Future Shlock

“It’s a funny thing about comin’ home. Looks the same, smells the same, feels the same. You’ll realize what’s changed is you.” – The curious case of Benjamin Button

I’ve just come back from a couple of weeks vacation back home.  Going back, having not been for over a year, brought a similar feeling to mind as the one described above, a feeling which I’ve encountered previously when visiting (albeit to lesser degrees).  I’ve spent four years in the UK and it’s been over two on this stay in Europe, and thus this is not new…perhaps going back with my baby daughter has made things more pronounced.

I feel that the quote above does not represent well the feelings I experience at home: as another well-known movie mentioned, it’s the little, subtle, differences.  The majority of things always remain the same, but some small changes occur – to the house, to the area, but most of all, to the people.

People grow. People change. People age. That is the nature of things. And as time goes on and these changes accumulate, there will come a visit when I will catch myself asking “what happened to the home I knew?”

That is not to say that visiting, seeing family and friends, is less enjoyable. This remains wonderful, especially watching the interaction the little one has with everyone.  But sooner or later you’re left wondering what happened, where did the place I left behind those years ago disappear? Of course, had we been there the same changes would occur – with the permanent presence diluting their visibility.

So, what’s the point? I guess there is none. Just observing that life goes on, whether you’re there to observe it happening or not…

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.

Many who are unfamiliar with the pharmaceutical market see it as a homogeneous grouping of huge companies entrenched in pursuing a traditional, little-changing business model. This may have been correct for several decades, in which healthcare costs were manageable and little changed in the market itself. However, this industry, like all others, is forced to change with the times, and these years are seeing significant shifts. These relate both to the market itself and to the nature of the products which the companies are offering to patients. They have already altered the way pharma companies conduct the entire scope of their business, from R&D to sales and marketing, and will continue to do so in the coming years.

On the R&D side, the well-known slope of dwindling blockbusters and increasing research and development costs have forced companies to seek new revenue stream sources, from new product classes such as biologic drugs (treatments based on molecules synthesized using organisms and not chemical reactions) and stem cells, through partnering with other companies to achieve at least some cash inflow, to scouring the academic and small and medium enterprise (SME) field in search of promising novel therapeutic developments. In most cases, several of the above strategies are employed simultaneously. I will examine the future of pharma R&D in an upcoming post.

While these trends in R&D strategy are quite well known and have been written of extensively, the changes occurring in the way pharma companies market and sell their products, their relationship with the wide range of stakeholders in the healthcare market, and above all the very nature of what they as an industry offer to society looks set to change. This aspect of the changing pharma market has so far not received sufficient attention.

The focus of this change revolves around the pharma industry being pushed by healthcare market conditions to add more and more value to their products, beyond the intrinsic benefit which each drug represents. Companies are thus being pushed to compete not only on their products’ safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness, but  also on what value they can add to their two key customer groups – patients and physicians.

In contrast with the changing R&D field and resultant product map, these changes are not dramatic – no government will one day announce that pharma companies must offer comprehensive support and information services on top of their products (indeed, many will balk at the idea) – however subtle shifts brought about by a number of factors are pushing towards this outcome. Even within the industry itself many are unaware of the magnitude of these changes and the necessary alterations in the way pharma companies do business.

The aforementioned factors are:

1. Increasing pressures on healthcare budgets which bring about increasing governmental pressure on drug prices
2. Overloaded doctors with time for little beyond minimal consultations and an inability to remain up-to-date in fields containing an ever-expanding amount of scientific data
3. Increasingly empowered patients looking for healthcare ‘experiences’ and comprehensive health solutions, with some willing to pay extra for such service package

These factors result in companies  being ever more pushed to offer to both doctors and patients solutions built around and on top of their drug products. A natural development in this respect is the companies becoming directly involved in Medication Therapy Management (MTM) and lifestyle packages built for patients using their products. The added value which companies can bring to MTM and similar programs stems from their deep understanding of diseases and the drugs used to treat them; their “deep pockets”; their wide ranging and close contact with large numbers of physicians, in particular prominent ones; and finally their ability to effectively interface with a large number of healthcare system stakeholders, bridging ones which do not normally touch eachother, such as pharmacists, specialists, payers and government.

Particular programs and initiatives by pharmaceutical companies which are included in such services are,  among others:

1. Patient support programs: use of nurses, call centers, remote telemedicine and other means to give the patients much more information, support and  assistance than their doctor can, to confidently take their medicine as prescribed and achieve their medical goals set.
2. Solutions for doctors: trainings regarding improving communication and patient management techniques, software solutions to facilitate improved clinic efficiency, making it easier for doctors to keep up to date with rapidly evolving fields.
3. Tailoring together with payers enhanced treatment packages with tiered pricing levels, including a range of informational, technique-related sessions and tools or those which pertain to related aspects of the drug or disease in questions. For example, for multiple sclerosis patients pharma companies may be drawn to help with information sessions on the disease and it’s treatment, seminars on advances in research, and, importantly, augmented nurse services to support patients with drug taking and related issues.

In many ways, the pharma industry is in a similar situation to companies in the numerous other business areas which have been forced to pile solutions and services on top of products. However, a significant difference is that in the pharma business strong regulation exists to keep the companies separated (to varying degrees) from their customers. This will mean that, in some countries, the expenditure, creativity and changes that may be necessary for companies to survive will be substantial and may put a significant strain on these companies’ viability.

In almost all cases, pharma companies will be forced to undergo the same changes experienced by companies in other fields when faced with such shifts. They will be required to develop internally, or outsource, competencies they have never had to have or make use of before, such as management of IT tools, healthcare support services, specialized training and much more.

The need for these services, coming from the healthcare stakeholders which pharma companies interface with, means that the companies and the parties they work with will be pushed further and further towards eachother, not being able any more to continues working in a mostly isolated fashion.  Those who will be most open and able to collaborate on win-win projects will emerge the big winners, and those who remain focusing on their products alone will slowly degenerate with the changing of the market and the tightening of healthcare budgets.

Sources:

1. Byron G. Auguste, Eric P. Harmon, and Vivek Pandit:  The right service strategies for product companies
2. Glen Allmendinger and Ralph Lombreglia: Four Strategies for Smart Services

Today’s fare is an article I was invited to submit to Forbes.com’s AI report, and was mysteriously (and very annoyingly) yanked out at the last moment. Their loss.

Enjoy.

———————————————————

It will probably come as a surprise to those who are not well acquainted with the life and work of Alan Turing that in addition to his renowned pioneering work in computer science and mathematics, he also helped to lay the groundwork in the field of mathematical biology(1). Why would a renowned mathematician and computer scientist find himself drawn to the biosciences?

Interestingly, it appears that Turing’s fascination with this sub-discipline of biology most probably stemmed from the same source as the one that inspired his better known research: at that time all of these fields of knowledge were in a state of flux and development, and all posed challenging fundamental questions. Furthermore, in each of the three disciplines that engaged his interest, the matters to which he applied his uniquely creative vision were directly connected to central questions underlying these disciplines, and indeed to deeper and broader philosophical questions into the nature of humanity, intelligence and the role played by evolution in shaping who we are and how we shape our world.

Central to Turing’s biological work was his interest in mechanisms that shape the development of form and pattern in autonomous biological systems, and which underlie the patterns we see in nature (2), from animal coat markings to leaf arrangement patterns on plant stems (phyllotaxis). This topic of research, which he named “morphogenesis,” (3) had not been previously studied with modeling tools. This was a knowledge gap that beckoned Turing; particularly as such methods of research came naturally to him.

In addition to the diverse reasons that attracted him to the field of pattern formation, a major ulterior motive for his research had to do with a contentious subject which, astonishingly, is still highly controversial in some countries to this day. In studying pattern formation he was seeking to help invalidate the “argument from design” (4) concept, which we know today as the hypothesis of “Intelligent Design.“

Turing was intent on demonstrating that the laws of physics are sufficient to explain our observations in the natural world; or in other words, that our findings do not need an omnipotent creator to explain them. It is ironic that Turing, whose work played a central role in laying the groundwork for the creation of Artificial Intelligence (AI), took a clear stance against creationism. This is testament to his acceptance of scientific evidence and rigorous research over weak analogy.

Unfortunately, those who did not and will not accept Darwinian natural selection as the mechanism of evolution will not see anything compelling in Turing’s work on morphogenesis. To those individuals, the development of AI can be taken as “proof,” or a convincing analogy, of the necessity and presence of a creator, the argument being that the Creator created humanity, and humanity creates AI.

However, what the supporters of intelligent design do not acknowledge is that natural selection is itself precisely the cause underlying the development of both humanity and its AI progeny. Just as natural selection resulted in the phenomena that Turing sought to model in his work on morphogenesis (which brings about the propagation of successful traits through the development of biological form and pattern), it is also the driver for the development of intelligence. Itself generated via internalized neuronal selection mechanisms (5, 6), intelligence allows organisms to adapt to their environment continually during life.

Intelligence is the ultimate tool, the development of which allows organisms to survive; it enables them to learn, respond to their environment and adapt their behavior within their own lifetime. It is the fruit of the natural process that brings about successive development over time in organisms faced with scarcity of resources. Moreover, it now allows humans to defy generational selection and develop intelligences external to our own, making use of computational techniques, including some which utilize evolutionary mechanisms (7).

The eventual development of true AI will be a landmark in many ways, notably in that these intelligences will have the ability to alter their own circuits (their version of neurons), immediately and at will. While the human body is capable of some degree of non-developmental neuronal plasticity, this takes place slowly and control of the process is limited to indirect mechanisms (such as varied forms of learning or stimulation). In contrast, the high plasticity and directly controlled design and structure of AI software and hardware will render them well suited to altering themselves and hence to developing improved subsequent AI generations.

In addition to a jump in the degree of plasticity and its control, AIs will constitute a further step forward with regard to the speed at which beneficial information can be shared. In contrast to the exceedingly slow rate at which advantageous evolutionary adaptations were spread through the populations observed by Darwin (over several generations), the rapidly increasing rates of communication in current society result in successful “adaptations” (which we call science and technology) being distributed at ever-increasing speeds. This is, of course, the principal reason why information sharing is beneficial for humans – it allows us to better adapt to reality and harness the environment to our advantage. It seems reasonable to predict that ultimately the sharing of information in AI will be practically instantaneous.

It is difficult to speculate what a combination of such rapid communication and high plasticity combined with ever-increasing processing speeds will be like. The point at which self-improving AIs emerge has been termed a technological singularity (8).

Thus, in summary: evolution begets intelligence (via evolutionary neuronal selection mechanisms); human intelligence begets artificial intelligence (using, among others, evolutionary computation methods), which at increasing cycle speeds, leads to a technological singularity – a further big step up the evolutionary ladder.

Sadly, being considerably ahead of his time and living in an environment that castigated his lifestyle and drove him from his research, meant that Turing did not live to see the full extent of his work’s influence. While he did not survive to an age in which AIs became prevalent, he did fulfill his ambition by taking part in the defeat of argument from design in the scientific community, and witnessed Darwinian natural selection becoming widely accepted. The breadth of his vision, the insight he displayed, and his groundbreaking research clearly place Turing on an equal footing with the most celebrated scientists of the previous century.