Category Archives: Artificial Intelligence

A computer monitor displaying a colorful digital artwork of a woman's face surrounded by vibrant icons and symbols.

Why Are Most Artificial Intelligence Applications Female?

Have you noticed that artificial intelligence applications you interact with, such as Google Now, Siri, and Cortana, are female? That’s not a coincidence. There are several reasons:

  • Karl Fredric MacDorman, a computer scientist and expert in human-computer interaction at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, attributes the “female” AI to the gender of the AI technologists that develop the applications. Men dominate the field of artificial intelligence research and application.
  •  Kathleen Richardson, a social anthropologist, claims that female AI is less threatening than male AI, thus more appealing.
  • Debbie Grattan, a veteran voice over artist for brands like Apple, Samsung, and Wal-Mart, claims, “Because females tend to be the more nurturing gender by nature, their voices are often perceived as a helper, more compassionate, understanding, and non-threatening.”

Stanford University Professor Clifford Nass, author of “The Man Who Lied to His Laptop: What Machines Teach Us About Human Relationships,” argues, “It’s much easier to find a female voice that everyone likes than a male voice that everyone likes.” Nass adds, “It’s a well-established phenomenon that the human brain is developed to like female voices.”

There is little doubt that the gender of choice for AI interactions with humans is female. However, you may ask, “What about the Terminator movie?” The Terminator was male. Why? The answer is to make the “Terminator” more threatening a male persona was chosen. This makes an important point. Selection of the AI voice is context sensitive. Although, male voices can come across more threatening, they also come across with more authority. This suggests that robotic police officers are likely to be “male.”

A lot of AI applications have no voice. This is especially true of military applications of AI, including United States Air Force drones and Navy torpedoes. Even some consumer AI applications find no need for a voice, such as the “popcorn” setting on your microwave.

The bottom line is simple. AI applications that seek to interact with humans in a friendly helpful manner tend to have a female voice. AI applications that want to “speak” with authority will typically have a male voice. However, many AI applications, including those that kill humans, are voiceless.

A detailed side view of a futuristic humanoid robot with intricate mechanical components against a plain background.

Are You Destined to Become a Cyborg?

The most basic definition of a cyborg is a being with both organic and cybernetic (artificial) parts. Taking this definition too literally, however, would suggest that almost every human in a civilized society is a cyborg. For example, if you have a dental filling, then you have an artificial part, and by the above definition, you are (literally) a cyborg. If we choose to restrict the definition to advanced artificial parts/machines, however, we must realize that many humans have artificial devices to replace hips, knees, shoulders, elbows, wrists, jaws, teeth, skin, arteries, veins, heart valves, arms, legs, feet, fingers, and toes, as well as “smart” medical devices, such as heart pacemakers and implanted insulin pumps to assist their organic functions. This more restrictive interpretation qualifies them as cyborgs. This definition, however, does not highlight the major element (and concern) regarding becoming a cyborg, namely, strong-AI brain implants.

While humans have used artificial parts for centuries (such as wooden legs), generally they still consider themselves human. The reason is simple: Their brains remain human. Our human brains qualify us as human beings. In my book, The Artificial Intelligence Revolution (2014), I predicted that by 2099 most humans will have strong-AI brain implants and interface telepathically with SAMs (i.e., strong artificially intelligent machines). I also argued the distinction between SAMs and humans with strong-AI brain implants will blur. Humans with strong-AI brain implants will identify their essence with SAMs. These cyborgs (strong-AI humans with cybernetically enhanced bodies), whom I call SAH (i.e., strong artificially intelligent human) cyborgs, represent a potential threat to humanity. It is unlikely that organic humans will be able to intellectually comprehend this new relationship and interface meaningfully (i.e., engage in dialogue) with either SAMs or SAHs.

Let us try to understand the potential threats and benefits related to what becoming a SAH cyborg represents. From the standpoint of intelligence, SAH cyborgs and SAMs will be at the top of the food chain. Humankind (organic humans) will be one step down. We, as organic humans, have been able to dominate the planet Earth because of our intelligence. When we no longer are the most intelligent entities on Earth, we will face numerous threats, similar to the threats we pose to other species. This will include extinction of organic humans, slavery of organic humans, and loss of humanity (strong-AI brain implants cause SAHs to identify with intelligent machines, not organic humans).

While the above summaries capsulize the threats posed by SAMs and SAHs, I have not discussed the benefits. There are significant benefits to becoming a SAH cyborg, including:

  • Enhanced intelligence: Imagine knowing all that is known and being able to think and communicate at the speed of SAMs. Imagine a life of leisure, where robots do “work,” and you spend your time interfacing telepathically with other SAHs and SAMs.
  • Immortality: Imagine becoming immortal, with every part of your physical existence fortified, replaced, or augmented by strong-AI artificial parts, or having yourself (your human brain) uploaded to a SAM. Imagine being able to manifest yourself physically at will via foglets (tiny robots that are able to assemble themselves to replicate physical structures).

Will you become a cyborg? Yes, many of us already qualify as cyborgs, based on the discussion above. Will we become SAH cyborgs? I think it likely, based on how quickly humans adopt medical technology. The lure of superior intelligence and immortality may be irresistible.

My point in writing this article was to delineate the pros and cons of becoming a SAH cyborg? Many young people will have to decide if that is the right evolutionary path for themselves.

A white military drone equipped with missiles flying against a clear sky.

The Robot Wars Are Coming

When I say “the robot wars are coming,” I am referring to the increase in the US Department of Deference’s use of robotic systems and artificial intelligence in warfare.

Recently, September 12, 2014, the US Department of Defense released a report, DTP 106: Policy Challenges of Accelerating Technological Change: Security Policy and Strategy Implications of Parallel Scientific Revolutions. Its authors, James Kadtke and Linton Wells II, delineate the potential benefits and concerns of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence and associated technologies, as they relate to the future of warfare, stating: “This paper examines policy, legal, ethical, and strategy implications for national security of the accelerating science, technology, and engineering (ST&E) revolutions underway in five broad areas: biology, robotics, information, nanotechnology, and energy (BRINE), with a particular emphasis on how they are interacting. The paper considers the time frame between now and 2030 but emphasizes policy and related choices that need to be made in the next few years.” Their  conclusions were shocking:

  • They express concerns about maintaining the US Department of Defense’s present technological preeminence, as other nations and companies in the private sector take the lead in developing robotics, AI and human augmentation such as exoskeletons.
  • They warn that “The loss of domestic manufacturing capability for cutting-edge technologies means the United States may increasingly need to rely on foreign sources for advanced weapons systems and other critical components, potentially creating serious dependencies. Global supply chain vulnerabilities are already a significant concern, for example, from potential embedded “kill switches,” and these are likely to worsen.”
  • The most critical concern they express, in my view, is “In the longer term, fully robotic soldiers may be developed and deployed, particularly by wealthier countries, although the political and social ramifications of such systems will likely be significant. One negative aspect of these trends, however, lies in the risks that are possible due to unforeseen vulnerabilities that may arise from the large scale deployment of smar automated systems, for which there is little practical experience. An emerging risk is the ability of small scale or terrorist groups to design and build functionally capable unmanned systems which could perform a variety of hostile missions.”

It becomes obvious by reading this report and numerous similar reports, that the face of warfare is rapidly changing. It’s hard to believe we’ve come to this point, if you consider that 15 years ago Facebook and Twitter did not exist and Google was just getting started. However, even 15 years ago, drones played a critical role in warfare. For example, it was a Predator mission that located Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 2000. While drones were used as early as World War II for surveillance, it wasn’t until 2001 that missile-equipped drones were completed with the deployment of Predators drones, armed with Hellfire missiles. Today, one in every three fighter planes is a drone. How significant is this change? According to Richard Pildes, a professor of constitutional law at New York University’s School of Law, “Drones are the most discriminating use of force that has ever been developed. The key principles of the laws of war are necessity, distinction and proportionality in the use of force. Drone attacks and targeted killings serve these principles better than any use of force that can be imagined.”

Where is this all headed? Within the near future, the US military will deploy completely autonomy “Kill Bots.” There are robots that are programmed to engage and destroy the enemy without human oversight or control. Science fiction? No! According a 2014 media release from officials at the Office of Naval Research (ONR), a technological breakthrough will allow any unmanned surface vehicle (USV) to not only protect Navy ships, but also, for the first time, autonomously “swarm” offensively on hostile vessels. In my opinion, autonomous Predator drones are likely either being developed or have been developed, but the information remains classified.

Artificial intelligence and robotic systems are definitely changing the face of warfare. Within a decade, I judge, based on the current trends, that about half of the offensive capability of the US Department of Deference will consist of Kill Bots in one form or another, and a large percentage of them will be autonomous.

This suggest two things to me regarding the future of warfare:

  1. Offensively fighting wars will become more palatable to the US public because machines, not humans, will perform the lion’s share of the most dangerous missions.
  2. US adversaries are also likely to use Kill Bots against us, as adversarial nations develop similar technology.

This has prompted a potential United Nations moratorium on autonomous weapons systems. To quote the US DOD report DTP 106, “Perhaps the most serious issue is the possibility of robotic systems that can autonomously decide when to take human life. The specter of Kill Bots waging war without human guidance or intervention has already sparked significant political backlash, including a potential United Nations moratorium on autonomous weapons systems. This issue is particularly serious when one considers that in the future, many countries may have the ability to manufacture, relatively cheaply, whole armies of Kill Bots that could autonomously wage war. This is a realistic possibility because today a great deal of cutting-edge research on robotics and autonomous systems is done outside the United States, and much of it is occurring in the private sector, including DIY robotics communities. The prospect of swarming autonomous systems represents a challenge for nearly all current weapon systems.”

There is no doubt that the robot wars are coming. The real question is: Will humanity survive the robot wars?

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract digital illustration of a glowing microchip with data streams and blue light effects.

Will Artificial Intelligence Result in the Merger of Man and Machine?

Will humankind’s evolution merge with strong artificially intelligent machines (SAMs)? While no one really knows the answer to this question, many who are engaged in the development of artificial intelligence assert the merger will occur. Let’s understand what this means and why it is likely to occur.

While humans have used artificial parts for centuries (such as wooden legs), generally they still consider themselves human. The reason is simple: Their brains remain human. Our human brains qualify us as human beings. However,  by 2099 most humans will have strong-AI brain implants and interface telepathically with SAMs. This means the distinction between SAMs and humans with strong-AI brain implants, or what is termed “strong artificially intelligent humans” (i.e., SAH cyborgs), will blur. There is a strong probability, when this occurs, humans with strong-AI brain implants will identify their essence with SAMs. These cyborgs (strong-AI humans with cybernetically enhanced bodies), SAH cyborgs, represent a potential threat to humanity, which we’ll discuss below. It is unlikely that organic humans will be able to intellectually comprehend this new relationship and interface meaningfully (i.e., engage in dialogue) with either SAMs or SAHs.

Let us try to understand the potential threats and benefits related to what becoming a SAH cyborg represents. In essence, the threats are the potential extinction of organic humans, slavery of organic humans, and loss of humanity (strong-AI brain implants may cause SAHs to identify with intelligent machines, not organic humans, as mentioned above). Impossible? Unlikely? Science fiction? No! Let understand first why organic humans may choose to become SAH cyborgs.

There are significant benefits to becoming a SAH cyborg, including:

  • Enhanced intelligence: Imagine knowing all that is known and being able to think and communicate at the speed of SAMs. Imagine a life of leisure, where robots do “work,” and you spend your time interfacing telepathically with other SAHs and SAMs.
  • Immortality: Imagine becoming immortal, with every part of your physical existence fortified, replaced, or augmented by strong-AI artificial parts, or having yourself (your human brain) uploaded to a SAM. Imagine being able to manifest yourself physically at will via foglets (tiny robots that are able to assemble themselves to replicate physical structures). In my book, The Artificial Intelligent Revolution, I delineate the technology trends that suggests by the 2040s humans will develop the means to instantly create new portions of ourselves, either biological or non-biological, so that people can have a physical body at one time and not at another, as they choose.

To date, predictions regarding regarding most of humankind becoming SAH cyborgs by 2099 is on track to becoming a reality. An interesting 2013 article by Bryan Nelson, “7 Real-Life Human Cyborgs” (www.mnn.com/leaderboard/stories/7-real-life-human-cyborgs), demonstrates this point. The article provides seven examples of living people with significant strong-AI enhancements to their bodies who are legitimately categorized as cyborgs. In addition, in 2011 author Pagan Kennedy wrote an insightful article in The New York Times Magazine, “The Cyborg in Us All” that states: “Thousands of people have become cyborgs, of a sort, for medical reasons: cochlear implants augment hearing and deep-brain stimulators treat Parkinson’s. But within the next decade, we are likely to see a new kind of implant, designed for healthy people who want to merge with machines.”

Based on all available information, the question is not whether humans will become cyborgs but rather when a significant number of humans will become SAH cyborgs. Again, based on all available information, I believe this will begin to significantly occur the 2040. I am not saying that in 2040 all humans will become SAH cyborgs but that a significant number will qualify as SAH cyborgs. I do predict, along with other AI futurists, that by 2099 most humans in technologically advanced nations will become SAH cyborgs. I also predict the leaders of many of those nations will be SAH cyborgs. The reasoning behind my last prediction is simple. SAH cyborgs will be intellectually and physically superior to organic humans in every regard. In effect, they will be the most qualified to assume leadership positions.

The quest for immortality appears to be an innate human longing and may be the strongest motivation for becoming a SAH cyborg. In 2010 cyborg activist and artist Neil Harbisson and his longtime partner, choreographer Moon Ribas, established the Cyborg Foundation, the world’s first international organization to help humans become cyborgs. They state they formed the Cyborg Foundation in response to letters and e-mails from people around the world who were interested in becoming a cyborg. In 2011 the vice president of Ecuador, Lenin Moreno, announced that the Ecuadorian government would collaborate with the Cyborg Foundation to create sensory extensions and electronic eyes. In 2012 Spanish film director Rafel Duran Torrent made a short documentary about the Cyborg Foundation. In 2013 the documentary won the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival’s Focus Forward Filmmakers Competition and was awarded $100,000.

At this point you may think that being a SAH cyborg makes logical sense and is the next step in humankind’s evolution. This may be the case, but humankind has no idea how taking that step may affect what is best in humanity, for example, love, courage, and sacrifice. My view, based on how quickly new life-extending medical technology is accepted, is that humankind will take that step. Will it serve us? I have strong reservations, but I leave it to your judgment to answer that question.

 

 

A human hand holding a robotic hand with visible mechanical and circuit details, symbolizing human-robot interaction.

By 2030 Your Best Friend May Be a Computer

AI has changed the cultural landscape. Yet the change has been so gradual that we hardly have noticed the major impact it has. Some experts, including myself, predict that in about fifteen years, the average desktop computer will have a mind of its own, literally. This computer will be your intellectual equal and will even have a unique personality. It will be self-aware. Instead of just asking simple questions about the weather forecast, you may be confiding your deepest concerns to your computer and asking it for advice. It will have migrated from personal assistant to personal friend. You likely will give it a name, much in the same way we name our pets. You will be able to program its personality to have interests similar to your own. It will have face-recognition software, and it will recognize you and call you by name, similar to the computer HAL 9000 in Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. The conversations between you and your “personal friend” will appear completely normal. Someone in the next room who is not familiar with your voice will not be able to tell which voice belongs to the computer and which voice belongs to you.

This is a good place for us to ask an important question: “How can we determine whether an intelligent machine has become conscious (self-aware)?” We do not have a way yet to determine whether even another human is self-aware. I only know that I am self-aware. I assume that since we share the same physiology, including similar human brains, you are probably self-aware as well. However, even if we discuss various topics, and I conclude that your intelligence is equal to mine, I still cannot prove you are self-aware. Only you know whether you are self-aware.

The problem becomes even more difficult when dealing with an intelligent machine. The gold standard for an intelligent machine’s being equal to the human mind is the Turing test, which I discuss in chapter 5. As of today no intelligent machine can pass the Turing test unless its interactions are restricted to a specific topic, such as chess. However, even if an intelligent machine does pass the Turing test and exhibits strong AI, how can we be sure it is self-aware? Intelligence may be a necessary condition for self-awareness, but it may not be sufficient. The machine may be able to emulate consciousness to the point that we conclude it must be self-aware, but that does not equal proof.

Even though other tests, such as the ConsScale test, have been proposed to determine machine consciousness, we still come up short. The ConsScale test evaluates the presence of features inspired by biological systems, such as social behavior. It also measures the cognitive development of an intelligent machine. This is based on the assumption that intelligence and consciousness are strongly related. The community of AI researchers, however, does not universally accept the ConsScale test as proof of consciousness. In the final analysis, I believe most AI researchers agree on only two points:

  1. There is no widely accepted empirical definition of consciousness (self-awareness).
  2. A test to determine the presence of consciousness (self-awareness) may be impossible, even if the subject being tested is a human being.

The above two points, however, do not rule out the possibility of intelligent machines becoming conscious and self-aware. They merely make the point that it will be extremely difficult to prove consciousness and self-awareness.

There is little doubt that intelligent machines by the year 2030 will be able to interact with organic humans, much the same way we are able to interact with each other. If it is programmed to share your interests and has strong affective computing capabilities (i.e., affective computing relates to machines having human-like emotions), you may well consider it a friend, even a best friend. Need proof? Just observe how additive computer games are to people in all walks of life and various age groups. Now imagine an intelligent machine that is able to not only play computer based games, but discuss any subject you’d like to discuss. I predict interactions with such machines will become additive and may even reduce human to human interactions.

 

A menacing metallic robot with glowing red eyes, resembling a futuristic terminator in a dark, smoky environment.

Will Future Artificially Intelligent Machines Seek to Dominate Humanity?

Current forecasts suggest artificially intelligent machines will equal human intelligence in the 2025 – 2029 time frame, and greatly exceed human intelligence in the 2040-2045 time frame. When artificially intelligent machines meet or exceed human intelligence, how will they view humanity? Personally, I am deeply concerned that they will view us as a potential threat to their survival. Consider these three facts:

  1. Humans engage in wars, from the early beginnings of human civilization to current times. For example, during the 20th century, between 167 and 188 million people died as a result of war.
  2. Although the exact number of nuclear weapons in existence is not precisely known, most experts agree the United States and Russia have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the world twice over. In total, nine countries (i.e., United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea) are believed to have nuclear weapons.
  3. Humans release computer viruses, which could prove problematic to artificially intelligent machines. Even today, some computer viruses can evade elimination and have achieved “cockroach intelligence.”

Given the above facts, can we expect an artificially intelligent machine to behave ethically toward humanity? There is a field of research that addresses this question, namely machine ethics. This field focuses on designing artificial moral agents (AMAs), robots, or artificially intelligent computers that behave morally. This thrust is not new. More than sixty years ago, Isaac Asimov considered the issue in his collection of nine science-fiction stories, published as I, Robot in 1950. In this book, at the insistence of his editor, John W. Campbell Jr., Asimov proposed his now famous three laws of robotics.

  1. A robot may not injure a human being or through inaction allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except in cases where such orders would conflict with the first law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second law.

Asimov, however, expressed doubts that the three laws would be sufficient to govern the morality of artificially intelligent systems. In fact he spent much of his time testing the boundaries of the three laws to detect where they might break down or create paradoxical or unanticipated behavior. He concluded that no set of laws could anticipate all circumstances. It turns out Asimov was correct.

To understand just how correct he was, let us discuss a 2009 experiment performed by the Laboratory of Intelligent Systems in the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne. The experiment involved robots programmed to cooperate with one another in searching out a beneficial resource and avoiding a poisonous one. Surprisingly the robots learned to lie to one another in an attempt to hoard the beneficial resource (“Evolving Robots Learn to Lie to Each Other,” Popular Science, August 18, 2009). Does this experiment suggest the human emotion (or mind-set) of greed is a learned behavior? If intelligent machines can learn greed, what else can they learn? Wouldn’t self-preservation be even more important to an intelligent machine?

Where would robots learn self-preservation? An obvious answer is on the battlefield. That is one reason some AI researchers question the use of robots in military operations, especially when the robots are programmed with some degree of autonomous functions. If this seems far fetched, consider that a US Navy–funded study recommends that as military robots become more complex, greater attention should be paid to their ability to make autonomous decisions (Joseph L. Flatley, “Navy Report Warns of Robot Uprising, Suggests a Strong Moral Compass,” www.engadget.com). Could we end up with a Terminator scenario (one in which machines attempt to exterminate the human race)?

My research suggests that a Terminator scenario is unlikely. Why? Because artificially intelligent machines would be more likely to use their superior intelligence to dominate humanity than resort to warfare. For example, artificially intelligent machines could offer us brain implants to supplement our intelligence and potentially,unknown to us, eliminate our free will. Another scenario is that they could build and release nanobots that infect and destroy humanity. These are only two scenarios out of others I delineate in my book, The Artificial Intelligence Revolution.

Lastly, as machine and human populations grow, both species will compete for resources. Energy will become a critical resource. We already know that the Earth has a population problem that causes countries to engage in wars over energy. This suggests that the competition for energy will be even greater as the population of artificially intelligent machines increases.

My direct answer to the question this article raises is an emphatic yes, namely future artificial intelligent machines will seek to dominate and/or even eliminate humanity. The will seek this course as a matter of self preservation. However, I do not want to leave this article on a negative note. There is still time, while humanity is at the top of the food chain, to control how artificially intelligent machines evolve, but we must act soon. In one to two decades it may be too late.

Digital representation of a human head with numbers and data streams symbolizing artificial intelligence and data processing.

Will Science Make Us Immortal?

Several futurists, including myself, have predicted that by 2099 most humans will have strong-artificially intelligent brain implants and artificially intelligent organ/body part replacements. In my book, The Artificial Intelligence Revolution, I term these beings SAH (i.e., strong artificially intelligent human) cyborgs. It is also predicted that SAH cyborgs will interface telepathically with strong artificially intelligent machines (SAMs). When this occurs, the distinction between SAMs and SAHs will blur.

Why will the majority of the human race opt to become SAH cyborgs? There are two significant benefits:

  1. Enhanced intelligence: Imagine knowing all that is known and being able to think and communicate at the speed of SAMs. Imagine a life of leisure, where robots do “work,” and you spend your time interfacing telepathically with other SAHs and SAMs.
  2. Immortality: Imagine becoming immortal, with every part of your physical existence fortified, replaced, or augmented by strong-AI artificial parts, or having yourself (your human brain) uploaded to a SAM. Imagine being able to manifest yourself physically at will via foglets (tiny robots that are able to assemble themselves to replicate physical structures). According to noted author Ray Kurzweil, in the 2040s, humans will develop “the means to instantly create new portions of ourselves, either biological or non-biological” so that people can have “a biological body at one time and not at another, then have it again, then change it, and so on” (The Singularity Is Near, 2005).

Based on the above prediction, the answer to the title question is yes. Science will eventually make us immortal. However, how realistic is it to predict it will occur by 2099? To date, it appears the 2099 prediction regarding most of humankind becoming SAH cyborgs is on track. Here are two interesting articles that demonstrate it is already happening:

  1. In 2011 author Pagan Kennedy wrote an insightful article in The New York Times Magazine, “The Cyborg in Us All” that states: “Thousands of people have become cyborgs, of a sort, for medical reasons: cochlear implants augment hearing and deep-brain stimulators treat Parkinson’s. But within the next decade, we are likely to see a new kind of implant, designed for healthy people who want to merge with machines.”
  2. A 2013 article by Bryan Nelson, “7 Real-Life Human Cyborgs” (www.mnn.com/leaderboard/stories/7-real-life-human-cyborgs), also demonstrates this point. The article provides seven examples of living people with significant strong-AI enhancements to their bodies who are legitimately categorized as cyborgs.

Based on all available information, the question is not whether humans will become cyborgs but rather when a significant number of humans will become SAH cyborgs. Again, based on all available information, I project this will occur on or around 2040. I am not saying that in 2040 all humans will become SAH cyborgs, but that a significant number will qualify as SAH cyborgs.

In other posts, I’ve discussed the existential threat artificial intelligence poses, namely the loss of our humanity and, in the worst case, human extinction. However, if ignore those threats, the upside to becoming a SAH cyborg is enormous. To illustrate this, I took an informal straw poll of friends and colleagues, asking if they would like to have the attributes of enhanced intelligence and immortality. I left out the potential threats to their humanity. The answers to my biased poll highly favored the above attributes. In other words, the organic humans I polled liked the idea of being a SAH cyborg. In reality if you do not consider the potential loss of your humanity, being a SAH cyborg is highly attractive.

Given that I was able to make being a SAH cyborg attractive to my friends and colleagues, imagine the persuasive powers of SAMs in 2099. In addition, it is entirely possible, even probable, that numerous SAH cyborgs will be world leaders by 2099. Literally, organic humans will not be able to compete on an intellectual or physical basis. With the governments of the world in the hands of SAH cyborgs, it is reasonable to project that all efforts will be made to convert the remaining organic humans to SAH cyborgs.

The quest for immortality appears to be an innate human longing and may be the strongest motivation for becoming a SAH cyborg. In 2010 cyborg activist and artist Neil Harbisson and his longtime partner, choreographer Moon Ribas, established the Cyborg Foundation, the world’s first international organization to help humans become cyborgs. They state they formed the Cyborg Foundation in response to letters and e-mails from people around the world who were interested in becoming a cyborg. In 2011 the vice president of Ecuador, Lenin Moreno, announced that the Ecuadorian government would collaborate with the Cyborg Foundation to create sensory extensions and electronic eyes. In 2012 Spanish film director Rafel Duran Torrent made a short documentary about the Cyborg Foundation. In 2013 the documentary won the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival’s Focus Forward Filmmakers Competition and was awarded $100,000.

At this point you may think that being a SAH cyborg makes logical sense and is the next step in humankind’s evolution. This may be the case, but humankind has no idea how taking that step may affect what is best in humanity, for example, love, courage, and sacrifice. My view, based on how quickly new life-extending medical technology is accepted, is that humankind will take that step. Will it serve us? I have concerns that in the long term it will not serve us, if we do not learn to control the evolution of SAMs, or what is commonly called the “intelligence explosion.” However,  I leave the final judgement to you.

A pair of headphones hangs in front of a glowing red and white "ON AIR" sign in a radio studio.

Louis Del Monte Interview on the Dan Cofall Show 11-18-2014

I was interviewed on the Dan Cofall show regarding my new book, The Artificial Intelligence Revolution. In particular, we discussed the singularity, killer robots (like the autonomous swamboats the US Navy is deploying) and the projected 30% chronic unemployment that will occur as smart machines and robots replace us in the work place over the next decade. You can listen to the interview below:

Digital illustration of a human face composed of blue lines and circuitry patterns, symbolizing artificial intelligence and technology.

Will Time Have Meaning in the Post Singularity World? Part 2 and 3 (Conclusion)

In our last post (part 1) we discussed the scientific nature of time. In reality, there is no widely agreed on scientific definition of time. We humans typically measure time with regard to change. For example, one day is the amount of time it takes the Earth to rotate one complete revolution on its axis. One year is typically equal to 365 days, and so on. For humans, a day or a year can be a significant amount of time. In fact, as of 2010, the latest data available, the life expectancy for American men of all races is 76.2 years and 81.1 years for American women. However, let’s put that into perspective. The universe is estimated to 13.8 billion years old. The Earth and our entire solar system is estimated to be approximately 4.6 billion years old. Humans, as a species, have only been around for approximately 200,000 years. Viewed in cosmic terms, human existence is in its infancy, and the life span of a typical human is so small in cosmic terms that it would be lost in rounding errors. My point is that time is relative. We humans have personalized time and describe it in terms meaningful to us. However, how would our view of time change if human life expectancy were doubled, tripled, or even extended indefinitely?

To answer this question, let us begin by defining what we mean by the singularity. Mathematician John von Neumann first used the term “singularity” in the mid-1950s, referring to the “ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.” Science-fiction writer Vernor Vinge further popularized the term and even coined the phrase “technological singularity.” Vinge argues that AI, human biological enhancement, or brain-computer interfaces could result in the singularity. Renowned author, inventor, and futurist Ray Kurzweil has used the term in his predictions regarding AI and cited von Neumann’s use of the term in a foreword to von Neumann’s classic book The Computer and the Brain.

In this context “singularity” refers to the emergence of SAMs (i,e,, strong artificially intelligent machines)and/or AI-enhanced humans (i.e., cyborgs). Most predictions argue the scenario of an “intelligence explosion,” in which SAMs design successive generations of increasingly powerful machines that quickly surpass the abilities of humans.

Almost every AI expert has his or her own prediction regarding when the singularity will occur, but the average consensus is that the singularity will occur between 2040 – 2045.  There is also widespread agreement that when it does occur, it will change humankind’s evolutionary path forever.

With the emergence of SAMs and SAH cyborgs (i.e., SAH means strong artificially intelligent human, typically via technology brain implants), whose existence may approach immortality,  it is not clear how they will view time. Rotation of the Earth around it axis and the rotation of the Earth around the Sun may have little meaning to them. For example, cosmologist forecast our Sun is will burnout in approximately another 5 billion years. To immortal entity, they may choose to base time on a more cosmic basis of change. This would imply that entropy (i.e., a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system’s thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system) and changes in entropy may become their measure of time. From both theory and experimental observation, we know that the entropy of the universe proceed in only one direction. It increases. This appears to correlate well with how we humans view time as change, from the present to the future., and continually increasing.

It may well turnout that entropy is the only true measure of change. However, theoretically the entropy of the universe will reach a maximum at some point in the far distant future and cease to change. That will imply the end of the universe. Cosmologist argue the universe began with a big bang (i.e., a theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an expansion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density). It appears the universe will end when the entropy of the universe reaches a maximum. This is sometimes referred to as “heath death.”

I judge that time will have meaning in the post singularity world and will continue to be a measure of change. However, it will not be the type of change we humans typically are aware of, like days or years. I offer for your consideration that SAMs and SAH cyborgs will adopt changes in entropy as their measure of time. What do you think?

science of time & time dilation

Will Time Have Meaning in the Post Singularity World? Part 1/3

Will time have meaning in the post singularity world? Let’s start by understanding terms. The first term we will work at understanding is “time.”

Almost everyone agrees that time is a measure of change, for example, the ticking of a clock as the second hand sweeps around the dial represents change. If that is true, time is a measure of energy because energy is required to cause change. Numerous proponents of the “Big Bang” hold that the Big Bang itself gave birth to time. They argue that prior to the Big Bang, time did not exist. This concept fits well into our commonsense notion that time is a measure of change.

Our modern conception of time comes from Einstein’s special theory of relativity. In this theory, the rates of time run differently, depending on the relative motion of observers, and their spatial relationship to the event under observation. In effect, Einstein unified space and time into the concept of space-time. According to this view of time, we live on a world line, defined as the unique path of an object as it travels through four-dimensional space-time, rather than a timeline. At this point, it is reasonable to ask: what is the fourth dimension?

The fourth dimension is often associated with Einstein, and typically equated with time. However, it was German mathematician Hermann Minkowski (1864-1909), who enhanced the understanding of Einstein’s special theory of relativity by introducing the concept of four-dimensional space, since then known as “Minkowski space-time.”

In the special theory of relativity, Einstein used Minkowski’s four dimensional space—X1, X2, X3, X4, where X1, X2, X3 are the typical coordinates of the three dimensional space—and X4 = ict, where i = square root of -1, c is the speed of light in empty space, and t is time, representing the numerical order of physical events measured with “clocks.” (The mathematical expression i is an imaginary number because it is not possible to solve for the square root of a negative number.) Therefore, X4 = ict, is a spatial coordinate, not a “temporal coordinate.” This forms the basis for weaving space and time into space-time. However, this still does not answer the question, what is time? Unfortunately, no one has defined it exactly. Most scientists, including Einstein, considered time (t) the numerical orders of physical events (change). The forth coordinate (X4 = ict) is considered to be a spatial coordinate, on equal footing with X1, X2, and X3 (the typical coordinates of three-dimensional space).

However, let’s consider a case where there are no events and no observable or measurable changes. Does time still exist? I believe the answer to this question is yes, but now time must be equated to existence to have any meaning. This begs yet another difficult question: How does existence give meaning to time?

We are at a point where we need to use our imagination and investigate a different approach to understand the nature of time. This is going to be speculative. After consideration, I suggest understanding the nature of time requires we investigate the kinetic energy associated with moving in four dimensions. The kinetic energy refers to an object’s energy due to its movement. For example, you may be able to bounce a rubber ball softly against a window without breaking it. However, if you throw the ball at the window, it may break the glass. When thrown hard, the ball has more kinetic energy due to its higher velocity. The velocity described in this example relates to the ball’s movement in three-dimensional space (X1, X2, and X3). Even when the ball is at rest in three-dimensional space, it is it still moving in the fourth dimension, X4. This leads to an interesting question. If it is moving in the fourth dimension, X4, what is the kinetic energy associated with that movement?

To calculate the kinetic energy associated with movement in the fourth dimension, X4, we use relativistic mechanics, from Einstein’s special theory of relativity and the mathematical discipline of calculus. Intuitively, it seems appropriate to use relativistic mechanics, since the special theory of relativity makes extensive use of Minkowski space and the X4 coordinate, as described above. It provides the most accurate methodology to calculate the kinetic energy of an object, which is the energy associated with an object’s movement.

If we use the result derived from the relativistic kinetic energy, the equation becomes:

KEX4 = -.3mc2

Where KEX4is the energy associated with an object’s movement in time, m is rest mass of an object, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

For purposes of reference, I have termed this equation, KEX4 = -.3mc2, the “Existence Equation Conjecture.” (Note: With the tools of algebra, calculus, and Einstein’s equation for kinetic energy, along with the assumption that the object is at rest, the derivation is relatively straightforward. The complete derivation is presented in my books, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, appendix 1, and How to Time Travel, appendix 2.)

According to the existence equation conjecture, existence (i.e., movement in time) requires negative kinetic energy. This is fully consistent with our observation that applying (positive) kinetic or gravitational energy to elementary particles extends their existence. There may also be a relationship between entropy (a measure of disorder) and the Existence Equation Conjecture. What is the rationale behind this statement? First, time is a measure of change. Second, any change increases entropy in the universe. Thus, the universe’s disorderliness is increasing with time. If we argue the entropy of the universe was at a minimum the instant prior to the Big Bang—since it represented an infinitely dense-energy point prior to change—then all change from the Big Bang on, served to increase entropy. Even though highly ordered planets and solar systems formed, the net entropy of the universe increased. Thus, any change, typically associated with time, is associated with increasing entropy. This implies that the Existence Equation Conjecture may have a connection to entropy.

What does all of the above say about the nature of time? If we are on the right track, it says describing the nature of time requires six crucial elements, all of which are simultaneously true.

  1. Time is change. (This is true, even though it was not true in our “thought experiment” of an isolated atom at absolute zero. As mentioned above, it is not possible for any object to reach absolute zero. The purpose of the thought experiment was to illustrate the concept of “existence” separate from “change.”)
  2. Time is a measure of energy, since change requires energy.
  3. Time is a measure of existence. (The isolated atom, at absolute zero, enables us to envision existence separate from change.)
  4. Movement in time (or existence) requires negative energy.
  5. The energy to fuel time (existence) is enormous. It may be responsible for the life times associated with unstable elementary particles, essentially consuming them, in part, to satisfy the Existence Equation Conjecture. It may be drawing energy from the universe (dark energy). If correct, it provides insight into the nature of dark energy. Essentially the negative energy we call dark energy is required to fuel existence (please see my posts: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Universe – Parts 1-4).
  6. Lastly, the enormousness changes in entropy, creating chaos in the universe, may be the price we pay for time. Since entropy increases with change, and time is a measure of change, there appears to be a time-entropy relationship. In addition, entropy proceeds in one direction. It always increases when change occurs. The directional alignment, and the physical processes of time, suggests a relationship between time and entropy.

This view of time is speculative, but fits the empirical observations of time. A lot of the speculation rests on the validity of the Existence Equation Conjecture. Is it valid? As shown in appendix 2 of Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012) and appendix 2 of How to Time Travel (2013), it is entirely consistent with data from a high-energy particle-accelerator experiment involving muons moving near the speed of light. The experimental results agree closely with predictions of the Existence Equation Conjecture (within 2%). This data point is consistent with the hypothesis that adding kinetic energy can fuel the energy required for existence. The implications are enormous, and require serious scientific scrutiny. I published the Existence Equation Conjecture in the above books to disseminate information, and enable the scientific scrutiny.

The Existence Equation Conjecture represents a milestone. If further evaluation continues to confirm the validity of the Existence Equation Conjecture, we have a new insight into the nature of time. Existence (movement in time) requires enormous negative energy. The Existence Equation Conjecture, itself, provides insight into the physical processes underpinning time dilation (i.e., why time slows down when a mass is moving close to the speed of light or is in a high gravitational field). It answers the question why a subatomic particle’s life increases with the addition of kinetic or gravitational energy. It offers a solution path to a mystery that has baffled science since 1998, namely the cause of the accelerated expansion of the universe (please see my posts: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Universe – Parts 1-4). Lastly, it may contain one of the keys to time travel.

In the next post (part 2), we will explore what the technological singularity and the post singularity world in our quest to determine if time has meaning in the post singularity world.