Artificial Intellgence

So many science fiction stories have been written about artificial intelligence. The most "popular" is probably the movie 2001. The artificial intelligence H.A.L, of course causing a lot of problem during his mission to Jupiter.

The most popular written science fiction (or at least the most voluminous) is the Asimov Robot universe and it's ubiquitous 3 laws (which I find completely ridiculous, and will talk about in a future post).

I thought this article was an interesting review of the current state of Artificial Intelligence and the impact of the IBM Watson team (famous for it's Jeopardy win).

Specifically I think it introduces a concept I call "Hyper Productivity". As a general rule an economy's average standard of living is a function of its average productivity. The more productive a society, the more "stuff" the society can afford for its citizens.

This starts to break down when high productivity, combined with an increasing disparity in the distribution of wealth begins to afflict a society. The bargain struck between those that have (investors and owners on our society), and those that don't (workers), is that if the owners hire, the workers will purchase, allowing the owners to profit from their investment.

If we reach a level of productivity where almost all our physical and service needs can be met with a small percentage of the population, then what is the motivation for the owners to build product for the workers that no longer participate (i.e. are outside that small percentage).

A solution to this problem is the redistribution of wealth through taxation. The government takes money from the "owners" and redistributes it to members of society outside the highly productive segment of our economy.

This creates demands for goods and services that they would not otherwise be able to afford.

In our debt-ridden, tax averse society today, we are starting to see the breakdown of this grand bargain.

• Increasing unemployment
• Reducing living standards (or use of debt to maintain living standards)
• Increasing disparity of wealth distribution.

The science fiction in this is what happens when the "productive" part of society really drives into a small part of society. What if we have 1 doctor for 100,000 people, or 1 software engineer where previously we had 10.

Suddenly only the best of the best work in productive fields. The rest are in a semi-permanent unemployment pool.

And what if the enabler for that productivity is sentient?

Mike

Technology gone too far

this is just ridiculous. Sometimes we build technology just because we can. Not because we should, or because it provides any value to society.

A vending machine that makes purchases based on facial recognition. It's very Minority Report.

Certainly the consumer nature of facial recognition has been explored to death in science fiction (as has the law & order component).

But I wonder about other aspects. Could we weld medical analysis to food processing so that when we order a cheeseburger from the local diner, a customized blend of medicines and proteins are put into the burger to deliver medicine, slow aging, etc.

And what would happen if that system were to be compromised?

Mike

Blog of Blogs

If you like science fiction blogs, then this is the blog of blogs.

Mike

Robotic Litigation

An interesting post on the history of robots in science fiction and the likelihood that a collision between modern robots and our modern litigation system will produce unexpected results.

I've always liked Isaac Asimov's robot series, but I've always had an issue with the three laws. He apparently had similar issues, given he spent the greater part of his life showing why the 3 laws didn't work.

In reality there are two issues with Robotic Intelligence as it is commonly portrayed. All too often this intelligence is preoccupied with the physical. I would expect that any reasonably advanced machine intelligence would consider the physical world a bother, or at best a necessary annoyance in order to safeguard the basis for it's virtual existence.

Secondly the idea that humans can create rules that would constrain a sophisticated intelligence is unlikely. We're much better of creating a system of reasoning that results in the goals of humanity aligning with the goals of the machine intelligence.

We could slave it to our own needs, constructing the intelligence solely to serve the human. This would, of course, limit the flexibility of the machine intelligence, and possibly create dangers in its use (basically a big weapon waiting to be used by evil people). Also this type of machine intelligence isn't so interesting from the point of view of fiction (not enough conflict).

The more likely outcome is the machine intelligence working in partnership with people. Perhaps much more like the employee/employer relationship. Where there is a contract, a period of time under which the contract is fulfilled, and then a termination of the arrangement.

The machine intelligence is trying to get something out of the relationship, as is the human.

This might make the basis for an interesting story. Perhaps one where both sides are not what they appear to be.

Mike

WikiLeaks cables: Saudi Arabia cannot pump enough oil to keep a lid on prices | Business | The Guardian

WikiLeaks cables: Saudi Arabia cannot pump enough oil to keep a lid on prices | Business | The Guardian

Not quite science, but perhaps the basis for modern science. Jared Diamond in his book "Guns Germs, and Steel" talks about the main reason for technological advancement is the % of excess food production in a society. In an agrarian society, 90% of the individuals spend 90% of their time growing, processing or hunting for food. The remaining 10% typically protect (spiritually and physically) the 90%.

This leaves little time for other pursuits such as art, science, technology, etc.

The modern society is based on the premise that our basic needs; Food, Housing, Transportation, can all be met by a fraction of the population. Today only a small percentage of our population is involved in agriculture. And even though a decreasing number of Americans work in the manufacturing sector, the amount of goods produced by manufacturing is still high as a percentage of the economy.

A substantial reason for this is the cheap nature of energy and oil-based products. Modern society would never have developed at the rate it did without the advent of oil. Oil-powered steamers replaced sailing ships. Trucks replaced horses. Petrochemical-based fertilizers and tractors replaced dung and oxen. Man now had the ability to wage war, feed its population, and build "stuff" at an astounding rate.

This freed society to spend lifetimes worrying about seemingly narrow or meaningless pursuits. A scientist could spend his days toiling to understand the nature of seawater, or bacteria, or the inner atom. And when the 1 in 1000 line of thought produced a true innovation, society continued its relentless advancements.

Isaac Asimov in the foundation series introduced an interesting idea with the creation of the Foundation on Terminus. He argued that a wealth of resources had stunted the scientific growth of the Empire, and that by founding the foundation on Terminus, a remote planet that lacked significant amounts of resources, he would force the scientific minds to innovate a more advanced set of technologies.

In many ways modern society is like the Empire. A wealth of resources provided the basis for modern scientific thought. Are we stunting? Has the pursuit of celebrity replaced the pursuit of knowledge and scientific advancement?

What happens when those resources dry up? Do we descend into anarchy, revert to an agrarian society? Or do we innovate our way out of the problem.

Mike

Where's the science in fiction?

I've been a big fan of science fiction most of my life. I like the hard stuff (Brin, Hamilton, Baxter, etc). I like the softer science fiction as well. I'll even indulge in a bit of Fantasy every now and then.

But it seems that science fiction of all types has started to shift away from what made it so wonderful. It's relevancy to our every-day lives. The stories should be real stories; with real characters. But the science should be relevant. Much of what we read about is so far-fetched as to be indistinguishable from magic.

One of my favorite authors is Peter Hamilton ( Pandora's Star ). But the level of science has risen to the point where there is little difference between fantasy authors using magic to create a whirlpool to swallow the attacking navy, and a naval space ship deploying a Hawking M-sink torpedo to consume the enemy ships in an instantaneous black holes. How'd they get a black hole into a torpedo again?

I'm going to try to use this blog to talk about science, and to share a bit of science fiction. They say if you want to get better you need to practice, and I suppose I could toil away, unpublished, unread like most of my unknown peers. But I like the idea of sharing -- even if only a few ever read this.

Mike