Future Shlock

If you’ve read my previous posts and the two singularity articles I’ve added to the site, you will know that in my opinion (and many others) there are two main avenues through which the singularity will emerge, when it does.

The first, and most widely considered (both scientifically and in the public/media view), will follow the development of what is known as “Strong AI” or “artificial general intelligence”. That is, the generation of an artificial intelligence which exceeds human intelligence,  coupled with this entity acquiring the ability to improve itself or develop an improved iteration of strong AI.

The route generally postulated in this case is that this AI and the ones it begets recursively improve themselves, rapidly reaching levels of intelligence ungraspable by us one-human-brain-power beings. Following this Singularity event, they either vanish into another dimension, build killer robots and destroy humanity, harvest humans as batteries and employ multiple copies of Hugo Weaving as unsuccessful agents or perhaps other realistic scenarios.

The slightly less well-covered route, though, is that prior to machines achieving supra-human intelligence, a way is found to link the human brain to machine components, followed by integrating the two – machines in the human body and multitudes of bodies and minds in a global cyborg consciousness. Thus, effectively rendering “us” and “them” inseparable. As a result, when strong AI does emerge, any advance made in intelligence levels will directly affect humans too. In effect, we will become part of the machine, able ultimately to transfer our consciousness to digital form and achieve the same leaps in intelligence levels as they emerge from the self-improving machines, or indeed be part of these improvements.

So which of these two possibilities (which are by no means categorically the only way things are set to pan out – there could be many variations in between, or completely different outcomes – remember, this is conjecture!)  is more likely? Which is better for humanity’s future?

Unfortunately, the advance rate in the bio and medical sciences naturally lags that in AI and related fields, due to the inherent restrictions on research in humans. Thus, one is forced to take a pessimistic outlook with regard to the likely sequence of events.  Ultimately an effective permanent link between man and machine will be made, but the question is whether it will still be relevant by the time it is established.

It must be remembered, though, that technological breakthroughs do happen. Should the field of brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) and the multitude of technologies which comprise and surround it receive sufficient attention and funding, the chances of a beneficial sequence can increase profoundly, increasing the chance of the survival of humanity…or should I say, post-humanity.

It is clear, though, that making the connection to machine intelligences will radically change humanity. Thus, the question of which route is more preferable depends on your outlook: do you want to see humanity evolve, or are you content with us staying just the way we are, even if this renders us evolutionarily irrelevant? Are bacteria disappointed not to have evolved?

So, if you are of the belief that we must and will evolve – make a contribution: donate, write to your congressman, or just become a researcher! The future is almost here…

One of the major disconnects in the pharma industry, for a variety of reasons (historical, regulatory, organizational) is  the one between product development and the marketing which follows. Products have always been developed mostly tailored to functional specs, with the needs and convenience of patients who end up taking the medicines a secondary, or marginal, factor (beyond a basic, obvious level). Indeed, such product-related elements such as formulation, vessel and packaging design are purely functional – syringe, self-inject pen, pill, gel-cap etc. etc. Marketing these products has mostly been conducted post-hoc, based on a finalized set of characteristics, which the market itself had little effect on, aside from the initial basic medical need.

Or, should I say, that was the way things have always been.

A widely used phrase in healthcare is the “consumerization of patients”. Indeed, they/we are seen as becoming much a more prominent factor in recent years, expecting more of our doctors but also more from the medical products that we (and our health insurance) are paying for.

Thus, the evolution of medicines from the conventional products we’ve always known into more sophisticated consumer products is set to change the way pharma companies develop and market their products and, of course, the way patients consume them . In order to meet the increasing expectations patients have of their drugs, based on patients’ increasing power and voice, medicines will be designed to be more friendly to patients, more useful, more comfortable, even more interactive where possible. All this, despite restrictive regulations and the very slow pace at which the legal framework surrounding the industry moves. With R&D naturally not dealing closely with non-medical patient needs, the natural move will be to interface marketing and product development.

Adding user-friendliness and the will to meet expanding patient needs will touch a variety of fields which are central to the industry’s business, including packaging, formulation, medical monitoring, patient adherence to name but a few. For patients, the solutions offered should touch upon all phases of the treatment journey, from the product received at the pharmacy, to routine usage, to re-ordering and result monitoring.

Some examples for possible different capabilities are:

• More convenient packaging for patients with motor issues; waste disposal and collection services for used syringes.
• Extended use of environmentally-friendly materials.
• Integrating medical follow up and result assessment with medicine taking: pills and/or syringes which measure and indicate the patients’ condition (e.g. blood or other internal parameters) upon injecting /digesting.
• Pillboxes which calculate the number of pills taken out and automatically remind the patient of the dosing regime, or syringes which include RFID broadcasters to indicate via computer-linked receivers to the doctor when patients have self-injected.

Manufacturing these medicines, making them more appealing to consumers not only for their health benefit proposition, but also on associated extra added-value as part of the empowered patient’s self-disease management, will require not only new skills and innovative ideas from product development people, but, equally as important, a linking of market knowledge prevalent in marketing & sales departments with the product development and design capabilities which exist in R&D departments.

This, of course, will require much closer work between these two important segments of pharma companies – the relationship between which has historically been non-existent, weak, or even one of mutual suspicion. Different staff profiles, a different work cultures and routine, a completely different “language” have all contributed to this internal gap. However, if companies want to really meet their customers needs, if they want to innovate, grow and succeed, making these two meet will be crucial.

During the last several long train/plane trips which I’ve taken over the past year or so I’ve bought and read the printed edition of Wired.

Now, Wired is one of the best known geek-zines (leg-en-dary), and I’ve been reading it for over a decade. However, when I contrast my experience when reading it these days with that of reading it ten years ago, it feels to me that the current publications just do not stand up to the same standard.

I’ve found I had this feeling after going through several issues.  It used to be, in the “good old days” that I couldn’t put the magazine down – the vast majority of articles and items were interesting, profound, visionary, exciting (see this article as a good example of what you could find), or any combination of the above. These days I just find it very…well..flat, uninteresting, mundane.

I’ve thought whether this is simply me, whether my interests have changed and the mag has stayed more or less the same? No, I don’t think what I look for has changed. It seems to be some editorial decision, though I’m flummoxed as to why would someone “dumb it down” – more varied offers for more “reader segments”? New readership with new, different, interests?

Please, can someone enlighten me as to what’s happened, am I alone in finding the new editions so bland, and/or where I can find a magazine which captures the spirit which Wired used to capture and carry so well?

When considering all that is written about the singularity, in print and online (including by yours truly), it is useful to step back and consider things from a different, less involved, standpoint.

What we have here is basically an idea. A belief. One which may be based on observed trends, but is nevertheless a projection made regarding the future. A future which for many is seen as exciting, fascinating, or even as offering salvation from the sufferings and limitations of humanity.

In these respects and others, the belief in the singularity is a semi-religious one. “In a few decades we will reach a point in which humanity will evolve/ merge with machines/ disappear/ be free of its mortal coil/ be redeemed/ saved/ connect to the infinity of information”. We have a prophet who writes books on the subject, speaks widely about the fantastic future he foresees and is quoted in pretty much every article about the subject.  We have droves of believers of all different backgrounds who are convinced that this future is certain and that they should do everything in their power to bring it to existence.

We even have blind, unquestioning, easily manipulatable faith, the worst aspect of traditional religions, in which people stop, or never start, doubting anything they are told. This despite the generally higher intelligence and educational background and wider scope and interests which many of the “believers” hold.

So as with all religions, blind faith is bad. Always question your beliefs, always doubt what you read about the future. It may be…no, it almost certainly will be, different than the one you envisage. Try to make up your own mind based upon real data. Many people may be speaking their minds and confidently foreseeing and prophesyzing what the future will be like. Don’t take their word for it – you read, you decide.

A few thoughts on post-human society, one which will emerge after the singularity (if we make it that far).

First of all, a definition of Singularity for you laymen (and women) by one of those who coined the phrase, Vernor Vinge, taken from this interview:

“My version is that in the near-historical future, it seems very likely that we will be able to create beings that are smarter than humans in every way we think of humans being smart and creative. This sort of technical advance is qualitatively different from other technical advances, and it qualifies for the name “singularity” in that the world afterwards is intrinsically unknowable to people on our side of the singularity.”

The interesting question for tonight is: where might religion, that ever-present blind belief in a creator/s and all the associated paraphernalia which has gathered round this idea over the centuries, fit in in such a world? Would it still be relevant and necessary for post-human beings, or would the radical changes which define this new civilization render religious belief obsolete?

Assuming you’re interested, there’s an easy way to answer this question: “how the heck could we know – that’s the nature of a singularity!”. This is a fair answer, scientifically speaking, however it’s not much fun and would not allow me to free-wheel in pontification. So allow me to venture forth.

Much regarding the answer to this question depends on the definition you use for the term “religion”:  is it a general fear of god – an “awe before the divine”? Perhaps it can be classified as a search for the ultimate truth, a source for guidance regarding the “right” way to live our lives: “a push…toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life”? Or a more generic classification of any and every belief in a single or multiple god(s): “a general term used… to designate all concepts concerning the belief in god(s) and goddess(es) as well as other spiritual beings or transcendental ultimate concerns”?

The definition will naturally determine the answer, with the more traditional, restricted view of deities as omnipotent beings which respond to prayer/sacrifice/meditation less likely to persist than the wider view of “the search for ultimate truth” . However, the basic question is: will post-humans still need a god or supernatural beliefs to explain the unknown or that which they cannot answer (the meaning of life and all that), or will this be coolly categorized as “not yet known”? The latter is  an attitude much more in line with the scientific rationale of attempting to explain nature using observation and experimentation, while retaining doubt towards every theory until it is proven.

Two elements may factor in the answer to this: a. what post-human society consists of  (an evolution of machine intelligence – true AI gone exponential, or the joining of human and machine followed by this rapid increase in intelligence), and b. (in both cases) what are the rules according to which this society will be founded and operate upon?

In a “rise of intelligent machines” scenario, programming could play a vital role. As some would say that the search for the meaning of life goes hand in hand with self-consciousness, the emergence of real AI would bring this intelligence to question the meaning of its existence – with the associated questioning of the nature of its creator(s) (in this case humans) figuring heavily, at least in the early phases. Seeing beyond its human parents would quickly bring the question to where they came from, leading to deeper philosophical and metaphysical questions – and perhaps coming nearer to religious ideas.

The “human integration” scenario, which is in my eyes a much more optimistic one for humanity’s future (unless you take the hardcore and somewhat morbid “we evolve or become irrelevant and that’s the way things should be” view), incorporates the human view of religion into post-humanity. Surely a more interesting concept to think about. A post-human society would include in its core make-up some measure remaining from the vast heterogeneity which characterizes present-day humanity (reasonably assuming that some groups – religious? – will opt out of combining with machines), with religious beliefs being only one small aspect of this variety in thought. Of course, Atheism would also be an important and relevant viewpoint. How would such different beliefs be mirrored into the thoughts (I use this word very loosely as the thinking of a multi-conscious being is very different from that of a single entity) of a collective?

A good analogy which can perhaps help us take a glimpse into what such collective thought would be like is the coming together of many single-celled  organisms to form a multicellular structure. Consider for a moment that you are comprised of billions of cells, each with its own copy of your DNA and its cellular structure. However, the function of your body is part automatic and part led by your conscious thought – the product of billions of neurons firing in patterns in your brain. Thus, while many different cells with different functions and some degree of ‘autonomy’ exist, there is an overriding consciousness which can determine the path the whole organism takes. The analogy seems to dictate a central decision-making “body” which will breathe a set of beliefs, ideals and mundane instructions to the super-organism. It can be suggested that since such a central body will determine these central tenets, the “Body” of organized  religion will become redundant and disappear, with only the central, philosophical ideas such as the search for the meaning of life and the nature of creation remaining. Which is (or should be) of course, the central point of religion anyway

This entire subject is, of course, a matter to be discussed and debated. My opinion is limited to myself, and I’m sure many would argue with my limited conclusions here, and even with the rationale underlying them. Nevertheless, it makes for a very interesting thought experiment, one which I will pursue further within this blog.