Tag Archives: Facebook

Corporate Sci-Fi.

Note: Also published on LinkedIn

 

Why your company needs to play in the future.

As a professor of design and a design fiction researcher, I write academic papers and blog weekly about the future. I teach about the future of design, and I create future scenarios, sometimes with my students, that provoke us to look at what we are doing, what we are making, why we are making it and the ramifications that are inevitable. Primarily I try to focus both designers and decision makers on the steps they can take today to keep from being blindsided tomorrow. Futurists seem to be all the rage these days telling us to prepare for the Singularity, autonomous everything, or that robots will take our jobs. Recently, Jennifer Doudna, co-inventor of the gene editing technique called CrisprCas9 has been making the rounds and sounding the alarm that technology is moving so fast that we aren’t going to be able to contain a host of unforeseen (and foreseen) circumstances inside Pandora’s box. This concern should be prevalent, however, beyond just the bioengineering fields and extend into virtually anywhere that technology is racing forward fueled by venture capital and the desperate need to stay on top of whatever space in which we are playing. There is a lot at stake. Technology has already redefined privacy, behavioral wellness, personal autonomy, healthcare, labor, and maybe even our humanness, just to name a few.

Several recent articles have highlighted the changing world of design and how the pressure is on designers to make user adoption more like user addiction to ensure the success of a product or app. The world of behavioral economics is becoming a new arena in which we are using algorithms to manipulate users. Some designers are passing the buck to the clients or corporations that employ them for the questionable ethics of addictive products; others feel compelled to step aside and work on less lucrative projects or apply their skills to social causes. Most really care and want to help. But designers are uniquely positioned and trained to tackle these wicked problems—if we would collaborate with them.

Beyond the companies that might be deliberately trying to manipulate us, are those that unknowingly, or at least unintentionally, transform our behaviors in ways that are potentially harmful. Traditionally, we seek to hold someone responsible when a product or service is faulty, the physician for malpractice, the designer or manufacturer when a toy causes injury, a garment falls apart, or an appliance self-destructs. But as we move toward systemic designs that are less physical and more emotional, behavioral, or biological, design faults may not be so easy to identify and their repercussions noticeable only after serious issues have arisen. In fact, we launch many of the apps and operating systems used today with admitted errors and bugs. Designers rely on real-life testing to identify problems, issue patches, revisions, and versions.

In the realm of nanotechnology, while scientists and thought leaders have proposed guidelines and best-practices, research and development teams in labs around the world race forward without regulation creating molecule-sized structures, machines, and substances with no idea whether they are safe or what might be long-term effects of exposure to these elements. In biotechnology, while folks like Jennifer Doudna appeal to a morally ethical cadre of researchers to tread carefully in the realm of genetic engineering (especially when it comes to inheritable gene manipulation) we do not universally share those morals and ethics. Recent headlines attest to the fact that some scientists are bent on moving forward regardless of the implications.

Some technologies such as our smartphones have become equally invasive technology, yet they are now considered mundane. In just ten years since the introduction of the iPhone, we have transformed behaviors, upended our modes of communication, redefined privacy, distracted our attentions, distorted reality and manipulated a predicted 2.3 billion users as of 2017. [1] It is worth contemplating that this disruption is not from a faulty product, but rather one that can only be considered wildly successful.

There are a plethora of additional technologies that are poised to refine our worlds yet again including artificial intelligence, ubiquitous surveillance, human augmentation, robotics, virtual, augmented and mixed reality and the pervasive Internet of Things. Many of these technologies make their way into our experiences through the promise of better living, medical breakthroughs, or a safer and more secure life. But too often we ignore the potential downsides, the unintended consequences, or the systemic ripple-effects that these technologies spawn. Why?

In many cases, we do not want to stand in the way of progress. In others, we believe that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, yet this is the same thinking that has spawned some of our most complex and daunting systems, from nuclear weapons to air travel and the internal combustion engine. Each of these began with the best of intentions and, in many ways were as successful and initially beneficial as they could be. At the same time, they advanced and proliferated far more rapidly than we were prepared to accommodate. Dirty bombs are a reality we did not expect. The alluring efficiency with which we can fly from one city to another has nevertheless spawned a gnarly network of air traffic, baggage logistics, and anti-terrorism measures that are arguably more elaborate than getting an aircraft off the ground. Traffic, freeways, infrastructure, safety, and the drain on natural resources are complexities never imagined with the revolution of personal transportation. We didn’t see the entailments of success.

This is not always true. There have often been scientists and thought leaders who were waving the yellow flag of caution. I have written about how, “back in 1975, scientists and researchers got together at Asilomar because they saw the handwriting on the wall. They drew up a set of resolutions to make sure that one day the promise of Bioengineering (still a glimmer in their eyes) would not get out of hand.”[2] Indeed, researchers like Jennifer Doudna continue to carry the banner. A similar conference took place earlier this year to alert us to the potential dangers of technology and earlier this year another to put forth recommendations and guidelines to ensure that when machines are smarter than we are they carry on in a beneficent role. Too often, however, it is the scientists and visionaries who attend these conferences. [3] Noticeably absent, though not always, is corporate leadership.

Nevertheless, in this country, there remains no safeguarding regulation for nanotech, nor bioengineering, nor AI research. It is a free-for-all, and all of which could have massive disruption not only to our lifestyles but also our culture, our behavior, and our humanness. Who is responsible?

For nearly 40 years there has been an environmental movement that has spread globally. Good stewardship is a good idea. But it wasn’t until most corporations saw a way for it to make economic sense that they began to focus on it and then promote it as their contribution to society, their responsibility, and their civic duty. As well intentioned as they may be (and many are) much more are not paying attention to the effect of their technological achievements on our human condition.

We design most technologies with a combination of perceived user need and commercial potential. In many cases, these are coupled with more altruistic motivations such as a “do no harm” commitment to the environment and fair labor practices. As we move toward the capability to change ourselves in fundamental ways, are we also giving significant thought to the behaviors that we will engender by such innovations, or the resulting implications for society, culture, and the interconnectedness of everything?

Enter Humane Technology

Ultimately we will have to demand this level of thought, beginning with ourselves. But we should not fight this alone. Corporations concerned with appearing sensitive and proactive toward the environment and social justice need to add a new pillar to their edifice as responsible global citizens: humane technology.

Humane technology considers the socio-behavioral ramifications of products and services: digital dependencies, and addictions, job loss, genetic repercussions, the human impact from nanotechnologies, AI, and the Internet of Things.

To whom do we turn when a 14-year-old becomes addicted to her smartphone or obsessed with her social media popularity? We could condemn the parents for lack of supervision, but many of them are equally distracted. Who is responsible for the misuse of a drone to vandalize property or fire a gun or the anticipated 1 billion drones flying around by 2030? [4] Who will answer for the repercussions of artificial intelligence that spouts hate speech? Where will the buck stop when genetic profiling becomes a requirement for getting insured or getting a job?

While the backlash against these types of unintended consequences or unforeseen circumstances are not yet widespread and citizens have not taken to the streets in mass protests, behavioral and social changes like these may be imminent as a result of dozens of transformational technologies currently under development in labs and R&D departments across the globe. Who is looking at the unforeseen or the unintended? Who is paying attention and who is turning a blind eye?

It was possible to have anticipated texting and driving. It is possible to anticipate a host of horrific side effects from nanotechnology to both humans and the environment. It’s possible to tag the ever-present bad actor to any number of new technologies. It is possible to identify when the race to master artificial intelligence may be coming at the expense of making it safe or drawing the line. In fact, it is a marketing opportunity for corporate interests to take the lead and the leverage their efforts to preempt adverse side effects as a distinctive advantage.

Emphasizing humane technology is an automatic benefit for an ethical company, and for those more concerned with profit than ethics, (just between you and me) it offers the opportunity for a better brand image and (at least) the appearance of social concern. Whatever the motivation, we are looking at a future where we are either prepared for what happens next, or we are caught napping.

This responsibility should start with anticipatory methodologies that examine the social, cultural and behavioral ramifications, and unintended consequences of what we create. Designers and those trained in design research are excellent collaborators. My brand of design fiction is intended to take us into the future in an immersive and visceral way to provoke the necessary discussion and debate that anticipate the storm should there be one, but promising utopia is rarely the tinder to fuel a provocation. Design fiction embraces the art critical thinking and thought problems as a means of anticipating conflict and complexity before these become problems to be solved.

Ultimately we have to depart from the idea that technology will be the magic pill to solve the ills of humanity, design fiction, and other anticipatory methodologies can help to acknowledge our humanness and our propensity to foul things up. If we do not self-regulate, regulation will inevitably follow, probably spurred on by some unspeakable tragedy. There is an opportunity, now for the corporation to step up to the future with a responsible, thoughtful compassion for our humanity.

 

 

1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/

2. http://theenvisionist.com/2017/08/04/now-2/

3. http://theenvisionist.com/2017/03/24/genius-panel-concerned/

4. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-31/world-of-drones-congress-brisbane-futurist-thomas-frey/8859008

Bookmark and Share

How should we talk about the future?

 

Imagine that there are two camps. One camp holds high confidence that the future will be manifestly bright and promising in all aspects of human endeavor. Our health will dramatically improve as we eradicate disease and possibly even death. Artificial Intelligence will be at our beck and call to make our tough decisions, order our lives, fight our wars, watch over us, and keep us safe. Hence, it is full speed ahead. The positives outweigh the negatives. Any missteps will be but a minor hiccup, and we’ll cross those bridges when we come to them.

The second camp believes that many of these promises are achievable. But they also believe that we are beginning to see strong evidence that technology is indeed moving exponentially and that we are at a trajectory point in the curve that where will see what many experts have categorized as impossible or a “long way off” now is knocking at our door.

Kurzweil’s Law of Accelerating Returns, is proving remarkably accurate. Sure we adapted from the horse and buggy to the automobile, and from there to air travel, to an irritatingly resilient nuclear threat, to computers, and smartphones and DNA sequencing. But these changes are arriving more rapidly than their predecessors.

“‘As exponential growth continues to accelerate into the first half of the twenty-first century,’ [Kurzweil] writes. ‘It will appear to explode into infinity, at least from the limited and linear perspective of contemporary humans.’”1

The second camp sees this rapid-fire proliferation as alarming. Not because we will get to utopia faster, but because we will be standing in the midst of a host of disruptive technologies all coming to fruition at the same time without the benefit of meaningful oversight or the engagement of our societies.

I am in the second camp.

Last week, I talked about genetic engineering. The designer-baby question was always pushed aside as a long way off. Not anymore. That’s just one change. Our privacy, in the form of “big data,” from seemingly innocent pastimes such as Facebook, is being severely compromised. According to security technologist Bruce Schneier,

“Facebook can predict race, personality, sexual orientation, political ideology, relationship status, and drug use on the basis of Like clicks alone. The company knows you’re engaged before you announce it, and gay before you come out—and its postings may reveal that to other people without your knowledge or permission. Depending on the country you live in, that could merely be a major personal embarrassment—or it could get you killed.”

Facebook is just one of the seemingly benign things we do every day. By now, most of us consider that using our smartphones 75 percent of our day is also harmless, though we would also have to agree that it has changed us personally, behaviorally, and societally. And while the societal outcry against designer babies has been noticeable since last weeks stories about CrisprCas9 gene splicing with human embryos, how long will it be before we accept it as the norm, and feel pressure in our own families to participate to stay competitive, or maybe even just to be insured.

The fact is that we like to think that we can adapt to anything. To some extent, we pride ourselves on this resilience. Unfortunately, that seems to suggest that we are also powerless to affect these technologies and that we have no say in when, if, or whether we should make them in the first place. Should we be proud of the fact that we are adapting to a complete lack of privacy, to the likelihood of terrorism or being replaced by an AI? These are my questions.

So I am encouraged when others also raise these questions. Recently, the tech media which seems to be perpetually enamored of folks like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, called Zuckerberg a “bad futurist” because of his over optimistic view of the future.

The article came from the Huffington post’s Rebecca Searles.
According to Searles,

“Elon Musk’s doomsday AI predictions aren’t “irresponsible,” but Mark Zuckerberg’s techno-optimism is.”3

According to a Zuckerberg podcast,

“…people who are arguing for slowing down the process of
building AI, I just find that really questionable… If you’re arguing against AI, then you’re arguing against safer cars that aren’t going to have accidents and you’re arguing against being able to better diagnose people when they’re sick.”3

Technology hawks are always promising safer, and healthier as their rationale for unimpeded acceleration. I’m sure that’s the rah-rah rationale for designer babies, too. Think of all the illnesses we will be able to breed out of the human race. Searles and I agree that negative outcomes deserve equally serious consideration as well, and not after they happen. As she aptly puts it,

“Tackling tech challenges with a build-it-and-see-what-happens approach (a la Zuckerberg’s former “move fast and break things” development mantra) just isn’t suitable for AI.”

The problem is, that Zuckerberg is not alone, nor is last weeks
Shoukhrat Mitalipov. Ultimately, this reality of two camps is the rationale behind my approach to design fiction. As you know, the objective of design fiction is to provoke. Promising utopia is rarely the tinder to fuel a provocation.

Let’s remember Charles Dickens’ story of Ebenezer Scrooge. The ghost of Christmas past takes him back in time where, for the first time, he sees the truth about his past. But this revelation does not change him. Then the ghost of Christmas present opens his eyes to everything around him that he is blind to in the present. Still, Scrooge is unaffected. And finally, the ghost of Christmas future takes him into the future, and it is here that Scrooge sees the days to come as “the way it will be” unless he changes something now.

Somehow, I think the outcome would have been different if that last ghost said, ”Don’t worry. You’ll adapt.”

Let’s not talk about the future in purely utopian terms nor total doom-and-gloom. The future will not be like one or the other any more than is the present day. But let us not be blind to our infinite capacity to foul things up, to the potential of bad actors or the inevitability of unanticipated consequences. If we have any hope of meeting our future with the altruistic image of a utopian society, let us go forward with eyes open.

 

1. http://www.businessinsider.com/ray-kurzweil-law-of-accelerating-returns-2015-5

2. “Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World”

3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mark-zuckerberg-is-a-bad-futurist_us_5979295ae4b09982b73761f0

Bookmark and Share

Ethical tech.

Though I tinge most of my blogs with ethical questions, the last time I brought up this topic specifically on this was back in 2015. I guess I am ready to give it another go. Ethics is a tough topic. If we deal with this purely superficially, ethics would seem natural, like common sense, or the right thing to do. But if that’s the case, why do so many people do the wrong thing? Things get even more complicated if we move into institutionally complex issues like banking, or governing, technology, genetics, health care or national defense, just to name a few.

The last time I wrote about this, I highlighted Michael Sandel Professor of Philosophy and Government at Harvard’s Law School, where he teaches a wildly popular course called “Justice.” Then, I was glad to see that the big questions were still being addressed in in places like Harvard. Some of his questions then, which came from a FastCo article, were:

“Is it right to take from the rich and give to the poor? Is it right to legislate personal safety? Can torture ever be justified? Should we try to live forever? Buy our way to the head of the line? Create perfect children?”

These are undoubtedly important and prescient questions to ask, especially as we are beginning to confront technologies that make things which were formerly inconceivable or plain impossible, not only possible but likely.

So I was pleased to see last month, an op-ed piece in WIRED by Susan Liautaud founder of The Ethics Incubator. Susan is about as closely aligned to my tech concerns as anyone I have read. And she brings solid thinking to the issues.

“Technology is approaching the man-machine and man-animal
boundaries. And with this, society may be leaping into humanity defining innovation without the equivalent of a constitutional convention to decide who should have the authority to decide whether, when, and how these innovations are released into society. What are the ethical ramifications? What checks and balances might be important?”

Her comments are right in line with my research and co-research into Humane Technologies. Liataud continues:

“Increasingly, the people and companies with the technological or scientific ability to create new products or innovations are de facto making policy decisions that affect human safety and society. But these decisions are often based on the creator’s intent for the product, and they don’t always take into account its potential risks and unforeseen uses. What if gene-editing is diverted for terrorist ends? What if human-pig chimeras mate? What if citizens prefer to see birds rather than flying cars when they look out a window? (Apparently, this is a real risk. Uber plans to offer flight-hailing apps by 2020.) What if Echo Look leads to mental health issues for teenagers? Who bears responsibility for the consequences?”

For me, the answer to that last question is all of us. We should not rely on business and industry to make these decisions, nor expect our government to do it. We have to become involved in these issues at the public level.

Michael Sandel believes that the public is hungry for these issues, but we tend to shy away from them. They can be confrontational and divisive, and no one wants to make waves or be politically incorrect. That’s a mistake.

An image from the future. A student design fiction project that examined ubiquitous AR.

So while the last thing I want is a politician or CEO making these decisions, these two constituencies could do the responsible thing and create forums for these discussions so that the public can weigh in on them. To do anything less, borders on arrogance.

Ultimately we will have to demand this level of thought, beginning with ourselves. This responsibility should start with anticipatory methodologies that examine the social, cultural and behavioral ramifications, and unintended consequences of what we create.

But we should not fight this alone. Corporations and governments concerned with appearing sensitive and proactive toward the environment and social justice need to add a new pillar to their edifice as responsible global citizens: humane technology.

 

Bookmark and Share

An AI as President?

 

Back on May 19th, before I went on holiday, I promised to comment on an article that appeared that week advocating that we would better off with artificial intelligence (AI) as President of the United States. Joshua Davis authored the piece: Hear me out: Let’s Elect
An AI As President, for the business section of WIRED  online. Let’s start out with a few quotes.

“An artificially intelligent president could be trained to
maximize happiness for the most people without infringing on civil liberties.”

“Within a decade, tens of thousands of people will entrust their daily commute—and their safety—to an algorithm, and they’ll do it happily…The increase in human productivity and happiness will be enormous.”

Let’s start with the word happiness. What is that anyway? I’ve seen it around in several discourses about the future, that somehow we have to start focusing on human happiness above all things, but what makes me happy and what makes you happy may very well be different things. Then there is the frightening idea that it is the job of government to make us happy! There are a lot of folks out there that the government should give us a guaranteed income, pay for our healthcare, and now, apparently, it should also make us happy. If you haven’t noticed from my previous blogs, I am not a progressive. If you believe that government should undertake the happy challenge, you had better hope that their idea of happiness coincides with your own. Gerd Leonhard, a futurist whose work I respect, says that there are two types of happiness: first is hedonic (pleasure) which tends to be temporary, and the other is a eudaimonic happiness which he defines as human flourishing.1 I prefer the latter as it is likely to be more meaningful. Meaning is rather crucial to well-being and purpose in life. I believe that we should be responsible for our happiness. God help us if we leave it up to a machine.

This brings me to my next issue with this insane idea. Davis suggests that by simply not driving, there will be an enormous increase in human productivity and happiness. According to the website overflow data,

“Of the 139,786,639 working individuals in the US, 7,000,722, or about 5.01%, use public transit to get to work according to the 2013 American Communities Survey.”

Are those 7 million working individuals who don’t drive happier and more productive? The survey should have asked, but I’m betting the answer is no. Davis also assumes that everyone will be able to afford an autonomous vehicle. Maybe providing every American with an autonomous vehicle is also the job of the government.

Where I agree with Davis is that we will probably abdicate our daily commute to an algorithm and do it happily. Maybe this is the most disturbing part of his argument. As I am fond of saying, we are sponges for technology, and we often adopt new technology without so much as a thought toward the broader ramifications of what it means to our humanity.

There are sober people out there advocating that we must start to abdicate our decision-making to algorithms because we have too many decisions to make. They are concerned that the current state of affairs is simply too painful for humankind. If you dig into the rationale that these experts are using, many of them are motivated by commerce. Already Google and Facebook and the algorithms of a dozen different apps are telling you what you should buy, where you should eat, who you should “friend” and, in some cases, what you should think. They give you news (real or fake), and they tell you this is what will make you happy. Is it working? Agendas are everywhere, but very few of them have you in the center.

As part of his rationale, Davis cites the proven ability for AI to beat the world’s Go champions over and over and over again, and that it can find melanomas better than board-certified dermatologists.

“It won’t be long before an AI is sophisticated enough to
implement a core set of beliefs in ways that reflect changes in the world. In other words, the time is coming when AIs will have better judgment than most politicians.”

That seems like grounds to elect one as President, right? In fact, it is just another way for us to take our eye off the ball, to subordinate our autonomy to more powerful forces in the belief that technology will save us and make us happier.

Back to my previous point, that’s what is so frightening. It is precisely the kind of argument that people buy into. What if the new AI President decides that we will all be happier if we’re sedated, and then using executive powers makes it law? Forget checks and balances, since who else in government could win an argument against an all-knowing AI? How much power will the new AI President give to other algorithms, bots, and machines?

If we are willing to give up the process of purposeful work to make a living wage in exchange for a guaranteed income, to subordinate our decision-making to have “less to think about,” to abandon reality for a “good enough” simulation, and believe that this new AI will be free of the special interests who think they control it, then get ready for the future.

1. Leonhard, Gerd. Technology vs. Humanity: The Coming Clash between Man and Machine. p112, United Kingdom: Fast Future, 2016. Print.

Bookmark and Share

Are you listening to the Internet of Things? Someone is.

As usual, it is a toss up for what I should write about this week. Is it, WIRED’s article on the artificial womb, FastCo’s article on design thinking, the design fiction world of the movie The Circle, or WIRED’s warning about apps using your phone’s microphone to listen for ultrasonic marketing ‘beacons’ that you can’t hear? Tough call, but I decided on a different WIRED post that talked about the vision of Zuckerberg’s future at F8. Actually, the F8 future is a bit like The Circle anyway so I might be killing two birds with one stone.

At first, I thought the article titled, “Look to Zuck’s F8, Not Trump’s 100 Days, to See the Shape of the Future,” would be just another Trump bashing opportunity, (which I sometimes think WIRED prefers more than writing about tech) but not so. It was about tech, mostly.

The article, written by Zachary Karabell starts out with this quote,

“While the fate of the Trump administration certainly matters, it may shape the world much less decisively in the long-term than the tectonic changes rapidly altering the digital landscape.”

I believe this statement is dead-on, but I would include the entire “technological” landscape. The stage is becoming increasingly “set,” as the article continues,

“At the end of March, both the Senate and the House voted to roll back broadband privacy regulations that had been passed by the Federal Communications Commission in 2016. Those would have required internet service providers to seek customers’ explicit permission before selling or sharing their browsing history.”

Combine that with,

“Facebook[s] vision of 24/7 augmented reality with sensors, camera, and chips embedded in clothing, everyday objects, and eventually the human body…”

and the looming possibility of ending net neutrality, we could be setting ourselves up for the real Circle future.

“A world where data and experiences are concentrated in a handful of companies with what will soon be trillion dollar capitalizations risks being one where freedom gives way to control.”

To add kindling to this thicket, there is the Quantified Self movement (QS). According to their website,

“Our mission is to support new discoveries about ourselves and our communities that are grounded in accurate observation and enlivened by a spirit of friendship.”

Huh? Ok. But they want to do this using “self-tracking tools.” This means sensors. They could be in wearables or implantables or ingestibles. Essentially, they track you. Presumably, this is all so that we become more self-aware, and more knowledgeable about our selves and our behaviors. Health, wellness, anxiety, depression, concentration; the list goes on. Like many emerging movements that are linked to technologies, we open the door through health care or longevity, because it is an easy argument that being healty or fit is better than sick and out of shape. But that is all too simple. QS says that that we gain “self knowledge through numbers,” and in the digital age that means data. In a climate that is increasingly less regulatory about what data can be shared and with whom, this could be the beginings of the perfect storm.

As usual, I hope I’m wrong.

 

 

 

Bookmark and Share

Augmented evidence. It’s a logical trajectory.

A few weeks ago I gushed about how my students killed it at a recent guerrilla future enactment on a ubiquitous Augmented Reality (AR) future. Shortly after that, Mark Zuckerberg announced the Facebook AR platform. The AR uses the camera on your smartphone, and according to a recent WIRED article, transforms your smartphone into an AR engine.

Unfortunately, as we all know, (and so does Zuck), the smartphone isn’t currently much of an engine. AR requires a lot of processing, and so does the AI that allows it to recognize the real world so it can layer additional information on top of it. That’s why Facebook (and others), are building their own neural network chips so that the platform doesn’t have to run to the Cloud to access the processing required for Artificial Intelligence (AI). That will inevitably happen which will make the smartphone experience more seamless, but that’s just part the challenge for Facebook.

If you add to that the idea that we become even more dependent on looking at our phones while we are walking or worse, driving, (think Pokemon GO), then this latest announcement is, at best, foreshadowing.

As the WIRED article continues, tech writer Brian Barrett talked to Blair MacIntyre, from Georgia Tech who says,

“The phone has generally sucked for AR because holding it up and looking through it is tiring, awkward, inconvenient, and socially unacceptable,” says MacIntyre. Adding more of it doesn’t solve those issues. It exacerbates them. (The exception might be the social acceptability part; as MacIntyre notes, selfies were awkward until they weren’t.)”

That last part is an especially interesting point. I’ll have to come back to that in another post.

My students did considerable research on exactly this kind of early infancy that technologies undergo on their road to ubiquity. In another WIRED article, even Zuckerberg admitted,

“We all know where we want this to get eventually,” said Zuckerberg in his keynote. “We want glasses, or eventually contact lenses, that look and feel normal, but that let us overlay all kinds of information and digital objects on top of the real world.”

So there you have it. Glasses are the end game, but as my students agreed, contact lenses not so much. Think about it. If you didn’t have to stick a contact lens in your eyeball, you wouldn’t and the idea that they could become ubiquitous (even if you solved the problem of computing inside a wafer thin lens and the myriad of problems with heat, and in-eye-time), they are much farther away, if ever.

Student design team from Ohio State’s Collaborative Studio.

This is why I find my student’s solution so much more elegant and a far more logical trajectory. According to Barrett,

“The optimistic timeline for that sort of tech, though, stretches out to five or 10 years. In the meantime, then, an imperfect solution takes the stage.”

My students locked it down to seven years.

Finally, Zuckerberg made this statement:

“Augmented reality is going to help us mix the digital and physical in all new ways,” said Zuckerberg at F8. “And that’s going to make our physical reality better.”

Except that Zuck’s version of better and mine or yours may not be the same. Exactly what is wrong with reality anyway?

If you want to see the full-blown presentation of what my students produced, you can view it at aughumana.net.

Note: Currently the AugHumana experience is superior on Google Chrome.  If you are a Safari or Firefox purest, you may have to wait for the page to load (up to 2 minutes). We’re working on this. So, just use Chrome this time. We hope to have it fixed soon.

Bookmark and Share

Election lessons. Beware who you ignore.

It was election week here in America, but unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last eight months, you already know that. Not unlike the Brexit vote from earlier this year, a lot of people were genuinely surprised by the outcome. Perhaps most surprising to me is that the people who seem to be the most surprised are the people who claimed to know—for certain—that the outcome would be otherwise. Why do you suppose that is? There is a lot of finger-pointing and head-scratching going on but from what I’ve seen so far none of these so-called experts has a clue why they were wrong.

Most of them are blaming polls for their miscalculations. And it’s starting to look like their error came not in who they polled but who they thought irrelevant and ignored. Many in the media are in denial that their efforts to shape the election may have even fueled the fire for the underdog. What has become of American Journalism is shameful. Wikileaks proves that ninety percent of the media was kissing up to the left, with pre-approved interviews, stories and marching orders to “shape the narrative.” I don’t care who you were voting for, that kind of collusion is a disgrace for democracy. Call it Pravda. But I don’t want to turn this blog into a political commentary, but it was amusing to watch them all wearing the stupid hat on Wednesday morning. What I do want to talk about, however, is how we look at data to reach a conclusion.

In a morning-after article from the LinkedIn network, futurist Peter Diamandis posted the topic, “Here’s what election campaign marketing will look like in 2020.” It was less about the election and more about future tech with an occasional reference to the election and campaign processes. He has five predictions. First is, the news flash that “Social media will have continued to explode. [and that] The single most important factor influencing your voting decision is your social network.” Diamandis says that “162 million people log onto Facebook at least once a month.” I agree with the first part of his statement but what about the people the other 50% and those that don’t share their opinions on politics. A lot of pollsters are looking at the huge disparity in projections vs. actuals in the 2016 election. They are acknowledging that a lot of people simply weren’t forthcoming in pre-election polling. Those planning to vote Trump, for example, knew that Trump was a polarizing figure and they weren’t going to get into it with their friends on social media or even a stranger taking a poll. Then, I’m willing to bet that a lot of voters who put the election over the top are in the fifty percent that isn’t on social media. Just look at the demographics for social media.

Peter Diamandis is a brilliant guy, and I’m not here to pick on him. Many of his predictions are quite conceivable. Mostly he’s talking about an increase in data mining, and AI is getting better at learning from it, with a laser focus on the individual. If you add this together with programmable avatars, facial recognition improvements and the Internet of Things, the future means that we are all going to be tracked with increasing levels of detail. And though our face is probably not something we can keep secret, if it all creeps you out, remember that much of this is based on what we choose to share. Fortunately, it will take a little bit longer than 2020 for all of these new technologies to read our minds—so until then we still hold the cards. As long as you don’t share our most private thoughts on social media or with pollsters, you’ll keep them guessing.

Bookmark and Share

Future proof.

 

There is no such thing as future proof anything, of course, so I use the term to refer to evidence that a current idea is becoming more and more probable of something we will see in the future. The evidence I am talking about surfaced in a FastCo article this week about biohacking and the new frontier of digital implants. Biohacking has a loose definition and can reference using genetic material without regard to ethical procedures, to DIY biology, to pseudo-bioluminescent tattoos, to body modification for functional enhancement—see transhumanism. Last year, my students investigated this and determined that a society willing to accept internal implants was not a near-future scenario. Nevertheless, according to FastCo author Steven Melendez,

“a survey released by Visa last year that found that 25% of Australians are ‘at least slightly interested’ in paying for purchases through a chip implanted in their bodies.”

Melendez goes on to describe a wide variety of implants already in use for medical, artistic and personal efficiency and interviews Tim Shank, president of a futurist group called TwinCities+. Shank says,

“[For] people with Android phones, I can just tap their phone with my hand, right over the chip, and it will send that information to their phone..”

implants
Amal Graafstra’s Hands [Photo: courtesy of Amal Graafstra] c/o WIRED
The popularity of body piercings and tattoos— also once considered as invasive procedures—has skyrocketed. Implantable technology, especially as it becomes more functionally relevant could follow a similar curve.

I saw this coming some years ago when writing The Lightstream Chronicles. The story, as many of you know, takes place in the far future where implantable technology is mundane and part of everyday life. People regulate their body chemistry access the Lightstream (the evolved Internet) and make “calls” using their fingertips embedded with Luminous Implants. These future implants talk directly to implants in the brain, and other systemic body centers to make adjustments or provide information.

An ad for Luminous Implants, and the "tap" numbers for local attractions.
An ad for Luminous Implants, and the “tap” numbers for local attractions.
Bookmark and Share

When the stakes are low, mistakes are beneficial. In more weighty pursuits, not so much.

 

I’m from the old school. I suppose, that sentence alone makes me seem like a codger. Let’s call it the eighties. Part of the art of problem solving was to work toward a solution and get it as tight as we possibly could before we committed to implementation. It was called the design process and today it’s called “design thinking.” So it was heresy to me when I found myself, some years ago now, in a high-tech corporation where this was a doctrine ignored. I recall a top-secret, new product meeting in which the owner and chief technology officer said, “We’re going to make some mistakes on this, so let’s hurry up and make them.” He was not speaking about iterative design, which is part and parcel of the design process, he was talking about going to market with the product and letting the users illuminate what we should fix. Of course, the product was safe and met all the legal standards, but it was far from polished. The idea was that mass consumer trial-by-fire would provide us with an exponentially higher data return than if we tested all the possible permutations in a lab at headquarters. He was, apparently, ahead of his time.

In a recent FastCo article on Facebook’s race to be the leader in AI, author Daniel Terdiman cites some of Mark Zuckerberg’s mantras: “‘Move fast and break things,’ or ‘Done is better than perfect.’” We can debate this philosophically or maybe even ethically, but it is clearly today’s standard procedure for new technologies, new science and the incessant race to be first. Here is a quote from that article:

“Artificial intelligence has become a vital part of scaling Facebook. It’s already being used to recognize the faces of your friends in photographs, and curate your newsfeed. DeepText, an engine for reading text that was unveiled last week, can understand “with near-human accuracy” the content in thousands of posts per second, in more than 20 different languages. Soon, the text will be translated into a dozen different languages, automatically. Facebook is working on recognizing your voice and identifying people inside of videos so that you can fast forward to the moment when your friend walks into view.”

The story goes on to say that Facebook, though it is pouring tons of money into AI, is behind the curve, having begun only three or so years ago. Aside from the fact that FB’s accomplishments seem fairly impressive (at least to me), people like Google and Microsoft are apparently way ahead. In the case of Microsoft, the effort began more than twenty years ago.

Today, the hurry up is accelerated by open sourcingWikipedia explains the benefits of open sourcing as:

“The open-source model, or collaborative development from multiple independent sources, generates an increasingly more diverse scope of design perspective than any one company is capable of developing and sustaining long term.”

The idea behind open sourcing is that the mistakes will happen even faster along with the advancements. It is becoming the de facto approach to breakthrough technologies. If fast is the primary, maybe even the only goal, it is a smart strategy. Or is it a touch short sighted? As we know, not everyone who can play with the code that a company has given them has that company’s best interests in mind. As for the best interests of society, I’m not sure those are even on the list.

To examine our motivations and the ripples that emanate from them, of course, is my mission with design fiction and speculative futures. Whether we like it or not, a by-product of technological development—aside from utopia—is human behavior. There are repercussions from the things we make and the systems that evolve from them. When your mantra is “Move fast and break things,” that’s what you’ll get. But there is certainly no time the move-fast loop to consider the repercussions of your actions, or the unexpected consequences. Consequences will appear all by themselves.

The technologists tell us that when we reach the holy grail of AI (whatever that is), we will be better people and solve the world’s most challenging problems. But in reality, it’s not that simple. With the nuances of AI, there are potential problems, or mistakes, that could be difficult to fix; new predicaments that humans might not be able to solve and AI may not be inclined to resolve on our behalf.

In the rush to make mistakes, how grave will they be? And, who is responsible?

Bookmark and Share

Design fiction. I want to believe.

 

I have blogged in the past about logical succession. When it comes to creating realistic design fiction narrative, there needs to be a sense of believability. Coates1 calls this “plausible reasoning.”, “[…]putting together what you know to create a path leading to one or several new states or conditions, at a distance in time.” In other words, for the audience to suspend their disbelief, there has to be a basic understanding of how we got here. If you depict something that is too fantastic, your audience won’t buy it, especially if you are trying to say that, “This could happen.”

“When design fictions are conceivable and realistically executed they carry a greater potential for making an impact and focusing discussion and debate around these future scenarios.”2

In my design futures collaborative studio, I ask students to do a rigorous investigation of future technologies, the ones that are on the bleeding edge. Then I want them to ask, “What if?” It is easier said than done. Particularly because of technological convergence, the way technologies merge with other technologies to form heretofore unimagined opportunities.

There was an article this week in Wired Magazine concerning a company called Magic Leap. They are in the MR business, mixed reality as opposed to virtual reality. With MR, the virtual imagery happens within the space you’re in—in front of your eyes—rather than in an entirely virtual space. The demo from Wired’s site is pretty convincing. The future of MR and VR, for me, are easy to predict. Will it get more realistic? Yes. Will it get cheaper, smaller, and ubiquitous? Yes. At this point, a prediction like this is entirely logical. Twenty-five years ago it would not have been as easy to imagine.

As the Wired article states,

“[…]the arrival of mass-market VR wasn’t imminent.[…]Twenty-five years later a most unlikely savior emerged—the smartphone! Its runaway global success drove the quality of tiny hi-res screens way up and their cost way down. Gyroscopes and motion sensors embedded in phones could be borrowed by VR displays to track head, hand, and body positions for pennies. And the processing power of a modern phone’s chip was equal to an old supercomputer, streaming movies on the tiny screen with ease.”

To have predicted that VR would be where it is today with billions of dollars pouring into fledgling technologies and realistic, and utterly convincing demonstrations would have been illogical. It would have been like throwing a magnet into a bucket of nails, rolling it around and guessing which nails would end up coming out attached.

What is my point? I think it is important to remind ourselves that things will move blindingly fast particularly when companies like Google and Facebook are throwing money at them. Then, the advancement of one only adds to the possibilities of the next iteration possibly in ways that no one can predict. As VR or MR merges with biotech or artificial reality, or just about anything else you can imagine, the possibilities are endless.

Unpredictable technology makes me uncomfortable. Next week I’ll tell you why.

 

  1. Coates, J.F., 2010. The future of foresight—A US perspective. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 77, 1428–1437.
  2. E. Scott Denison. “Timed-release Design Fiction: A Digital Online Methodology to Provoke Reflection on our Socio- Technological Future.”  Edited by Michal Derda Nowakowski. ISBN: 978-1-84888-427-4 Interdisciplinary.net.
Bookmark and Share