In the coming decades, a radical upgrading of our body’s physical and mental systems, already underway, will use nanobots to augment and ultimately replace our organs. We already know how to prevent most degenerative disease through nutrition and supplementation; this will be a bridge to the emerging biotechnology revolution, which in turn will be a bridge to the nanotechnology revolution. By 2030, reverse-engineering of the human brain will have been completed and nonbiological intelligence will merge with our biological brains.

The paragraph above is the abstract for the chapter by Ray Kurzweil in the book “The Scientific Conquest of Death“.  In that chapter, Ray sets out a vision for a route to indefinite human lifespans.

Here are a few highlights from the essay:

It’s All About Nanobots

In a famous scene from the movie, The Graduate, Benjamin’s mentor gives him career advice in a single word: “plastics.”  Today, that word might be “software,” or “biotechnology,” but in another couple of decades, the word is likely to be “nanobots.”  Nanobots—blood-cell-sized robots—will provide the means to radically redesign our digestive systems, and, incidentally, just about everything else.

In an intermediate phase, nanobots in the digestive tract and bloodstream will intelligently extract the precise nutrients we need, call for needed additional nutrients and supplements through our personal wireless local area network, and send the rest of the food we eat on its way to be passed through for elimination.

If this seems futuristic, keep in mind that intelligent machines are already making their way into our blood stream.  There are dozens of projects underway to create blood-stream-based “biological microelectromechanical systems” (bioMEMS) with a wide range of diagnostic and therapeutic applications.  BioMEMS devices are being designed to intelligently scout out pathogens and deliver medications in very precise ways…

A key question in designing this technology will be the means by which these nanobots make their way in and out of the body.  As I mentioned above, the technologies we have today, such as intravenous catheters, leave much to be desired.  A significant benefit of nanobot technology is that unlike mere drugs and nutritional supplements, nanobots have a measure of intelligence.  They can keep track of their own inventories, and intelligently slip in and out of our bodies in clever ways.  One scenario is that we would wear a special “nutrient garment” such as a belt or undershirt.  This garment would be loaded with nutrient bearing nanobots, which would make their way in and out of our bodies through the skin or other body cavities.

At this stage of technological development, we will be able to eat whatever we want, whatever gives us pleasure and gastronomic fulfillment, and thereby unreservedly explore the culinary arts for their tastes, textures, and aromas.  At the same time, we will provide an optimal flow of nutrients to our bloodstream, using a completely separate process.  One possibility would be that all the food we eat would pass through a digestive tract that is now disconnected from any possible absorption into the bloodstream.

Elimination

This would place a burden on our colon and bowel functions, so a more refined approach will dispense with the function of elimination.  We will be able to accomplish this using special elimination nanobots that act like tiny garbage compactors.  As the nutrient nanobots make their way from the nutrient garment into our bodies, the elimination nanobots will go the other way.  Periodically, we would replace the nutrition garment for a fresh one.  One might comment that we do obtain some pleasure from the elimination function, but I suspect that most people would be happy to do without it.

Ultimately we won’t need to bother with special garments or explicit nutritional resources.  Just as computation will eventually be ubiquitous and available everywhere, so too will basic metabolic nanobot resources be embedded everywhere in our environment.  In addition, an important aspect of this system will be maintaining ample reserves of all needed resources inside the body.  Our version 1.0 bodies do this to only a very limited extent, for example, storing a few minutes of oxygen in our blood, and a few days of caloric energy in glycogen and other reserves.  Version 2.0 will provide substantially greater reserves, enabling us to be separated from metabolic resources for greatly extended periods of time.

Once perfected, we will no longer need version 1.0 of our digestive system at all.  I pointed out above that our adoption of these technologies will be cautious and incremental, so we will not dispense with the old-fashioned digestive process when these technologies are first introduced.  Most of us will wait for digestive system version 2.1 or even 2.2 before being willing to do dispense with version 1.0.  After all, people didn’t throw away their typewriters when the first generation of word processors was introduced.  People held onto their vinyl record collections for many years after CDs came out (I still have mine).  People are still holding onto their film cameras, although the tide is rapidly turning in favor of digital cameras.

However, these new technologies do ultimately dominate, and few people today still own a typewriter.  The same phenomenon will happen with our reengineered bodies.  Once we’ve worked out the inevitable complications that will arise with a radically reengineered gastrointestinal system, we will begin to rely on it more and more.

Programmable Blood

As we reverse-engineer (learn the principles of operation of) our various bodily systems, we will be in a position to engineer new systems that provide dramatic improvements.  One pervasive system that has already been the subject of a comprehensive conceptual redesign is our blood…

I’ve personally watched (through a microscope) my own white blood cells surround and devour a pathogen, and I was struck with the remarkable sluggishness of this natural process.  Although replacing our blood with billions of nanorobotic devices will require a lengthy process of development, refinement, and regulatory approval, we already have the conceptual knowledge to engineer substantial improvements over the remarkable but very inefficient methods used in our biological bodies…

Have a Heart, or Not

The next organ on my hit list is the heart.  It’s a remarkable machine, but it has a number of severe problems.  It is subject to a myriad of failure modes, and represents a fundamental weakness in our potential longevity.  The heart usually breaks down long before the rest of the body, and often very prematurely.

Although artificial hearts are beginning to work, a more effective approach will be to get rid of the heart altogether.  Designs include nanorobotic blood cell replacements that provide their own mobility.  If the blood system moves with its own movement, the engineering issues of the extreme pressures required for centralized pumping can be eliminated.  As we perfect the means of transferring nanobots to and from the blood supply, we can also continuously replace the nanobots comprising our blood supply…

So What’s Left?

Let’s consider where we are.  We’ve eliminated the heart, lungs, red and white blood cells, platelets, pancreas, thyroid and all the hormone-producing organs, kidneys, bladder, liver, lower esophagus, stomach, small intestines, large intestines, and bowel.  What we have left at this point is the skeleton, skin, sex organs, mouth and upper esophagus, and brain…

Redesigning the Human Brain

The process of reverse engineering and redesign will also encompass the most important system in our bodies: the brain.  The brain is at least as complex as all the other organs put together, with approximately half of our genetic code devoted to its design.  It is a misconception to regard the brain as a single organ.  It is actually an intricate collection of information-processing organs, interconnected in an elaborate hierarchy, as is the accident of our evolutionary history.

The process of understanding the principles of operation of the human brain is already well under way.  The underlying technologies of brain scanning and neuron modeling are scaling up exponentially, as is our overall knowledge of human brain function.  We already have detailed mathematical models of a couple dozen of the several hundred regions that comprise the human brain.

The age of neural implants is also well under way.  We have brain implants based on “neuromorphic” modeling (i.e., reverse-engineering of the human brain and nervous system) for a rapidly growing list of brain regions.  A friend of mine who became deaf while an adult can now engage in telephone conversations again because of his cochlear implant, a device that interfaces directly with the auditory nervous system.  He plans to replace it with a new model with a thousand levels of frequency discrimination, which will enable him to hear music once again.  He laments that he has had the same melodies playing in his head for the past 15 years and is looking forward to hearing some new tunes.  A future generation of cochlear implants now on the drawing board will provide levels of frequency discrimination that go significantly beyond that of “normal” hearing…

And the essay continues.  It’s well worth reading in its entirety.  A short websearch finds a slightly longer version of the same essay online, on Kurzweil’s own website, along with a conceptual illustration by media artist and philosopher Natasha Vita-More:

Evaluating the vision: the questions

Three main questions arise in response to this vision of “Human Body Version 2.0″:

1. Is the vision technologically feasible?
2. Is the vision morally attractive?
3. Within what timescales might the vision become feasible?

Progress: encouraging, but not rocket-paced

A recent article in the New Scientist, Medibots: The world’s smallest surgeons, takes up the theme of nanobots with medical usage, and reports on some specific progress:

It was the 1970s that saw the arrival of minimally invasive surgery – or keyhole surgery as it is also known. Instead of cutting open the body with large incisions, surgical tools are inserted through holes as small as 1 centimetre in diameter and controlled with external handles. Operations from stomach bypass to gall bladder removal are now done this way, reducing blood loss, pain and recovery time.

Combining keyhole surgery with the da Vinci system means the surgeon no longer handles the instruments directly, but via a computer console. This allows greater precision, as large hand gestures can be scaled down to small instrument movements, and any hand tremor is eliminated…

There are several ways that such robotic surgery may be further enhanced. Various articulated, snake-like tools are being developed to access hard-to-reach areas. One such device, the “i-Snake”, is controlled by a vision-tracking device worn over the surgeon’s eyes…

With further advances in miniaturisation, the opportunities grow for getting medical devices inside the body in novel ways. One miniature device that is already tried and tested is a camera in a capsule small enough to be swallowed…

The 20-millimetre-long HeartLander has front and rear foot-pads with suckers on the bottom, which allow it to inch along like a caterpillar. The surgeon watches the device with X-ray video or a magnetic tracker and controls it with a joystick. Alternatively, the device can navigate its own path to a spot chosen by the surgeon…

While the robot could in theory be used in other parts of the body, in its current incarnation it has to be introduced through a keyhole incision thanks to its size and because it trails wires to the external control box. Not so for smaller robots under wireless control.

One such device in development is 5 millimetres long and just 1 millimetre in diameter, with 16 vibrating legs. Early versions of the “ViRob” had on-board power, but the developers decided that made it too bulky. Now it is powered externally, by a nearby electromagnet whose field fluctuates about 100 times a second, causing the legs to flick back and forth. The legs on the left and right sides respond best to different frequencies, so the robot can be steered by adjusting the frequency…

While the ViRob can crawl through tubes or over surfaces, it cannot swim. For that, the Israeli team are designing another device, called SwiMicRob, which is slightly larger than ViRob at 10 millimetres long and 3 millimetres in diameter. Powered by an on-board motor, the device has two tails that twirl like bacteria’s flagella. SwiMicRob may one day be used inside fluid-filled spaces such those within the spine, although it is at an earlier stage of development than ViRob.

Another group has managed to shrink a medibot significantly further – down to 0.9 millimetres by 0.3 millimetres – by stripping out all propulsion and steering mechanisms. It is pulled around by electromagnets outside the body. The device itself is a metal shell shaped like a finned American football and it has a spike on the end…

The Swiss team is also among several groups who are trying to develop medibots at a vastly smaller scale, just nanometres in size, but these are at a much earlier development stage. Shrinking to this scale brings a host of new challenges, and it is likely to be some time before these kinds of devices reach the clinic.

Brad Nelson, a roboticist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EHT) in Zurich, hopes that if millimetre-sized devices such as his ophthalmic robot prove their worth, they will attract more funding to kick-start nanometre-scale research. “If we can show small devices that do something useful, hopefully that will convince people that it’s not just science fiction.”

In summary: nanoscale medibots appear plausible, but there’s still a large amount of research and development required.

Kurzweil’s prediction on timescales

The book “The Scientific Conquest of Death“, containing Kurzweil’s essay, was published in 2004.  The online version is dated 2003.  In 2003, 2010 – the end of the decade – presumably looked a long way off.  In the essay, Kurzweil makes some predictions about the speed of progress towards Human Body Version 2.0:

By the end of this decade, computing will disappear as a separate technology that we need to carry with us.  We’ll routinely have high-resolution images encompassing the entire visual field written directly to our retinas from our eyeglasses and contact lenses (the Department of Defense is already using technology along these lines from Microvision, a company based in Bothell, Washington).  We’ll have very-high-speed wireless connection to the Internet at all times.  The electronics for all of this will be embedded in our clothing.  Circa 2010, these very personal computers will enable us to meet with each other in full-immersion, visual-auditory, virtual-reality environments as well as augment our vision with location- and time-specific information at all times.

Progress with miniaturisation of computers – and the adoption of smartphones – has been impressive since 2003.  However, it’s now clear that some of Kurzweil’s predictions were over-optimistic.  If his predictions for 2010 were over-optimistic, what should we conclude about his predictions for 2030?

The conflicting pace of technological progress

My own view of predictions is that they are far from “black and white”.  I’ve made my own share of predictions over the years, about the rate of progress with smartphone technologies.  I’ve also reflected on the fact that it’s difficult to draw conclusions about the rate of change.

For example, from my “Insight” essay from November 2006, “The conflicting pace of mobile technology“:

What’s the rate of improvement of mobile phones?  Disconcertingly, the answer is both “surprisingly fast” and “surprisingly slow”…

A good starting point is the comment made by Monitor’s Bhaskar Chakravorti in his book “The slow pace of fast change”, when he playfully dubbed a certain phenomenon as “Demi Moore’s Law”.  The phenomenon is that technology’s impact in an inner-connected marketplace often proceeds at only half the pace predicted by Moore’s Law.  The reasons for this slower-than-expected impact are well worth pondering:

• New applications and services in a networked marketplace depend on simultaneous changes being coordinated at several different points in the value chain
• Although the outcome would be good for everyone if all players kept on investing in making the required changes, these changes make much less sense when viewed individually.

Sometimes this is called “the prisoner’s dilemma”.  It’s also known as “the chicken and egg problem”.

The most interesting (and the most valuable) smartphone services will require widespread joint action within the mobile industry, including maintaining openness to new ideas, new methods, and new companies.  It also requires a spirit of “cooperate before competing”.  If adjacent players in the still-formative smartphone value chain focus on fighting each other for dominance in our current small pie, it will prevent the stage-by-stage emergence of killer new services that will make the pie much larger for everyone’s benefit.

Thankfully, although the network effects of a complex marketplace can act to slow down the emergence of new innovations, while that market is still being formed, it can have the opposite effect once all the pieces of the smartphone open virtuous cycle have learned to collaborate with maximum effectiveness.  When that happens, the pace of mobile change can even exceed that predicted by Moore’s Law…

And from another essay in the same series, “A celebration of incremental improvement“, from February 2006:

We all know that it’s a perilous task to predict the future of technology.  The mere fact that a technology can be conceived is no guarantee that it will happen.

If I think back thirty-something years to my days as a teenager, I remember being excited to read heady forecasts about a near-future world featuring hypersonic jet airliners, nuclear fusion reactors, manned colonies on the Moon and Mars, extended human lifespans, control over the weather and climate, and widespread usage of environmentally friendly electric cars.  These technology forecasts all turned out, in retrospect, to be embarrassing rather than visionary.  Indeed, history is littered with curious and amusing examples of flawed predictions of the future.  You may well wonder, what’s different about smartphones, and about all the predictions made about them at 3GSM?

With the advantage of hindsight, it’s clear that many technology forecasts have over-emphasised technological possibility and under-estimated the complications of wider system effects.  Just because something is technically possible, it does not mean it will happen, even though technology enthusiasts earnestly cheer it on.  Technology is not enough.  Especially for changes that are complex and demanding, no fewer than six other criteria should be satisfied as well:

• The technological development has to satisfy a strong human need
• The development has to be possible at a sufficiently attractive price to individual end users
• The outcome of the development has to be sufficiently usable, that is, not requiring prolonged learning or disruptive changes in lifestyle
• There must be a clear evolutionary path whereby the eventual version of the technology can be attained through a series of incremental steps that are, individually, easier to achieve
• When bottlenecks arise in the development process, sufficient amounts of fresh new thinking must be brought to bear on the central problems – that is, the development process must be both open (to accept new ideas) and commercially attractive (to encourage the generation of new ideas, and, even more important, to encourage companies to continue to search for ways to successfully execute their ideas; after all, execution is the greater part of innovation)…

Interestingly, whereas past forecasts of the future have often over-estimated the development of technology as a whole, they have frequently under-estimated the progress of two trends: computer miniaturisation and mobile communications.  For example, some time around 1997 I was watching a repeat of the 1960s “Thunderbirds” TV puppet show with my son.  The show, about a family of brothers devoted to “international rescue” using high-tech machinery, was set around the turn of the century.  The plot denouement of this particular episode was the shocking existence of a computer so small that it could (wait for it) be packed into a suitcase and transported around the world!  As I watched the show, I took from my pocket my Psion Series 5 PDA and marvelled at it – a real-life example of a widely available computer more powerful yet more miniature than that foreseen in the programme.

As I said, the pace of technological development is far from being black-and-white.  Sometimes it proceeds slower than you expect, and at other times, it can proceed much quicker.

The missing ingredient

With the advantage of even more hindsight, there’s one more element that should be elevated, as frequently making the difference between new products arriving sooner and them arriving later: the degree of practical focus and effective priority placed by the relevant ecosystem on creating these products.  For medibots and other lifespan-enhancing technologies to move from science fiction to science fact will probably require changes in both public opinion and public action.

[ Raymond -Ray- Kurzweil ]

If you have your doubts about the exponential growth of technology continuing indefinitely, there’s a guy you should talk to: Ray Kurzweil. The author of the Singularity is Near, subject of the film Transcendent Man, and inventor of reading machines and the digital synthesizer, Kurzweil is one of the key figures at the center of the debate on how technology will grow in this century and beyond. His key argument, that information technology (and intelligence) obeys a law of accelerating returns, has helped him predict major paradigms in IT in the last 25 years.

Kurzweil is one of the founders of Singularity University and was an obvious choice to give the keynote address at the opening of SU’s nine day executive program.

Kurtzeil believes we will have human-level artificial intelligence by 2029. The interesting thing to me is that Kurzweil never mentions the economic implications of machine intelligence and seems completely unconcerned that it might result in significant unemployment.

I have been arguing here that we are likely to have significant structural unemployment long before technology reaches the level that Kurzweil envisions (true AI) because even less sophisticated machines will be able to do the routine jobs that make up the bulk of job market.

I don’t know what Kurzweil thinks about the economics of his projections, but if I had to guess, I’d say he probably more or less agrees with the ideas of libertarian economist Robin Hanson. My thoughts on the implications of truly intelligent machines are here.

Nach gefühlten 7385 Fernseh-Sondersendungen und Myriaden von Analysen, Zeitzeugenberichten und Livetickern in Print- und Online-Medien scheinen wir nun endlich wieder unsere Ruhe zu haben – das Jubiläum des Mauerfalls ist bis weit über die Grenze der Geschmacklosigkeit hinaus breit getreten worden und selbst Wiedervereinigungsfans litten zuletzt unter akutem Brechreiz.
Aber meinetwegen; es passiert ja nicht mehr viel heutzutage. 9/11 ist lange her, die Bundestagswahl war auch eher langweilig und Michael Jackson ist mittlerweile unter der Erde. Doch muss man dann tatsächlich so weit gehen und jeden Honk dazu interviewen, was er während des Mauerfalls gemacht hat? Auch wenn er mit dem Kicker auf’m Klo gesessen hat?

Ich persönlich habe keine Ahnung, wo ich war und was ich getan habe. Ich könnte allenfalls meine alten Tagebücher rauskramen, aber wenn ich ehrlich bin, interessiert es mich auch nicht die Bohne. Ich erinnere mich lediglich noch an den Ausspruch eines Mitschülers, der meinte: „Das ist der Untergang des Abendlandes.“
So würde er das heute bestimmt nicht mehr sagen (dürfen), also hülle auch ich mich an dieser Stelle in beredetes Schweigen.

I read an article the other day on John Merrow’s blog, titled ‘Technology in Schools: Problems & Possibilities.’ In it, he outlines three fears he has concerning the implementation of emerging media technologies into education:

1. the digital divide (gap between people with access to technology and those without)
2. schools will resist innovation and become irrelevant
3. schools will not use technologies in a strategic way

I spend a lot of time thinking about social technologies and the role they’re playing in our lives now and into the future, and I feel that though John’s fears are justified, they may prove to be unfounded as time progresses. Here’s why:

Fear #1: The Digital Divide

I agree that access to technology may be an issue (for now), but the barrier is continuing to drop. Frame it in terms of Moore’s Law or Kurzweil’s Law of Accelerating Returns, but either way, the rate at which technologies become more powerful and robust continues to increase, while the costs associated with producing them goes down. Based on this, the question of whether an individual from a lower income bracket can gain access to technology may become a moot point.

And I don’t think that means that all of a sudden everyone is going to have a computer at home. But what it could mean is that the ‘have-nots’ will get on equal footing via technological leapfrogging. As upcoming mobile technologies continue to transform cellphones into portable, handheld computers, it’s not hard to imagine that there will be a segment of the population that goes straight from no access to having smartphones that keep them fully connected. If you take a look at the latest Mobile Metrics Report by Admob, you’ll see that the mobile web has been experiencing massive growth globally. (ReadWriteWeb summarized the report nicely here).

So, in my mind, we don’t have to be in fear of a growing digital divide – if anything, we’re going to see it exponentially shrink.

Fear #2: Schools Resist Innovation

Yes, I certainly agree with this. Schools, like governments, are institutions that are notoriously slow to adopt new practices and adapt to change. By resisting integration of some technologies and blocking access to others, schools are creating the potential for a huge shake-up in the trust and validity we put into them.

Social Media isn’t a wild animal that needs to be caged and trained before it’s allowed to be pet by the neighbors. Social media is a paradigm shift in how humans communicate. If schools stop teaching students communication skills, we’re in trouble.

I don’t know if this is a case of ‘innovate of die,’ but if educational institutions don’t wake up, there will be a groundswell, and ‘the people’ will create solutions that are not dependent upon traditional learning structures.

I’d argue that in many ways this is already happening just in the act of participating in the social web. There’s so much to be said on that idea alone, I’ll save my expansion on it for an upcoming post.

Fear #3: Schools Embrace Technology Incorrectly

Like any project that is pursued with enthusiasm but without structure, trying to integrate social technologies into the classroom without a framework will fail. There are many, many individuals and organizations busy developing guidelines and best practices for how to teach ‘new media literacies’, so I will just provide a few examples as a reference. The MacArthur Foundation launched a $50 million digital media and learning initiative a few years ago, and has funded many great projects already. One that immediately comes to mind is New Media Literacies, a project pioneered by Henry Jenkins and the Comparative Media Studies program at MIT, which has a wealth of information to help educators effectively integrate new media into the classroom.

There will be a learning curve, especially since best practices are still being established, but fear cannot be the determining factor in whether technologies are implemented or not.

(BTW, for any ’social media expert’ out there who wants to devote some time to learning how to apply their craft to the educational setting and do some consulting, there’s a huge opportunity there for a lucrative business model.)

Final Thoughts

I think this whole conversation requires a reorientation of how ’social media’ is approached. Defining it as something that can exist separately from education is simply misguided. Information is coming at us at a dizzying pace, and social technologies are tools that help us filter the flow. They allow us to share, discover, and grow. We can digest information together, collaboratively refine our thinking, and restate ideas in new ways to help make sense of it all.

In essence, social media is a mandatory 21st century literacy, a set of communication skills that MUST be learned if we want to prepare today’s youth to be able to participate effectively in the global marketplace.

Πωλούνται:

1. stage piano KURZWEIL  SP2X ενός έτους , 64 ήχοι, 64 ρυθμοί με δυνατότητα επέμβασης στους ήχους ζωντανά
2. Yamaha S80

σε πολύ καλές τιμές.

Πληροφορείες στο email iospyrak<at>otenet.gr

Kurzweil announced the PC3LE6 (due this December), the expected answer to Korg M50. Then the PC3LE6 (whose originally planned name was PC361 LE) onboards the same audio engine (from the PC3) than the PC361 (including VA oscillators), the same number of presets (about 800, including String Section, KB3), effects (10 inserts against 16 on the le PC361, and no mastering effects), the sequencer, the arpeggiator. Only polyphony is reduced (64 voices – 128 on the PC361), and the PC3LE6 doesn’t provide expansion slots (2 on the PC361). However it features 8 pads (for drums) and semi-weighted keyboard (piano keys – synth keys on the PC361).
Finally it is priced 1495$ (2395$ for the PC361). Audio demos are available.

The many will give birth to the few and the few will give birth to the one, the one and only omega man.

(Image found on http://www.udel.edu/biology/Wags/histopage/wagnerart/worldspage/worlds.html)

October 9th will be the six-year anniversary of dangblog. I’ll observe this occasion with a return to one of my first posts “Goodbye Monkey Body.” In that post I was a little disdainful of the “transhumanist” movement. Here’s a summary of how I saw it then, and my views haven’t changed very much:

Rapid technological progress (especially in computer processing, AI, and nanotechnology) = magic.

And don’t drag out the old Arthur Clarke quote about advanced technology, magic, etc. No, the transhumanist idea is that accelerating progress will bring a “singularity event” in which ever-advancing technology will result in a quick revolution in which everything in society changes and maybe it will be bad but then again maybe we’ll live forever through uploading our minds or transforming our bodies. Let’s face it. The bottom line for many of those involved is, “I’m going to live for thousands of years if not forever. Praise the sacred event that’s coming and holy science. Hallelujah.”

The folk religion of the 20th and 21st century is UFO beings and angels from the Pleiades, and the intellectual religion is the singularity and science as savior. Science fiction books and Kurzweil tomes are the holy scripture.

I recently heard Michael Vassar, President of the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast. I consider myself something of a geek, but he is awesomely geeky; possibly a geek of a higher order, a High Geekique. He spoke of a “recursively self-improving” entity. That is, an intelligence of some sort that can rewire or rearrange itself to become more skilled, and more intelligent. Something that understands the workings of intelligence so well that it can make itself smarter. Given the speed at which we are deciphering the workings of the mind, he can’t imagine not learning how to do that in the next century.

Michael’s mission is to make sure that humans create the first self-improving intelligence, and that we do so thoughtfully. We should do it in such a way that the new intelligence doesn’t have the desire or means to damage or destroy humanity. Step up and be a responsible god maker, Mr. Human. For me, it’s just a little much when people start talking about “soft take-off” vs. “hard take-off” regarding how quickly the ever-spiraling upward evolution of “super mind” will inevitably transform everything.

On the other hand, I find the whole idea stimulating, and even intoxicating. I love good science fiction and I love good science (as long as I can understand it). But is this scenario likely? That’s where my skepticism steps in. A part of me is a science-loving salivating nerd boy who wants this to be true, and the other part is totally skeptical of all the born-again, “We’re all going to live forever if we hang on long enough, so take lots of vitamins!” bullcrap.

Summary: It’s probably a good thing that someone is taking it seriously just in case events truly go in this direction. Maybe thanks to them there will be safeguards in place. Personally, I’m not too worried about it. Yet.

Stiamo raddoppiando la potenza delle tecnologie dell’informazione [...] circa una volta all’anno. C’è un fattore di incremento mille ogni dieci anni, un milione in vent’anni, un miliardo in trent’anni. [...] L’elettronica è solo uno dei tanti esempi. Un altro esempio: ci sono voluti 14 anni per sequenziare il virus dell’HIV; più recentemente, il virus della SARS è stato sequenziato in soli 31 giorni.

Ray Kurzweil

(CC) by Don Solo

Il buon Ray Kurzweil si è guadagnato da vivere negli ultimi vent’anni (anche) grazie alle sue ottime previsioni sul futuro. Riusciva a vedere oltre: capiva quali tecnologie sarebbero diventate utili e diffuse e investiva risorse in maniera intelligente. Le tecnologie, proprio come l’arte, hanno un loro momento magico: anticiparlo o posticiparlo significa non saper cogliere l’onda (e non guadagnare), proprio come avvenne per la bolla dell’e-commerce negli anni ‘90. Si investì troppo puntando sul mercato degli acquisti online, un mercato assolutamente non maturo per decollare.

Cosa prevede Ray a lungo termine? Quale futuro per l’umanita’? Semplice: trascenderemo. Trascenderemo il concetto stesso di essere umano, espanderemo le nostre intelligenze oltre i limiti del cervello biologico, integrandolo con le macchine, e alla fine satureremo l’universo di informazione. Il che, a pensarci bene, ci fornisce una teoria che descrive il destino finale dell’universo (l’essere appunto saturato di informazione) ma non si basa su una qualunque forma di teismo.

Ray è un visionario? Può essere. Spiega però  le sue teorie molto lucidamente, fornendo più prove possibili per giustificare le conclusioni a cui e’ arrivato. Il suo libro La singolarità è vicina (Apogeo editore, 2008) è un’opera di divulgazione, comprensibile per la quasi totalità anche a chi non ha competenze scientifiche. Rappresenta un punto importante per gli studi di Ray, una summa delle sue riflessioni.

Lineare vs esponenziale.

Ray ha notato che il progresso della tecnologia è esponenziale, e non lineare come suggerirebbe la nostra esperienza. Cosa vuol dire esponenziale? Cosa vuol dire lineare? Qual è la differenza? Difficile spiegarlo senza accennare alla matematica. Cercherò di farlo nella maniera più veloce, semplice e brutale possibile. Probabilmente qualche matematico desidererà picchiarmi sevlaggiamente dopo aver letto questo esempio. Bene, che venga!, tengo una pala arrugginita qui in laboratorio pronta per l’occasione.

Immagino un’automobile che aumenta la sua velocità in maniera lineare di 2 km/h al minuto. Vuol dire che, se un minuto fa procedeva a 10 km/h, ora procede a 12 km/h. Tra un minuto procederà a 14 km/h, tra due a 16 km/h e via dicendo. Non mi pare molto complicato! Basta aggiungere 2 km/h ad ogni passaggio. Questo è un aumento lineare. Immaginiamo che parta da ferma (velocità 0). Dopo un minuto avrà velocità  2, dopo due minuti velocità  4. La serie è  dunque: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, …

Ora, un’altra automobile amenta la sua velocità  in maniera esponenziale, secondo una potenza di due. Al primo minuto avrà  velocità 1 (perche’ 1 elevato alla seconda dà sempre 1). Al secondo minuto avrà velocità 4 (2 alla seconda). Al terzo minuto avrà velocità 9 (3 alla seconda), e così via. La serie risulta: 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, …

Come è possibile vedere, l’esponenziale progredisce più velocemente. Magari parte più lenta. Alla fine del primo minuto infatti l’automobile che aumenta esponenzialmente la velocità va addirittura piu’ lenta dell’altra, e allo scoccare del secondo minuto hanno velocita’ identiche. Ma col passare del tempo, l’esponenziale vince. Non ci si faccia ingannare dai numeri che ho scelto, volutamente maneggevoli e piccoli: l’esponenziale esplode. Al trentesimo minuto, la prima auto va a 60 km/h. La seconda, quella con accelerazione esponenziale, va a 900 km/h. Le due velocità diventano, al novantesimo minuto, rispettivamente 180 km/h e 8100 km/h. Al minuto 150, la differenza è ancora maggiore: 300 contro 22500. Dopo 10 ore (600 minuti), la prima va milleduecento km/h, la seconda a trecentosessantamila.

La tecnologia ha un incremento esponenziale, non lineare. Cio’ è anche dovuto al fatto che la tecnologia si autoincrementa: usiamo i nostri strumenti piu’ precisi per progettarne di ancora più precisi. Il nostro cervello non è veloce e preciso come una calcolatrice. Per questo, appunto, l’abbiamo progettata! Uno strumento che sostituisce temporaneamente il nostro cervello nello svolgere un compito, e lo svolge meglio e più velocemente. Prima della calcolatrice, negli anni ‘70, c’era il regolo calcolatore. Prima di esso, le utili tabelline e le tavole pitagoriche. Prima ancora, i segni lasciati a mano. Prima ancora, la visualizzazione di numeri contandoli sulle dita e l’ammonticchiare pietruzze.

Se si confronta l’aumento della capacità di calcolo nel corso dei secoli, appunto dai primi rudimentali mezzi ai supercalcolatori odierni, si può notare come l’aumento della potenza di calcolo sia esponenziale.

La crescita esponenziale della potenza di calcolo negli anni 1900 - 2000

La singolarità.

Ray definisce la singolarità come quel particolare momento in cui la tecnologia sarà così abile nello svolgere i suoi compiti, che l’intelligenza artificiale eguaglierà quella umana, per poi superarla.

La cosa può lasciare increduli.  Si pensi però a come l’intelligenza artificiale stia già permeando la nostra vita. A come ogni giorno molte intelligenze artificiali prendono decisioni per noi: dalle sospensioni intelligenti ai programmi intelligenti della lavatrice che decidono il tipo di lavaggio; dall’autofocus della macchina fotografica ai software di aiuto per i medici nella diagnostica, fino ai programmi di riconoscimento vocale per automatizzare determinati processi. Ne La singolarità è vicina è documentato (con pignoleria scientifica) un elenco impressionante di applicazioni. Ad esempio, lo stato dell’arte di certe tecnologie applicate a patologie neurali quali il morbo di Parkinson, implica l’interfaccia diretta fra i neuroni del cervello e  una scheda (intelligente) inserita chirurgicamente. La scheda lentamente impara e corregge gli errori di comunicazione causati della malattia, rallentandone di molto il processo degenerativo. Il firmware di tale scheda (cioe’ il software che la fa funzionare) viene aggionato man mano che se ne scrive una versione migliore. L’aggiornamento, ovviamente, avviene tramite wireless.

Quando scrisse il suo libro precedente (The age of spiritual machines, 1999), Kurzweil dovette sforzarsi parecchio per trovare degli esempi pratici di intelligenza artificiale applicata. Nel 2005, durante la stesura de La singolairtà è vicina, fu invece costretto a dover selezionare attentamente quali esempi citare, visto l’enorme numero di applicazioni raggiunte. Erano passati solo sei anni.
Non abbiamo un buona capacità di prevedere questa accelerazione, perchè la maggior parte di noi prevede istintivamente i progressi della scienza in maniera lineare. Ci basiamo sulla nostra esperienza e la nostra memoria per immaginare quel che succederà. Ci basiamo, insomma, sulla velocità che il progresso aveva in passato. Secondo il buon Ray dovremmo invece prevedere una crescita esponenziale (e proprio per questa ragione, egli sostiene, molti esperti sbagliano di grosso le loro previsioni sulle tecnologie del domani). Mentre scrivevo questa recensione, una persona mi ha telefonato. E’ stata una videochiamata da 9000 chilometri di distanza, entrambi con connessioni wireless. Ed è stata gratis. Difficile prevdere una cosa del genere, anche solo dieci anni fa, quando su internet si andava in pochi con il doppino 56k, e se mia madre alzava la cornetta saltava la connessione.

A vision of the future -- computer-based textile designing. From the 1970 publication "Computer Technology for Textiles". (CC) by Dave & Bry

Posto che queste previsioni su una scienza portentosa siano vere, quando l’esponenziale sarà esplosa, e arriverà la singolarità, saremo ancora umani? Il continuo progresso teconologico non arriverà a minare la nostra umanità? Se trascenderemo, non perderemo la nostra individualità, che è fatta anche di debolezza? Non è innaturale e perverso vivere per sempre?

A queste domande legittime, Kurzweil risponde in maniera molto semplice. Sostiene che abbiamo sempre accettato la morte come inevitabile proprio poichè fino ad ora non abbiamo avuto modo, oggettivamente, di evitarla. Ma accettare la morte non è nella nostra natura, anzi!, è proprio la nostra natura di umani che ci spinge a risolvere problemi e forzare i limiti che il mondo ci impone. Avevamo freddo e l’evoluzione non ci avevo dato il pelo lungo: così abbiamo inventato gli abiti. Non avevamo ali per volare, e abbiamo inventato gli aeroplani. La civiltà è  caratterizzata da una serie di miglioramenti (all’inizio piccoli passi, ora passi decisi, in futuro salti supersonici) che spingono i limiti di quel che possiamo fare sempre un po’ più in là. Se non fosse così, non saremmo ancora ominidi con una vita media di venti o trent’anni?

Il numero di argomenti toccati nel volume è impressionante. Come già menzionato, Ray si spinge a predire il destino dell’intero universo! Ma è soprendente come lo faccia in maniera semplice e comprensibile. E’ un nerd e un pignolo, quindi non si esime dall’accumulare grafici, tabelle, e centinaia di note per ogni capitolo. Nanobots e nanotecnologie, cyborg, menti collettive, il concetto di amore vissuto da una macchina, reverse engineering del cervello (vale a dire capire così bene come il cervello funziona, da poterne ricreare uno artificiale che funzioni in modo sostanzialmente identico)… decisamente troppi argomenti per discuterli tutti. Il lettore che è arrivato a questo punto della recensione potrebbe essere abbastanza affamato e incuriosito. Allora perché non leggersi la versione italiana di questa bella intervista allo stesso Kurzweil? Include molti argomenti che qui non ho potuto nemmeno accennare. Dovrebbe essere sufficiente a scatenare un’appetito tale da procurarsi il libro.

Evolution moves towards greater complexity, greater elegance, greater knowledge, greater intelligence, greater beauty, greater creativity, and greater levels of subtle attributes such as love. In every monotheistic tradition God is likewise described as all of these qualities, only without limitation: infinite knowledge, infinite intelligence, infinite beauty, infinite creativity, infinite love, and so on. Of course, even the accelerating growth of evolution never achieves an infinite level, but as it explodes exponentially it certainly moves rapidly in that direction. So evolution moves inexorably towards this conception of God, although never quite reaching this ideal. We can regard, therefore, the freeing of our thinking from the severe limitations of its biological form to be an essentially spiritual undertaking.

La singolarità è vicina!

Pernah luka? Pasti pernah dong ya. Berapa lama luka itu sembuh? Misalnya kita jatuh, terus kulit kita luka. Kita obati, kasih obat merah, plester, dan lain-lain. Berapa lama sembuhnya? Mungkin nggak terlalu lama, beberapa hari sembuh. Bagaimana kalau yang luka itu organ vital yang ada ditubuh kita, misalnya jantung? Wah, berat tuh, mungkin susah sembuh. Malah bisa menyebabkan kematian.

Tapi menurut seorang ilmuwan, nggak lama lagi kira-kira 20 tahun lagi, resiko keadaan fatal seperti itu nggak akan terjadi lagi. Kata dia, nantinya dengan kemajuan teknologi nano, kita bisa mengganti berbagai organ tubuh termasuk organ vital dengan mudah.

Wow…

Kutipan dari Telegraph, dia bilang begini:

“Saya dan banyak ilmuwan lainnya percaya bahwa dalam kurun waktu 20 tahun ke depan kita mempu memprogram ulang software kuno pada tubuh kita, dan menghentikan proses penuaan lalu membaliknya. Teknologi nano akan membuat kita hidup selamanya.”

Weleh, weleh…

Lebih lanjut, nanti gambaran situasinya menurut dia akan seperti ini:

• Nanobot akan menggantikan sel darah, dan akan bekerja ribuan kali lebih efektif (dari sel darah).
• Di ajang olimpiade kita bisa berlari sprint selama 15 menit tanpa perlu ambil napas, dan kita bisa menyelam selama empat jam tanpa perlu oksigen.
• Orang terkena serangan jantung – ini buat orang yang belum mengganti jantungnya dengan jantung bionik – bisa pergi ke dokter dengan tenang (nggak panik/terburu-buru) untuk menjalani operasi kecil. Dia bisa bertahan hidup (dengan kondisi serangan jantung itu) karena darah buatan.
• Nanotechnology akan meningkatkan kemampuan mental kita sampai pada tingkat di mana kita bisa menulis beberapa buku hanya dalam beberapa menit saja.
• Jika kita ingin beralih ke mode virtual reality, nanobot akan mematikan sinyal otak, lalu kita bisa pergi kemana saja kita mau. Virtual sex akan jadi tempat yang sering dikunjungi. Udah kebaca dah
• Di kehidupan sehari-hari, hologram gambar muncul di benak kita untuk menjelaskan apa yang sedang terjadi.

Ckckckckckckck….. persis seperti film science fiction ya…?

Ngomong-ngomong siapa sih ilmuwan ajaib ini? Dan dari mana dia bisa memperkirakan jangka waktu 20 tahun itu sebagai era teknologi nano?

*

*

Ray Kurzweil dan teori Law of Accelerating Returns

Ray yang nama lengkapnya Raymond Kurzweil itu ilmuwan asal Amerika Serikat berusia 61 tahun (lahir 12 February 1948) yang merupakan penemu dan juga ahli futurist (masa depan). Dia terlibat di berbagai penelitian optical character recognition (OCR), sintesis text-to-speech, teknologi speech recognition, dan juga instrumen elektronika. Dia penulis beberapa buku tentang kesehatan, artificial intelligence (AI), transhumanisme, dan masa depan.

Di kalangan ilmuwan, dia ini ilmuwan besar yang dianggap sebagai penerus dan pewaris Thomas Alva Edison (penemu lampu pijar). Majalah Forbes menjulukinya sebagai “the ultimate thinking machine“. Jiahahahahha… mungkin karena dia memang mirip mesin kali ya

Si Kurzweil ini punya teori yang dinamakan Law of Accelerating Returns. Saya ambil dari situsnya di KurzweilAI.net, begini teorinya:

The Law of Accelerating Returns

An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense “intuitive linear” view. So 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 “returns,” such as chip speed and costeffectiveness, also increase exponentially. There’s even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity — technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.

Ngerti nggak maksudnya? Nggak ngerti? Sama dong…

Ya kira-kira intinya bahwa kemajuan teknologi itu meningkat secara eksponensial, bukan linear. Jadi, kemajuan ini begitu pesat sehingga kalau dibandingkan, 100 tahun sekarang ini tingkat kemajuannya kira-kira setara dengan kemajuan 20.000 tahun di masa lalu.

Nah, berdasarkan teorinya dan pengamatannya pada teknologi itulah dia punya hitung-hitungan dan akhirnya meyakini teori bahwa 20 tahun lagi teknologi akan sangat maju ditandai dengan penguasaan teknologi nano. teknologi nano inilah nanti yang akan membuat kemajuan pesat di bidang kedokteran, mesin dan elektronika yang bisa menggantikan organ tubuh manusia dengan apa yang disebutnya nanobot (robot teknologi nano).

“Jadi, kita bisa melihat dunia dimana manusia menjadi cyborg, dengan kaki buatan dan organ buatan” begitu katanya.

kalo udah begini, nggak usah takut muka jelek, bisa diganti kok :p

Ngomong-ngomong, apa iya hidup abadi itu enak? Mungkin iya kalo senang terus, lah kalo hidupnya bikin pusing gimana dong…?

Terlepas dari nantinya bisa hidup abadi atau nggak, dengan kemajuan teknologi yang nyatanya memang sangat cepat dan semakin cepat saja tingkat kemajuannya, bisa jadi kondisi tubuh manusia seperti yang digambarkan oleh si ilmuwan ini benar-benar jadi kenyataan. Mungkin perhitungan waktu yang disampaikan si ilmuwan meleset, bukan 20 tahun, tapi 50 tahun, atau lebih. Hanya masalah waktu. Kecuali bila kiamat datang duluan

Dan jadilah nantinya manusia berwujud robot. Mungkin kata-katanya akan diperhalus menjadi robot yang berbudaya, atau manusia unggul, atau apalah, intinya tetap saja robot.

Hwaaa… tidaaaaakkkkkk…….!!!

• Lagunya Freddie Mercury: Who Wants To Live Forever, checked.
• Lagunya AHA: Forever Young, checked.
• Film Terminator: checked.

Akankah kota-kota di dunia nantinya menjadi seperti ini:

Rise of the Virgin… eh salah, Rise of the Machine…!!!

.

.

Baca juga artikel-artikel lainnya yuks….

Your blog does not currently have any published posts.

.

Finally, there’s hope in conquering death:

‘Immortality only 20 years away says scientist –Telegraph.co
Scientist Ray Kurzweil claims humans could become immortal in as little as 20 years’ time through nanotechnology and an increased understanding of how the body works.’

No se trata de una broma de mal gusto. El polémico científico Ray Kurzweil es el que afirma que en poco tiempo y a través de la nanotecnología y un mayor conocimiento sobre nuestro cuerpo, lograremos el secreto de la vida eterna.

Ray Kurzweil recuerda que no es nada del otro mundo lo que propone ya que nuestro conocimiento en materia de genética y la tecnología informática crecen a un ritmo increíble. Según declaraciones del científico en el Telegraph, “los páncreas artificiales y los implantes neuronales ya están disponibles”, así que sólo hay que seguir avanzando en esta dirección.

Reprogramarse en 20 años

Cada vez sabemos más sobre nuestro cuerpo y lo que nos rodea y como asevera Ray Kurzweil, las nanotecnologías serán capaces de sustituir a muchos de nuestros órganos vitales dentro de 20 años. Kurzweil llama a su teoría Law of Accelerating Returns (Ley de Aceleración de Devoluciones).

Según el diario The Sun, Kurzweil ha dicho que él mismo  “y muchos otros científicos creen que en 20 años tendremos los medios para reprogramar nuestros cuerpos”. Así pues, la nanotecnología permitirá a vivir para siempre. “En última instancia, los nanobots sustituirán a las células de sangre y harán su trabajo” sólo que de un modo mucho más eficaz.

“Dentro de 25 años seremos capaces de hacer un sprint olímpico durante 15 minutos sin respirar, o bucear durante cuatro horas sin oxígeno” afirma el científico. “La nanotecnología se extiende por nuestras capacidades mentales a tal grado que será capaz de escribir libros en cuestión de minutos“.

El sexo virtual será algo común

Cuando queramos entrar en modo ‘realidad virtual’, Ray Kurzweil asegura que “los nanobots cerrará las señales del cerebro y nos llevarán donde queramos ir. El sexo virtual se convertirá en algo común. Y en nuestra vida cotidiana, el holograma como figura aparecerá en nuestro cerebro para explicar qué está sucediendo”. Así podremos llegar a un mundo en el que según el científico los seres humanos serán verdaderos ‘cyborgs’, para siempre.

The 61-year-old American, who has predicted new technologies arriving before, says our understanding of genes and computer technology is accelerating at an incredible rate.

He says theoretically, at the rate our understanding is increasing, nanotechnologies capable of replacing many of our vital organs could be available in 20 years time.

Mr Kurzweil adds that although his claims may seem far-fetched, artificial pancreases and neural implants are already available.

Mr Kurzweil calls his theory the Law of Accelerating Returns. Writing in The Sun, Mr Kurzweil said: “I and many other scientists now believe that in around 20 years we will have the means to reprogramme our bodies’ stone-age software so we can halt, then reverse, ageing. Then nanotechnology will let us live for ever.

“Ultimately, nanobots will replace blood cells and do their work thousands of times more effectively.

“Within 25 years we will be able to do an Olympic sprint for 15 minutes without taking a breath, or go scuba-diving for four hours without oxygen.

“Heart-attack victims – who haven’t taken advantage of widely available bionic hearts – will calmly drive to the doctors for a minor operation as their blood bots keep them alive.

“Nanotechnology will extend our mental capacities to such an extent we will be able to write books within minutes.

“If we want to go into virtual-reality mode, nanobots will shut down brain signals and take us wherever we want to go. Virtual sex will become commonplace. And in our daily lives, hologram like figures will pop in our brain to explain what is happening.

“So we can look forward to a world where humans become cyborgs, with artificial limbs and organs.”