Future Shlock

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.

From a very good movie I saw the other day:

“The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world actually could come to an end.

“Plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge and have key decisions made by religious people, by irrationalists; By those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. [...] And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it, are our intellectual slaveholders – keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction.

“Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don’t have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think that it is wonderful when someone says, “I am willing Lord, I will do what ever you want me to do!” Except that since there are no Gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people, with their own corruptions, and limitations, and agendas. [...]

“The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that is what man needs to be considering that human history is just a litany of getting shit dead wrong.

“This is why rational people – anti-religionists – must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves, and those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belong to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you’d resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler – a mafia wife, with the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travellers.

“If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limps into the future decimated by the effects of a religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, lets remember what the real problem was: that we learned how to precipitate mass death, before we got pass the neurological disorder of wishing for it.

“That’s it. Grow up, or die.”

From Bill Maher’s Religulous

So, just to surprise y’all, a personal finance post this time.

So you’ve worked hard and saved money, or, say, have had a big jewish wedding and have gotten some nice dosh to stash away, starting your joined long-term savings strategy. What do you do?

One one hand, we have investment houses and mutual funds – they’ll take your money, wisely invest it in a well-diversified portfolio. And, of course, the former will tell you that the market always goes up in the end and that you should buy and hold for the long term. The latter will tell you nothing – it’s your call and you’ll have to make the analysis yourself. Do you really read the market well enough?

So buy and hold. ..then, of course, the market crashes once or twice in a decade and you end up with negative returns. Fine if you’re young and working, not fine if your retirement plan just went up in smoke.

These investment managers will not tell you the indicators are looking negative, the market is ridiculously overbought and that you should play it safe and go to cash. No, because their bonuses are tied to their asset portfolio, and that is connected to all the little lemmings keeping their hard earned cash in the market.

On the other hand, you have online stock brokers, where you can do all the work yourself – either keep close tabs on the market, trade as you like, assess the risks yourself, and win or lose on your own. But who outside the financial industry, holding a normal day job, has the time?

So what are the other options? You can pay a subscription fee to online services who purport to keeping track of the market for you and giving you a easy-to-digest summary of what is going on.  On a sizable portfolio, this may be a good idea – however you will still have to do all the work, and buying and selling (especially on short term trades) takes time.

You could find a good forum or blog which gives market analysis and tips, and there are a lot of them – but there’s no accountability and you can’t really trust anyone!

Or, perhaps, you just happen to be lucky enough to know an investment manager who you can really trust to tell you the truth and not be negatively incentivized, and thus perversely on the constant edge of shafting you out of your money. Not many of these out there I would imagine. And they probably will charge you a hefty fee or percentage.

So what’s the solution? Is there a reasonable-cost investment manager who will tell you when to be in the market and when to get the hell out? One who will really look after their clients and not their bonus?

Please do tell me if you know the solution – is there a third way?

…well, not quite. It appears that the price of mass gene sequencing is plummeting faster than the world’s stock markets, and a company called Complete Genomics has just announced it is offering full-genome sequencing for 5000$, putting this well within your average Joe’s buying power. As a comparison, remember that the first full sequencing in 2003 cost $2.3 billion!

However, it’s important to note that the service will initially NOT be available to individuals, but will rather go to pharma companies and academics. This is interesting mainly because it is a sign of things to come – the coming age of personalized medicine will be based exactly on this presence of very low cost genome sequencing, allowing (or, perhaps, forcing) drug companies to include genome screening for their clinical trials patients in order to examine whether the side effects or benefits of their drugs are linked to specific genetic codes within the genome. One day this may become mandatory for marketing authorization…

While 5000$ a pop may still be a bit expensive for outsourcing and companies may yet cling to the machines they own, a company who focuses on sequencing will always ultimately prove cheaper in the long run, similar to any non-core outsourcing effort. Thus, Complete Genomics and the others of its ilk definitely have a future!

Bloomberg Story

In a major break with all things baby, a post about the universe, and pringles, and black holes. In a nutshell – physics. As Guy correctly called it: “Geek”.

So, a (long) recent New Scientist article suggest we may be living in a hologram. While that is a brain-warping idea, let’s first start with my favourite quote from this serious scientific article:

“…He showed that the physics inside a hypothetical universe with five dimensions and shaped like a Pringle is the same as the physics taking place on the four-dimensional boundary.”

The obvious questions here being: does god eat pringles? Would a dorito-shape universe not work better?

In any case, apparently the fact that the GEO600 experiment (a gravitational wave detector in Germany)  had encountered weird background noise during it’s operation may mean that our daily lives are holographic projections from physical processes which take place on a remote 2D surface at the edge of the universe (next to the restaurant, of course). While this may sound either exciting, mind blowing or just plain weird (depending on your nerdiness quotient), apparently it’s quite a big deal in physics circles. Personally, it just sounds very sci-fi to me.

If you’re really interested, the physics beyond the fanciful title is based upon the fact that similar to the tiny quantum waves at black hole event horizons which encode the information inside black holes (thus solving the conundrum of how black holes slowly disappear without apparently losing information), the ripples at the edge of the universe encode the information inside the universe.  Thus, the 3-dimensional information concerning our universe and everything in may be encoded in ripples in the event horizon of the universe (“the boundary from beyond which light has not had time to reach us in the 13.7-billion-year lifespan of the universe”) .

How’s that for the ‘surprisingly different post of the month’ award then?

Source:  Our world may be a giant hologram