Are You Smarter Than a Sixth-Generation Computer?

My latest article, “Are You Smarter Than a Sixth-Generation Computer?” leads off this month’s issue of The Futurist magazine. (Sept/Oct 2012) The article explores the need for a standard metric for AIs and is based on my paper, “Toward a Standard Metric of Machine Intelligence”, which I recently published in the World Future Review. The purpose of the article (and the paper) can be summed up as follows:

As our world becomes increasingly filled with technological intelligence, it will serve us well to know exactly how smart our machines are and in what ways. Given that we try to measure almost every other aspect of our world, it seems only prudent that we accurately measure the intelligence of our machines as well — especially since, by some projections, they’re expected to surpass us in the coming decades.

During the next few decades we’re going to see significant gains in the field of strong AI, potentially giving rise to artificial general intelligences (AGIs). Universal Intelligence tests such as those described here would seem a crucial tool as we prepare for the changes this will bring.

The Future Olympic Games

Oscar Pistorius
Oscar Pistorius

With the arrival of the 2012 Olympic Games, we find ourselves focused on the extremes of human performance. For seventeen days, the world’s finest athletes will compete at the limits of strength, speed and endurance. Many observers have speculated that for a number of these competitions, we may well be reaching the limits of what is humanly possible. After all, the mind and body can only be pushed so far. Already competitors are using myriad techniques to maximize their performance, some accepted, others proscribed. But if we want to continue to see records broken and barriers overcome, it may be only a matter of time before we begin to look to the potential of human enhancement.

It’s a conundrum. On the one hand, purists want to eliminate anything deemed to be an unfair, unnatural advantage. Steroids, human growth hormone, EPO, which stimulates the formation of red blood cells, all of these have been banned. On the other hand, one of the attractions of the Olympics is the opportunity to witness limits being surpassed and records being broken. To see someone accomplish a feat never before achieved. What happens to the Olympics when the ultimate limits have been reached? What happens when the last record has been broken?

Human enhancement, or augmentation, is in its very nascent stages. With the rare exception of sprinter Oscar Pistorius, it’s certainly not yet ready for Olympic prime time. Prosthetics, gene therapy, nanomedicine – much of what falls into this category is still theoretical or, at best, replacement rather than enhancement technology. Especially when gauged against the performance of an uber athlete.

But as we well know, technology continues to advance at a pace orders of magnitude faster than evolution-driven biology. In short, it’s only a matter of time before truly enhanced humans exist, capable of outperforming even the best of unmodified athletes.

Of course, these enhanced players, cyborgs, cyber-athletes, or whatever else they’ll be called, will want to participate too. After all, they’ll still be human beings with the same need to compete, the same desire for glory. Will they be allowed into the Olympics? Probably not. At least not at first anyway.

So they’ll compete in their own version – call it the Extreme Olympics or the New Games, if you will. Certainly the demand will be there. With fewer and fewer records being broken by natural athletes, how could the public not flock to see how much further our limits might be pushed? On top of this, new competitions will invariably be conceived. Speed wall crawling or underwater marathons, perhaps. They’ll be novel, they’ll be exciting and they’ll be very, very popular.

Of course, the Classic Olympics would remain – a paean to the purity of its origins. An homage to our pre-technological roots. But while Classic will continue to attract a devoted, if dwindling number of fans, the New Games will become the real draw for both spectators and the media. This will be where the money is. This will be the future of the Olympics because ultimately, this will be the future of humankind.

This is cross-posted to my blog at the World Future Society.


Alan Turing: A Unique Human Being

Statue of Turing at Bletchley Park (click for full view)
Statue of Turing at Bletchley Park (click for full view)

In futures thinking as in life, often it’s important to look back in order to look ahead. This week marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Alan Turing, offering the perfect opportunity to do both.

Given the scope and scale of Turing’s achievements, it’s easy and natural to want to focus on his many accomplishments: the cryptanalyst who, with others at Bletchley Park, succeeded in cracking the seemingly unbreakable codes generated by the Nazi’s Enigma machine; the computer scientist, who along with John von Neumann, conceived the stored-program computer architecture, the model on which so much of modern computing is based; the originator of the Turing test, the first exploration of what might constitute machine intelligence and whether it could ever achieve parity with the human mind. And so much more.

With so many technical triumphs, it’s easy to overlook the fact that Turing had a private, personal life as well, just like any other man. In his case, he was a gay man living at a time when this was illegal in Great Britain. As a result, Turing was hounded, prosecuted, stripped of his security clearance and made to undergo estrogen hormone injections resulting in chemical castration. Plunging into a severe depression, Turing eventually took his own life at the age of 41. Even if he hadn’t been a national hero, this would be a terrible injustice. But in light of all Turing contributed to the world, it was tragic beyond measure. (Note: Turing’s contribution to the war effort wasn’t made public until the seventies, when this information was declassified.)

It’s difficult to grasp just how different that era was for gays and lesbians, even though it was less than sixty years ago. While full equality and rights still haven’t been completely attained, the western world has come a very long way from those dark days. Within another generation, it seems likely the battle will be behind us and people will wonder what all the fuss once was over sexual orientation. With any luck, this will apply to race, creed and color as well.

But that doesn’t mean equality for all will have been realized or that discrimination will have completely disappeared. As a species we have a very xenophobic streak; at a certain level we’re hard-wired to be wary of anyone we perceive as too different. Anyone we see as Other.

Given the rapid progress we can expect in a host of different fields, the world is about to get a lot stranger and it’s probably going to be filled with a lot more people who could potentially be viewed as Other. Transhumans. Posthumans. Cyborgs and human-machine symbiotes. Group minds. Digital uploaded minds. There’s every likelihood each of these groups will be forced to jump through the same hoops and fires every other discriminated group has, before eventually, hopefully, being recognized as having the same inalienable rights as all other human beings.

So on this centenary of Alan Turing’s birth, let us give a moment of thought to what kind of world we want to live in. Let’s strive to make it one in which we value every life and every mind for what it truly is: Unique.

Grasping Our Transhuman Future

If you could improve your body, would you do it? It seems a simple enough question with a simple enough answer.

But what if that improvement meant incorporating a mechanical device into your body? Suddenly the question isn’t so simple, is it? And if that integration required the prior removal of a limb, say an arm or a hand, that decision becomes even more complex and controversial.

For Nicola Wilding of England, this question is anything but a hypothetical consideration. Several years ago, Wilding’s arm and hand were severely damaged in an auto accident. While her arm has recovered some functionality following many surgeries and years of physiotherapy, her hand remains useless, a clump of non-functioning flesh at the end of her wrist. As a result, she is seriously considering its elective removal in order that she can be fitted with a neuroprosthetic hand.

But while this situation is extreme, is it truly a dilemma? In many ways, the issue here shouldn’t be why a person would do such a thing, but rather why would they not?

For many, the concept of augmenting the human body elicits strong reactions. There is a ‘yuck’ factor for many people when discussing the integration of anything foreign with or into our bodies. This response is natural. Literally. In all likelihood, this is a genetically-derived instinct that contributed directly to our survival as a species. Until only very recently, an object that breached the body’s outer barriers often resulted in illness or death. In evolutionary terms, the ability of individuals to recognize and avoid this increased their likelihood of survival.

But now we’re entering an era in which bio-compatible substances and machines are increasingly able to be integrated with our bodies without harmful effect. As a result, we’re on the cusp of routinely improving our bodies using such technologies.

In many ways, this is what technology has always done. Canes, crutches, eye glasses, hearing aids are all technologies that can restore a degree of function to damaged or failing biological systems. Similarly, writing, books, libraries, the internet and search engines have all acted as cognitive prostheses, enhancing our memory and other mental abilities. Gradually, over the millennia, these have become increasingly integrated with our bodies and our lives.

Day after day, our ability to repair, restore and even improve upon the human body is increasing. This ability isn’t just limited to replacing limbs with prosthetics. The means to replace organs, senses, even functions within the brain are all becoming part of this advancement.

Cochlear implants have been restoring hearing for decades now. Today, over 200,000 people are able to hear because of them. Retinal implants designed to restore sight are currently being tested in clinical trials. Initially, their resolution will be nominal, but in time this will improve. Ventricular assist devices now replace the function of entire hearts, circulating blood using a continuously spinning motor. Artificial pancreas technologies are also in clinical trials, as are a range of other devices designed to replace biological systems.

Certainly, many of these approaches still fall short of the amazing ability and efficiency of the human body. But for how much longer? Technology continues to advance at a pace many orders of magnitude faster than any biological system can evolve. How long will it be before these technologies are as good as the systems they replace? How long before they are better?

Therein lies the real dilemma.

Consider the South African sprinter, Oscar Pistorius. A double amputee, Pistorius runs on a pair of carbon fiber prosthetics and has been dubbed “the fastest man on no legs.” Due to a perceived advantage given him by his prosthetics, Pistorius was initially deemed ineligible to compete in the Olympic games. Only after making a legal appeal was he able to be considered for competition.

As our technologies become increasingly integrated with our biological selves and as these same technologies improve to the point they provide a significant advantage, we’re going to see resistance from various sectors of society. We already see this with performance-enhancing drugs in sports competitions and some college students reportedly gain academic advantage using nootropics or “smart drugs.” At some point such methods become so integrated into society they’re seen as being the norm rather than an advantage. But what happens until then?

Certainly we approve of the striving for advantage in certain spheres. For instance, the U.S. military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is involved in many projects designed for the express purpose of improving physical and mental capabilities well beyond the human norm. These “super soldier” programs are considered to be in our national interest and in a theater of war, few would argue that we were taking an unfair advantage. But provide cognitively-enhanced abilities to a derivatives trader or a legal counsel and see if the public still considers this fair or acceptable. The fact is, society and its institutions are going to be responding to this ever-shifting landscape for some time to come. The transition from the human era to the transhuman era will no doubt generate as many problems as it resolves. It’s the inevitable double-edged sword of technological advancement.

(I recently spoke about some of these ideas with Newstalk Radio in Ireland. Most of that interview is available here.)

Bionic BBC Interview

BBC News is running a series on human enhancement this month. For it, I was asked my thoughts regarding the feasibility of augmentation in the context of a famous 1970s television show. “Is the Six-Million-Dollar Man Possible?” asks whether the bionic capabilities of the Steve Austin character could be achieved in the coming years. In a nutshell, my answer is ‘Yes’.

As far as I’m concerned, most of the necessary pieces are in place. Neuroprosthetic arms, hands and legs are all being developed, providing ever-increasing degrees of motion, sensitivity, feedback and integration. Contact lenses, such as those under development at the University of Washington by a team led by Babak Parviz, will in time provide all kinds of enhancements to vision. Retinal implants designed to restore sight will one day become so capable, they’ll exceed the abilities of natural vision. Likewise cochlear implants that restore hearing.

Of course, there will be those who think such augmentation is unnatural, that it somehow diminishes us or makes us less human. To which my response is: Have glasses, contact lenses, crutches, artificial limbs, or hearing aids made their users somehow less human? Have mental enhancements and prostheses such as books, libraries, and the internet diminished us in some fundamental way? The entire course of human history has always involved the development of tools to improve our abilities, whether mental or physical. Each step has routinely met with resistance. And each resistance has fallen to the realities of necessity. Because ultimately, whatever gives us greater advantage over the environment or over our competition, wins out.

Strategies for a Troubled Economy

From the very first time one of our primate ancestors poked a stick into an anthill to retrieve a few tasty morsels, we’ve been on a persistent track of technological betterment. Today, it’s reached the point when it seems a day doesn’t pass that we don’t hear of yet another advancement that will change and improve our lives. Machines that can perform tasks both mundane and complex. Computer programs that duplicate the expertise of the highly skilled. Processes that allow one person to do the job of ten.

Unfortunately, such advances can also have a very negative impact on the welfare of the people and society they should be improving. As we’ve seen repeatedly over the years, such progress can displace not only individual workers, but entire fields and industries as well. While the argument can be made that new technologies create new jobs and opportunities, the reality is often just the opposite: net job losses. Bad as this is, there are indications this trend that will not only continue, but is in fact, accelerating. The coming decades hold considerable potential for catastrophic levels of job loss. Losses that will be tremendously detrimental both for society and the corporate world unless we can adapt.

In the decades ahead, we face a legion of disruptive technologies that will transform the world. Open source 3-D printing that will allow us to cheaply print almost any part or object. Designs and inventions generated by evolutionary algorithms. Molecular nanotechnology that will eventually allow us to build almost anything we can imagine atom by atom. Artificial intelligences that will be increasingly capable of performing even the most human of tasks.

All of these technologies are based on information. Easily accessible, readily replicable information. As each technology develops and matures, there will be tremendous incentive for businesses and individuals to utilize it for maximum benefit and maximum profit. This in spite of the long-term impact on the economy and on society.

We can already see the beginnings of this starting to take place in many of the world’s economies. The efficiency improvements promised by computers and the information revolution are being realized. But we’ve been unprepared for many of the negative aspects of this progress. The still bigger problem, of course, is this is just the beginning. The job loss we see today may only be the tip of tomorrow’s iceberg. If this is allowed to proceed unchecked, the world’s economies could grind to a halt. Following a long, downward spiral, we would eventually reach a point when few businesses are selling because so few people are capable of buying.

It’s often been said that new technologies generate new jobs and this is true up to a point. But in our current stage of technological development, it’s difficult to see these keeping pace with the rapid rise in job losses. New industries, retraining and adapting institutions all take far longer to implement than it does to realize the fruits of exponential progress once it reaches a certain level relative to human time scales.

So what is the solution? Do we somehow impose restrictions or regulations that prevent the advances that will eventually cause these losses? Do we create incentives to retain employees despite their “jobsolescence”?

Such approaches are unlikely to work in a global market governed by competitive forces. The reality is we probably won’t be able to resolve these issues using our existing tools and institutions. In order to fix this, it may be necessary to reinvent commerce itself.

Exactly what form this will take is difficult to say. It may be that businesses will be forced to change their revenue models by moving away from the standard buy-to-own concept. As development times shrink and production costs plummet, it may be both possible and necessary to move toward something entirely different. A subscription model could be one possibility: paying a fee to obtain regular updates of a product or line, just as we do with software. As furniture, food, clothing, even buildings come to be governed by the laws and forces of information and accelerating change, we’ll need to adapt the revenue models that support them.

In addition to this, social programs will likely need to be restructured to better deal with periods of large-scale, extended unemployment. In the current U.S. political climate, this may seem impossible, but I believe it will eventually be deemed necessary, if we are to avoid truly catastrophic downturns. A smarter, more adaptable social safety net would act as a buffer, providing time for new industries to mature and workers to be retrained, while keeping the economy primed and flowing.

Extensive development of lifelong learning will also be essential to ensure workers can meet the needs of emerging fields. It’s been observed that many of yesterday’s jobs have disappeared, just as many jobs a decade from now don’t even exist yet. Adapting worker schedules and funding to support such continuing education will pay big dividends in a rapidly changing world.

It’s very possible we’ll need to rethink our approach to economics and business models many times during the coming century. Such adaptation and restructuring could allow both producers and consumers to more fully realize the benefits of technological progress, while maintaining an economy that protects the existence of both.