current, fragmented debate has not fully engaged with the potential autonomy of the machine and the enhanced responsibility of the human. His talk clearly kicks this off and attacks one potential myth: that the enhanced moral autonomy of the tool diminishes the need for moral responsibility on the part of the owner or operator.

The Singularity as concept may fail Wallach's test to think "comprehensively" about the shift in technology and humanity's place within it. As the most developed game in town, Kurzweil is the one to listen to and react against, if we are to achieve a more diverse understanding of what may come.

Off beam

Kurzweil's new movie does appear to have brought out some detractors, who play the man, not the film. We can guess Alex Beam's sympathies with his praise for  Bill McKibben:

The only celebrity thinker who acquits himself with dignity is eco-pamphleteer Bill McKibben, who looks as if he has wandered into the wrong green room. McKibben expresses a healthy skepticism about Kurzweil’s finger-painted future.

But, it does seem inadequate to term a film 'narcissistic' if it includes a critical element. Narcissism requires a mirror, not peer review. So, off beam in his statement and reduced to accusing the film of name dropping:

What about “The Singularity Is Near?’’ The movie is codirected, written, and coproduced by Kurzweil, and features Kurzweil interacting with the Great Minds of the 1980s, such as Sherry Turkle, Mitch Kapor, Bill Joy, and Marvin Minsky, the latter actually a Great Mind of the 1960s and 1970s. Have you been wondering where Alan Dershowitz has been hiding? He plays a defense lawyer in the movie’s inane fictional subplot.

I suspect that this whole 'review' in the poorest sense of the word is off beam. There are better ways of telling us why this film may not be very good.

Temper scepticism and sympathy for the rapture of the nerds

Any stance we take towards the Singularity is one of distance and scepticism; the appropriate response to any teleology, no matter how grounded in rationality its authors and its followers claim. The mode of engagement to the concept is an assessment, not an acceptance, in the spirit of critical rationality.

John Horgan's rejection is an unsuitable stance, as engagement with the argument is dismissed for a portrayal of irrationality, structured as a chiliastic movement, no different from the Rapture. How can this description, presenting Kurzweil in the role of prophet, be true, wrapped in the opposition of Horgan? His critique fails a test of rationality: providing some meritorious proof that the Singularity movement approximates a blind faith in scientism.

The nearest that Horgan provides is scepticism on the scientific foundations of the new technology. In areas of such uncertainty, uncertainty is the best response. Even here Horgan has a searchlight amongst the pathways of the unknowable:

Actually, the major trend in both neuroscience and genetics over the past decade or two has been the discovery of deeper and deeper levels of complexity, which have thwarted medical applications. This theme emerged in several Times articles that bracketed its lengthy pro-Kurzweil press release. An excellent two-part report by Nicholas Wade and Andrew Pollack exposed how the decoding of the human genome has yielded little or no medical payoff. "Ten years after President Bill Clinton announced that the first draft of the human genome was complete, medicine has yet to see any large part of the promised benefits," Wade wrote. He added that "after 10 years of effort, geneticists are almost back to square one in knowing where to look for the roots of common disease.".

Not exactly the premise given in other sources, where the outcome of tis complexity and our understanding of oncology becomes a positive, not a negative. This piece will temper one's scepticism with sympathy for the Singularitarians. Their goal seems much more humanistic than this arid pitch.