Tag Archives: Ray Kurzweil

Transcendent Plan

 

One of my oft-quoted sources for future technology is Ray Kurzweil. A brilliant technologist, inventor, and futurist, Kurzweil seems to see it all very clearly, almost as though he were at the helm personally. Some of Kurzweil’s theses are crystal clear for me, such as an imminent approach toward the Singularity in a series of innocuous, ‘seemingly benign,’ steps. I also agree with his Law of Accelerating Returns1 which posits that technology advances exponentially. In a recent interview with the Silicon Valley Business Journal, he nicely illustrated that idea.

“Exponentials are quite seductive because they start out sub-linear. We sequenced one ten-thousandth of the human genome in 1990 and two ten-thousandths in 1991. Halfway through the genome project, 7 ½ years into it, we had sequenced 1 percent. People said, “This is a failure. Seven years, 1 percent. It’s going to take 700 years, just like we said.” Seven years later it was done, because 1 percent is only seven doublings from 100 percent — and it had been doubling every year. We don’t think in these exponential terms. And that exponential growth has continued since the end of the genome project. These technologies are now thousands of times more powerful than they were 13 years ago, when the genome project was completed.”

Kurzweil says the same kinds of leaps are approaching for solar power, resources, disease, and longevity. Our tendency to think linear instead of exponential means that we can deceive ourselves into believing that technologies that, ‘just aren’t there yet,’ are ‘a long way off.’ In reality, they may be right around the corner.

I’m not as solid in my affirmation of Kurzweil (and others) when it comes to some of his other predictions. Without reading too much between the lines, you can see that there is a philosophy that is helping to drive Kurzweil. Namely, he doesn’t want to die. Of course, who does? But his is a quest to deny death on a techno-transcendental level. Christianity holds that eternal life awaits the believer in Jesus Christ, other religions are satisfied that our atoms return to the greater cosmos, or that reincarnation is the next step. It would appear that Kurzweil has no time for faith. His bet on science and technology. He states,

“I think we’re very much on track to have human-level AI by 2029, which has been my consistent prediction for 20 years, and then to be able to send nanobots into the brain in the 2030s and connect our biological neocortex to synthetic neocortex in the cloud.”

In the article mentioned above, Kurzweil states that his quest to live forever is not just about the 200-plus supplements that he takes daily. He refers to this as “Bridge One.” Bridge One buys us time until technology catches up. Then “Bridge Two,” the “biotechnology revolution” takes over and radically extends our life. If all else fails, our mind will be uploaded to Cloud (which will have evolved to a synthetic neocortex), though it remains to be seen whether the sum-total of a mind also equals consciousness in some form.

For many who struggle with the idea of death, religious or not, I wonder if when we dissect it, it is not the fear of physical decrepitude that scares us, but the loss of consciousness; that unique ability of humans to comprehend their world, share language and emotions, to create and contemplate?

I would pose that it is indeed that consciousness that makes us human (along with the injustice at the thought that we feel that we might lose it. It would seem that transcendence is in order. In one scenario this transcendence comes from God, in another ‘we are as Gods.’2

So finally, I wonder whether all of these small, exponentially replicating innovations—culminating to the point where we are accessing Cloud-data only by thinking, or communicating via telepathy, or writing symphonies for eternity—will make us more or less human. If we decide that we are no happier, no more content or fulfilled, is there any going back?

Seeing as it might be right around the corner, we might want to think about these things now rather than later.

 

1. Kurzweil, R. (2001) The Law of Accelerating Returns, KurzweilAI . Kurzweil AI. Available at: http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns (Accessed: October 10, 2015). 
2. Brand, Stewart. “WE ARE AS GODS.” The Whole Earth Catalog, September 1968, 1-58. Accessed May 04, 2015. http://www.wholeearth.com/issue/1010/article/195/we.are.as.gods.
Bookmark and Share

The nature of the unpredictable.

 

Following up on last week’s post, I confessed some concern about technologies that progress too quickly and combine unpredictably.

Stewart Brand introduced the 1968 Whole Earth Catalog with, “We are as gods and might as well get good at it.”1 Thirty-two years later, he wrote that new technologies such as computers, biotechnology and nanotechnology are self-accelerating, that they differ from older, “stable, predictable and reliable,” technologies such as television and the automobile. Brand states that new technologies “…create conditions that are unstable, unpredictable and unreliable…. We can understand natural biology, subtle as it is because it holds still. But how will we ever be able to understand quantum computing or nanotechnology if its subtlety keeps accelerating away from us?”2. If we combine Brand’s concern with Kurzweil’s Law of Accelerating Returns and the current supporting evidence exponentially, as the evidence supports, will it be as Brand suggests unpredictable?

Last week I discussed an article from WIRED Magazine on the VR/MR company Magic Leap. The author writes,

“Even if you’ve never tried virtual reality, you probably possess a vivid expectation of what it will be like. It’s the Matrix, a reality of such convincing verisimilitude that you can’t tell if it’s fake. It will be the Metaverse in Neal Stephenson’s rollicking 1992 novel, Snow Crash, an urban reality so enticing that some people never leave it.”

And it will be. It is, as I said last week, entirely logical to expect it.

We race toward these technologies with visions of mind-blowing experiences or life-changing cures, and usually, we imagine only the upside. We all too often forget the human factor. Let’s look at some other inevitable technological developments.
• Affordable DNA testing will tell you your risk of inheriting a disease or debilitating condition.
• You can ingest a pill that tells your doctor, or you in case you forgot, that you took your medicine.
• Soon we will have life-like robotic companions.
• Virtual reality is affordable, amazingly real and completely user-friendly.

These are simple scenarios because they will likely have aspects that make them even more impressive, more accessible and more profoundly useful. And like most technological developments, they will also become mundane and expected. But along with them come the possibility of a whole host of unintended consequences. Here are a few.
• The government’s universal healthcare requires that citizens have a DNA test before you qualify.
• It monitors whether you’ve taken your medication and issues a fine if you don’t, even if you don’t want your medicine.
• A robotic, life-like companion can provide support and encouragement, but it could also be your outlet for violent behavior or abuse.
• The virtual world is so captivating and pleasurable that you don’t want to leave, or it gets to the point where it is addicting.

It seems as though whenever we involve human nature, we set ourselves up for unintended consequences. Perhaps it is not the nature of technology to be unpredictable; it is us.

1. Brand, Stewart. “WE ARE AS GODS.” The Whole Earth Catalog, September 1968, 1-58. Accessed May 04, 2015. http://www.wholeearth.com/issue/1010/article/195/we.are.as.gods.
2. Brand, Stewart. “Is Technology Moving Too Fast? Self-Accelerating Technologies-Computers That Make Faster Computers, For Example – May Have a Destabilizing Effect on .Society.” TIME, 2000
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

Nine years from now.

 

Today I’m on my soapbox, again, as an advocate of design thinking, of which design fiction is part of the toolbox.

In 2014, the Pew Research Center published a report on Digital Life in 2025. Therein, “The report covers experts’ views about advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics, and their impact on jobs and employment.” Their nutshell conclusion was that:

“Experts envision automation and intelligent digital agents permeating vast areas of our work and personal lives by 2025, (9 years from now), but they are divided on whether these advances will displace more jobs than they create.”

On the upside, some of the “experts” believe that we will, as the brilliant humans that we are, invent new kinds of uniquely human work that we can’t replace with AI—a return to an artisanal society with more time for leisure and our loved ones. Some think we will be freed from the tedium of work and find ways to grow in some other “socially beneficial” pastime. Perhaps we will just be chillin’ with our robo-buddy.

On the downside, there are those who believe that not only blue-collar, robotic, jobs will vanish, but also white-collar, thinking jobs, and that will leave a lot of people out of work since there are only so many jobs as clerks at McDonald’s or greeters at Wal-Mart. They think that some of these are the fault of education for not better preparing us for the future.

A few weeks ago I blogged about people who are thinking about addressing these concerns with something called Universal Basic Income (UBI), a $12,000 gift to everyone in the world since everyone will be out of work. I’m guessing (though it wasn’t explicitly stated) that this money would come from all the corporations that are raking in the bucks by employing the AI’s, the robots and the digital agents, but who don’t have anyone on the payroll anymore. The advocates of this idea did not address whether the executives at these companies, presumably still employed, will make more than $12,000, nor whether the advocates themselves were on the 12K list. I guess not. They also did not specify who would buy the services that these corporations were offering if we are all out of work. But I don’t want to repeat that rant here.

I’m not as optimistic about the unique capabilities of humankind to find new, uniquely human jobs in some new, utopian artisanal society. Music, art, and blogs are already being written by AI, by the way. I do agree, however, that we are not educating our future decision-makers to adjust adequately to whatever comes along. The process of innovative design thinking is a huge hedge against technology surprise, but few schools have ever entertained the notion and some have never even heard of it. In some cases, it has been adopted, but as a bastardized hybrid to serve business-as-usual competitive one-upmanship.

I do believe that design, in its newest and most innovative realizations, is the place for these anticipatory discussions and future. What we need is thinking that encompasses a vast array of cross-disciplinary input, including philosophy and religion, because these issues are more than black and white, they are ethically and morally charged, and they are inseparable from our culture—the scaffolding that we as a society use to answer our most existential questions. There is a lot of work to do to survive ourselves.

 

 

Bookmark and Share

Sitting around with my robo-muse and collecting a check.

 

Writing a weekly blog can be a daunting task especially amid teaching, research and, of course, the ongoing graphic novel. I can only imagine the challenge for those who do it daily. Thank goodness for friends who send me articles. This week the piece comes from The New York Times tech writer Farhad Manjoo. The article is entitled, “A Plan in Case Robots Take the Jobs: Give Everyone a Paycheck.” The topic follows nicely on the heels of last week’s blog about the inevitability of robot-companions. Unfortunately, both the author and the people behind this idea appear to be woefully out of touch with reality.

Here is the premise: After robots and AI have become ubiquitous and mundane, what will we do with ourselves? “How will society function after humanity has been made redundant? Technologists and economists have been grappling with this fear for decades, but in the last few years, one idea has gained widespread interest — including from some of the very technologists who are now building the bot-ruled future,” asks Manjoo.

The answer, strangely enough, seems to be coming from venture capitalists and millionaires like Albert Wenger, who is writing a book on the idea of U.B. I. — universal basic income — and Sam Altman, president of the tech incubator Y Combinator. Apparently, they think that $1,000 a month would be about right, “…about enough to cover housing, food, health care and other basic needs for many Americans.”

This equation, $12,000 per year, possibly works for the desperately poor in rural Mississippi. Perhaps it is intended for some 28-year-old citizen with no family or social life. Of course, there would be no money for that iPhone, or cable service. Such a mythical person has a $300 rent controlled apartment (utilities included), benefits covered by the government, doesn’t own a car, or buy gas or insurance, and then maybe doesn’t eat either. Though these millionaires clearly have no clue about what it costs the average American to eek out a living, they have identified some other fundamental questions:

“When you give everyone free money, what do people do with their time? Do they goof off, or do they try to pursue more meaningful pursuits? Do they become more entrepreneurial? How would U.B.I. affect economic inequality? How would it alter people’s psychology and mood? Do we, as a species, need to be employed to feel fulfilled, or is that merely a legacy of postindustrial capitalism?”

The Times article continues with, “Proponents say these questions will be answered by research, which in turn will prompt political change. For now, they argue the proposal is affordable if we alter tax and welfare policies to pay for it, and if we account for the ways technological progress in health care and energy will reduce the amount necessary to provide a basic cost of living.”

Often, the people that float ideas like this paint them as utopia, but I have a couple of additional questions. Why are venture capitalists interested in this notion? Will they also reduce their income to $1,000 per month? Seriously, that never happens. Instead, we see progressives in government and finance using an equation like this: “One thousand for you. One hundred thousand for me. One thousand for you. One hundred thousand for me…”

Fortunately, it is an unlikely scenario, because it would not move us toward equality but toward a permanent under-class forever dependent on those who have. Scary.

Bookmark and Share

Your robot buddy is almost ready.

 

There is an impressive video out this week showing a rather adept robot going through the paces, so to speak, getting smacked down and then getting back up again. The year is 2016, and the technology is striking. The company is Boston Dynamics. One thing you know from reading this blog is that I ascribe to The Law of Accelerating Returns. So, as we watch this video, if we want to be hyper-critical we can see that the bot still needs some shepherding, tentatively handles the bumpy terrain, and is slow to get up after a violent shove to the floor. On the other hand, if you are at all impressed with the achievement, then you know that the people working on this will only make it better, agiler, more svelt, and probably faster on the comeback. Let’s call this ingredient one.

 

Last year I devoted several blogs to the advancement of AI, about the corporations rushing to be the go-to source for the advanced version of predictive behavior and predictive decision-making. I have also discussed systems like Amazon Echo that use the advanced Alexa Voice Service. It’s something like Siri on steroids. Here’s part of Amazon’s pitch:

“• Hears you from across the room with far-field voice recognition, even while music is playing
• Answers questions, reads audiobooks and the news, reports traffic and weather, gives info on local businesses, provides sports scores and schedules, and more with Alexa, a cloud-based voice service
• Controls lights, switches, and thermostats with compatible WeMo, Philips Hue, Samsung SmartThings, Wink, Insteon, and ecobee smart home devices
•Always getting smarter and adding new features and skills…”

You’re supposed to place it in a central position in the home where it is proficient at picking up your voice from the other room. Just don’t go too far. The problem with Echo is that its stationery. Call Echo ingredient two. What Echo needs is ingredient one.

Some of the biggest players in the AI race right now are Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, IBM, Elon Musk, and the military, but the government probably won’t give you a lot of details on that. All of these billion-dollar companies have a vested interest in machine learning and predictive algorithms. Not the least of which is Google. Google already uses Voice Search, “OK, Google.” to enable type-free searching. And their AI algorithm software TensorFlow has been open-sourced. The better that a machine can learn, the more reliable the Google autonomous vehicle will be. Any one of these folks could be ingredient three.

I’m going to try and close the loop on this, at least for today. Guess who bought Boston Dynamics last year? That would be corporation X, formerly known as Google X.

 

Bookmark and Share

Logical succession, the final installment.

For the past couple of weeks, I have been discussing the idea posited by Ray Kurzweil, that we will have linked our neocortex to the Cloud by 2030. That’s less than 15 years, so I have been asking how that could come to pass with so many technological obstacles in the way. When you make a prediction of that sort, I believe you need a bit more than faith in the exponential curve of “accelerating returns.”

This week I’m not going to take issue with an enormous leap forward in the nanobot technology to accomplish such a feat. Nor am I going to question the vastly complicated tasks of connecting to the neocortex and extracting anything coherent, but also assembling memories, and consciousness and in turn, beaming it to the Cloud. Instead, I’m going to pose the question of, “Why we would want to do this in the first place?”

According to Kurzweil, in a talk last year at Singularity University,

“We’re going to be funnier. We’re going to be sexier. We’re going to be better at expressing loving sentiment…” 1

Another brilliant futurist, and friend of Ray, Peter Diamandis includes these additional benefits:

• Brain to Brain Communication – aka Telepathy
• Instant Knowledge – download anything, complex math, how to fly a plane, or speak another language
• Access More Powerful Computing – through the Cloud
• Tap Into Any Virtual World – no visor, no controls. Your neocortex thinks you are there.
• And more, including and extended immune system, expandable and searchable memories, and “higher-order existence.”2

As Kurzweil explains,

“So as we evolve, we become closer to God. Evolution is a spiritual process. There is beauty and love and creativity and intelligence in the world — it all comes from the neocortex. So we’re going to expand the brain’s neocortex and become more godlike.”1

The future sounds quite remarkable. My issue lies with Koestler’s “ghost in the machine,” or what I call humankind’s uncanny ability to foul things up. Diamandis’ list could easily spin this way:

  • Brain-To-Brain hacking – reading others thoughts
  • Instant Knowledge – to deceive, to steal, to subvert, or hijack.
  • Access to More Powerful Computing – to gain the advantage or any of the previous list.
  • Tap Into Any Virtual World – experience the criminal, the evil, the debauched and not go to jail for it.

You get the idea. Diamandis concludes, “If this future becomes reality, connected humans are going to change everything. We need to discuss the implications in order to make the right decisions now so that we are prepared for the future.”

Nevertheless, we race forward. We discovered this week that “A British researcher has received permission to use a powerful new genome-editing technique on human embryos, even though researchers throughout the world are observing a voluntary moratorium on making changes to DNA that could be passed down to subsequent generations.”3 That would be CrisprCas9.

It was way back in 1968 that Stewart Brand introduced The Whole Earth Catalog with, “We are as gods and might as well get good at it.”

Which lab is working on that?

 

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ray-kurzweil-nanobots-brain-godlike_us_560555a0e4b0af3706dbe1e2
2. http://singularityhub.com/2015/10/12/ray-kurzweils-wildest-prediction-nanobots-will-plug-our-brains-into-the-web-by-the-2030s/
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/health/crispr-gene-editing-human-embryos-kathy-niakan-britain.html?_r=0
Bookmark and Share

Logical succession, Part 2.

Last week the topic was Ray Kurzweil’s prediction that by 2030, not only would we send nanobots into our bloodstream by way of the capillaries, but they would target the neocortex, set up shop, connect to our brains and beam our thoughts and other contents into the Cloud (somewhere). Kurzweil is no crackpot. He is a brilliant scientist, inventor and futurist with an 86 percent accuracy rate on his predictions. Nevertheless, and perhaps presumptuously, I took issue with his prediction, but only because there was an absence of a logical succession. According to Coates,

“…the single most important way in which one comes to an understanding of the future, whether that is working alone, in a team, or drawing on other people… is through plausible reasoning, that is, putting together what you know to create a path leading to one or several new states or conditions, at a distance in time” (Coates 2010, p. 1436).1

Kurzweil’s argument is based heavily on his Law of Accelerating Returns that says (essentially), “We won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate).” The rest, in the absence of more detail, must be based on faith. Faith, perhaps in the fact that we are making considerable progress in architecting nanobots or that we see promising breakthroughs in mind-to-computer communication. But what seems to be missing is the connection part. Not so much connecting to the brain, but beaming the contents somewhere. Another question, why, also comes to mind, but I’ll get to that later.

There is something about all of this technological optimism that furrows my brow. A recent article in WIRED helped me to articulate this skepticism. The rather lengthy article chronicled the story of neurologist Phil Kennedy, who like Kurzweil believes that the day is soon approaching when we will connect or transfer our brains to other things. I can’t help but call to mind what one time Fed manager Alan Greenspan called, “irrational exuberance.” The WIRED article tells of how Kennedy nearly lost his mind by experimenting on himself (including rogue brain surgery in Belize) to implant a host of hardware that would transmit his thoughts. This highly invasive method, the article says is going out of style, but the promise seems to be the same for both scientists: our brains will be infinitely more powerful than they are today.

Writing in WIRED columnist Daniel Engber makes an astute statement. During an interview with Dr. Kennedy, they attempted to watch a DVD of Kennedy’s Belize brain surgery. The DVD player and laptop choked for some reason and after repeated attempts they were able to view Dr. Kennedy’s naked brain undergoing surgery. Reflecting on the mundane struggles with technology that preceded the movie, Engber notes, “It seems like technology always finds new and better ways to disappoint us, even as it grows more advanced every year.”

Dr. Kennedy’s saga was all about getting thoughts into text, or even synthetic speech. Today, the invasive method of sticking electrodes into your cerebral putty has been replaced by a kind of electrode mesh that lays on top of the cortex underneath the skull. They call this less invasive. Researchers have managed to get some results from this, albeit snippets with numerous inaccuracies. They say it will be decades, and one of them points out that even Siri still gets it wrong more than 30 years after the debut of speech recognition technology.
So, then it must be Kurzweil’s exponential law that still provides near-term hope for these scientists. As I often quote Tobias Revell, “Someone somewhere in a lab is playing with your future.”

There remain a few more nagging questions for me. What is so feeble about our brains that we need them to be infinitely more powerful? When is enough, enough? And, what could possibly go wrong with this scenario?

Next week.

 

1. Coates, J.F., 2010. The future of foresight—A US perspective. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 77, 1428–1437.
Bookmark and Share

Logical succession, please.

In this blog, I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that of all the people I talk (or rant) about most is Ray Kurzweil. That is not all that surprising to me since he is possibly the most visible and vociferous and visionary proponent of the future. Let me say in advance that I have great respect for Ray. A Big Think article three years ago claimed that
“… of the 147 predictions that Kurzweil has made since the 1990’s, fully 115 of them have turned out to be correct, and another 12 have turned out to be “essentially correct” (off by a year or two), giving his predictions a stunning 86% accuracy rate.”

Last year Kurzweil predicted that
“ In the 2030s… we are going to send nano-robots into the brain (via capillaries) that will provide full immersion virtual reality from within the nervous system and will connect our neocortex to the cloud. Just like how we can wirelessly expand the power of our smartphones 10,000-fold in the cloud today, we’ll be able to expand our neocortex in the cloud.”1

This prediction caught my attention as not only quite unusual but, considering that it is only 15 years away, incredibly ambitious. Since 2030 is right around the corner, I wanted to see if anyone has been able to connect to the neocortex yet. Before I could do that, however, I needed to find out what exactly the neocortex is. According to Science Daily, it is the top layer of the brain (which is made up of six layers). “It is involved in higher functions such as sensory perception, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning, conscious thought, and in humans, language.”2 According to Kurzweil, “There is beauty, love and creativity and intelligence in the world, and it all comes from the neocortex.”3

OK, so on to how we connect. Kurzweil predicts nanobots will do this though he doesn’t say how. Nanobots, however, are a reality. Scientists have designed nanorobotic origami, which can fold itself into shapes on the molecular level and molecular vehicles that are drivable. Without additional detail, I can only surmise that once our nano-vehicles have assembled themselves, they will drive to the highest point and set up an antenna and, violå, we will be linked.

 

Neurons of the Neocortex stained with golgi’s methode - Photograph: Benjamin Bollmann
Neurons of the Neocortex stained with golgi’s methode – Photograph: Benjamin Bollmann

I don’t let my students get away with predictions like that, so why should Kurzweil? Predictions should engage more than just existing technologies (such as nanotech and brain mapping); they need demonstrate plausible breadcrumbs that make such a prediction legitimate. Despite the fact that Ray gives a great TED talk, it still didn’t answer those questions. I’m a big believer that technological convergence can foster all kinds of unpredictable possibilities, but the fact that scientists are working on a dozen different technological breakthroughs in nanoscience, bioengineering, genetics, and even mapping the connections of the neocortex4, doesn’t explain how we will tap into it or transmit it.

If anyone has a theory on this, please join the discussion.

1. http://bigthink.com/endless-innovation/why-ray-kurzweils-predictions-are-right-86-of-the-time
2. http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/neocortex.htm
3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3257517/Human-2-0-Nanobot-implants-soon-connect-brains-internet-make-super-intelligent-scientist-claims.html#ixzz3xtrHUFKP
4. http://www.neuroscienceblueprint.nih.gov/connectome/

Photo from: http://connectomethebook.com/?portfolio=neurons-of-the-neocortex

Bookmark and Share

A facebook of a different color.

The tech site Ars Technica recently ran an article on the proliferation of a little-known app called Facewatch. According to the articles writer Sebastian Anthony, “Facewatch is a system that lets retailers, publicans, and restaurateurs easily share private CCTV footage with the police and other Facewatch users. In theory, Facewatch lets you easily report shoplifters to the police, and to share the faces of generally unpleasant clients, drunks, etc. with other Facewatch users.” The idea is that retailers or officials can look out for these folks and either keep an eye on them or just ask them to leave. The system, in use in the UK, appears to have a high rate of success.

 

The story continues. Of course, all technologies eventually converge, so now you don’t have to “keep and eye out” for ner-do-wells your CCTV can do it for you. NeoFace from NEC works with the Facewatch list to do the scouting for you. According to NECs website: “NEC’s NeoFace Watch solution is specifically designed to integrate with existing surveillance systems by extracting faces in real time… and matching against a watch list of individuals.” In this case, it would be the Facewatch database. Ars’ Anthony, makes this connection: “In the film Minority Report, people are rounded up by the Precrime police agency before they actually commit the crime…with Facewatch, and you pretty much have the same thing: a system that automatically tars people with a criminal brush, irrespective of dozens of important variables.”

Anthony points out that,

“Facewatch lets you share ‘subjects of interest’ with other Facewatch users even if they haven’t been convicted. If you look at the shop owner in a funny way, or ask for the service charge to be removed from your bill, you might find yourself added to the ‘subject of interest’ list.”

The odds of an innocent being added to the watchlist are quite good. Malicious behavior aside, you could be logged as you wander past a government protest, forget your PIN number too many times at the ATM, or simply look too creepy in your Ray Bans and hoody.

The story underscores a couple of my past rants. First, we don’t make laws to protect against things that are impossible, so when the impossible happens, we shouldn’t be surprised that there isn’t a law to protect against it.1 It is another red flag that technology is moving, too fast and as it converges with other technologies it becomes radically unpredictable. Second, that technology moves faster than politics, moves faster than policy, and often faster than ethics.2

There are a host personal apps, many which are available to our iPhones or Androids that are on the precarious line between legal and illegal, curious and invasive. And there are more to come.

 

1 Quoting Selinger from Wood, David. “The Naked Future — A World That Anticipates Your Every Move.” YouTube. YouTube, 15 Dec. 2013. Web. 13 Mar. 2014.
2. Quoting Richards from Farivar, Cyrus. “DOJ Calls for Drone Privacy Policy 7 Years after FBI’s First Drone Launched.” Ars Technica. September 27, 2013. Accessed March 13, 2014. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/doj-calls-for-drone-privacy-policy-7-years-after-fbis-first-drone-launched/.
Bookmark and Share