Alex Jones - UCL Dissertation Submission - Not finished, but it'll do - April 2015.compressed

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

3

1.0.0 INTRODUCTION

CUT(thisbitisbeyondbad)

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.

18

4.0.0 RESULTSANDFINDINGS4.1.0 PUBLICSURVEY14.1.1 PUBLICSURVEY1QUESTIONS

19

20

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


Total=26

Position=1st6MIND+risks




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

24

25

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




Total=9

Position=1st5BIONEYE

risks




Total=12

Position=4th6INJECTOR




Total=11

Position=3rd7MIND+risks




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

30

4.7.2 PUBLICSURVEY3COMPUTEDHEATMAP

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.

32

4.8.1 FLEXISAMPLEFACEBOOKAD

33

4.8.2 FLEXIWEBSITESCREENSHOT

34

4.9.1 BIONEYESAMPLEFACEBOOKAD

35

4.9.2 BIONEYEWEBSITESCREENSHOT

36

4.10.1 INJECTORSAMPLEFACEBOOKAD

37

4.10.2 INJECTORWEBSITESCREENSHOT

38

4.11.1MIND+SAMPLEFACEBOOKAD

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




Total=3

Position=1st5BIONEYE

risks



Generalproductquestions=0

41

Repulsion=0None=0Other=1

Total=5

Position=2nd6INJECTOR




Total=6

Position=3rd7MIND+risks




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.

56

9.0.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSForFrodo.

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


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


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


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


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


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


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.

Documents

Alex Jones - UCL Dissertation Submission - Not finished, but it'll do - April 2015.compressed