Consider if we are ready for post apocalyptic survival? Dealing with armies of zombies who want to borrow stuff and who walk really slow? Are we prepared for the coming energy-pack crisis? If your answers are no, then begin training with RPG video games immediately, but are those RPGs robust enough to train children for the coming age of mutant sewer demons and genetically enhanced softball teams? Critical questions to answer as we near the singularity.
Consider The Onion Network's important roundtable on whether we are preparing the younger generation of RPG players with the skills they will need to survive in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Will they be able tell the difference between tainted mutant meat and a medical stem pack.
Where does the Big VideoGame lobby stand on this pressing social issue? Can we stand by any longer when our children think it is OK to only get 50% completion rates on levels? Can we live in a world where the entire conversation tree is not fully realized and explored?
We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to our future mutant children and their deadbeat zombie friends.
As a popular culture scholar, I am interested in examining how films reflect and express social issues surrounding the growth of technology. With
this in mind, I have reflected here, through a quick video guide, on specific media
(1970s and 1980s films) that I consumed across my early life that socialized me toward transhumainst philosophies.
Behavioral psychologists and media studies scholars have investigated
the numerous interactive processes operative when adolescents consume media. I take issue with the luddites
who claim erroneously, and somewhat nefariously, that films and video games are at the
heart of youth violence. Yet, I concede that consumption of different media projects during formative years interact
dynamically with early identity development.
Introspective question: How has media consumed at early
ages influenced your relationships with technology?
The films I watched during my early formative years made me
open (actively receptive) to human-robot interactions, AI, and proactive
evolutionary engineering concepts. It seems the logic next step in the narrative I've been watching since age 5.
Here then are a few highlights of an early life-timeline of
popular cultural products. This list is not comprehensive, rather a brief filmic travelogue of pre-internet era, sci-film films of the 1970s and 1980s. Why? Because film trailers of this period are hysterical.
These film narratives coincided with the
nascent growth of technology in Silicon Valley, where the cultural products I
consumed were mirrors of the social and physical changes around me. It’s interesting to think about how technology
influences the ways we think about ourselves and the cultural products that express us. It's no coincidence that the growth of computer technologies in the 1970s and 1980s was reflected in the film narratives of the decades. Comparisons can be drawn to today, where successive waves of new technologies have been reflected in the growth of sci-fi films. In particular, the exploration of social issues surrounding human-robotic relationships were deeply woven into 1970s and 1980s sci-fi films.
Pre-Internet Transhuman Films 1970s-1980s
THX1138 (1971) - "We are all now programmed for perfect happiness."
Westworld (1973) - "Our robots are programmed to provide you with an unforgettable occasion."
Logan's Run (1976) - "There's just one catch."
The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976) - "A shocking mind stretching experience in sight, in space, in sex."
Futureworld (1976) - "Where you can experience anything you can imagine, and a few things you can't."
Star Wars (1977) - "Somewhere in space this may be happening right now."
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) - "And what you will see has never been seen before."
Alien (1979) - "In space, no one can hear you scream."
Star Trek (1979) - "Travel to the outer limits of time and space to challenge a vast living machine of destruction."
The Black Hole (1979) - "Where the here and now might be forever."
Clash of the Titans (1981) - "Before history, beyond imagination."
Escape from New York (1981) - "The entire city is a walled maximum security prison."
Blade Runner (1982) "More human than human is our motto."
Tron (1982) - "A computer, an extension of the human intellect."
E.T. (1982) - "We will witness..."
War Games (1983) - "A promising student at an old game with an electronic twist."
Dune (1984) - "The beginning is a very delicate time."
The Last Starfighter (1984) - "It started with a game."
Brazil (1985) - "We're so pleased you could make it."
Real Genius (1985) - "When the military runs short on brains."
In brief: The Overlord mission (Mass Effect 2, DLC) takes us
through a secret Cerberus (pro-human fringe group) research facility where scientists, in an effort to
control Geth (a robot race of hive-minded AIs), are testing the compatibility
of a human mind linked to a Virtual Intelligence system. The facility is run by Dr. Archers, PI on Project
Overlord. The test subject’s mind (David, Dr. Archer’s brother) has been
assimilated by (or into) the VI and gone rogue. Bad robot. The goal of Project Overlord was to
create a messianic figure for the Geth to follow, tapping into a religious
impulse in the Geth. “A virus with a
face.” Robots have their gods too. Edifices of self.
Confounding variable: Dr. Archers brother, David, is autistic, and a
mathematical savant.
The researcher-brother connection is interesting in that it
forces us to face some deeper questions about the meaning of life and the sacrifices
inherent in breakthrough science.
How far would you go to achieve major technological advancements? The sacrifice of loved ones (willing or
unwilling)? What would you do in the "name of science" if you knew the results would
profoundly change the universe?
“I don’t know where the man ends and the machine begins,”
laments Dr. Archer regarding his brother’s condition.
Worst case scenario – technopolypse. The hybrid human-tech
mind would, via satellites, take over the extranet, and then…the universe.
Technopolypse. Check. Articlect War. Check.
The human-VI has fortified itself and we are tasked to take
it down.
The ethical questions abound.
1. Let it live, extract the human consciousness, and free David
2. Continue the experiment, knowing it might lead to incredible
breakthroughs and change course of the war and human existence
Transhumanist dilemma that.
For the record, I chose Paragon.
The final decision leads to a classic AI horror-choice
set: continue the research (extropian),
kill the AI, an abomination (luddite), or free the human-VI (techno-progressive). These choices are also at the heart of some
critical issues in transhumanst philosophies and the search for strong AI. At
what cost comes the revelation of the AI/human...physically (the “shape” of the human
body), cognitively (the nature of thought and reason), and morally (the
possible gain/loss balance in proactive evolutionary practices).
“Sometimes, you have to ignore the risks,” warns Dr. Archer.
Indeed.
Artilects, Cosmists, Cyborgs, and Terrans…recent contributors
on ieet.org (Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies) have opined on the
possible (for some, impending) end of century species war.
Two distinct visions are explored there.
Vision 1A: Dystopic visions of Artilect vs. Terran global
species warfare leading to the extinction of humans (homo-meat sack-sapiens)
and the accession of Artilects (AI, god-like, multidimensional entities) into the great black. A vision championed by Hugo de Garis.
Vision 1B: Semi-Utopic-Optimistic (if not bumpy) visions of negotiation
and co-existence, where Artilects (& Cosmists) leave Terra for the great
beyond, while remaining as benevolent overseers of Terrans.
"I am persuaded that artilects will feel no hostility toward old-style
humans. The universe is a big place, and they will have other things to
do. I am sure that Cosmists and artilects will be perfectly happy to
leave the solar system to Terrans and move to the stars, and I hope that
they will even keep a benevolent eye on the Terrans, and help them
every now and then. The only realistic possibility of violent action
from Cosmists and artilects will be in self-defense, for their own
survival."
The religious overtones in both narratives are pronounced.
Consider the rise of robot-cultists and the increasing religiosity present in
techno-futurists thinking. Do we replace the old gods of Terra with the new Artilect gods of space time.
Prisco: "To me, Cosmism is a religion in an even stronger sense: I believe
future extremely advanced artilect Gods will be able to affect their
past — our present — by means of spacetime engineering, and achieve, by
scientific means, most of the promises of religions — and many amazing
things that no human religion ever dreamed. Future Gods will be able to
resurrect the dead by “copying them to the future.” For those who share
this belief, building artilects is not only a “philosophical” duty, but a
very practical one."
Consider the third option: John Smart's
Transcension Hypothesis, which derives its
theoretical propositions from Moore’s law (in part), wherein
human-techno interface, post singularity, will
accelerate to a point where the external (outer-space) becomes the
internal (inner-space), driving transhumanstic
existence ever inward until dimensional black holes (driven by STEM
compression) transport us (now as virtual minds) out of the physical
existence, into more complex
dimensions of existence, where we will find the rest of the universe(s)
waiting.
The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. Now taking
reservations. Thanks for the Fish.
The
development of “systems of knowing and understanding” provide universal
languages researchers can employ to tackle the myriad challenges presented in
the development of Artificial Intelligences.
In
the video posted here, Andrew Ng offers a brief ontological examination of
the keys issues surrounding Artificial Intelligence in his presentation, “The
Future of Robotics and Artificial Intelligence” (Stanford University, STAN
2011).
Gruber
(1992) argued that, “An ontology
is an explicit specification of a conceptualization. The term is borrowed from
philosophy, where an Ontology is a systematic account of Existence. For AI
systems, what "exists" is that which can be represented. When the
knowledge of a domain is represented in a declarative formalism, the set of
objects that can be represented is called the universe of discourse” (Link).
In
his presentation, Ng suggested that two main issues are paramount in the
development of AI: Control and Perception. Control refers to a robot’s abilities
to navigate and interact in physical spaces. Perception refers to a robot’s
abilities to “see and understand” the world around it. The exposition of the
narrative focused mainly on the dynamic issues related to robotic perceptions
of environment, ability to contextualize information it gathers, and abilities
to “read and understand” its social environments.
Ng
draws from neuro-scientific approaches to argue for the development of foundational,
simple algorithms that can drive robotic AI abilities to “perceive.” AI neural
networks can be crafted, informed by and patterned after, human neuro-biological
systems that control visual and auditory processing. This draws out an interesting
area of inquiry that I will explore in future posts: namely, how does our “human”
understanding of AI, our collective cultural technological competencies and cultural
technological value structures, inform they we actually conceptualize and create AI?
In
his 2006 presentation at the Human-Robot Interaction Seminar (Fachberriech
Informatik Universitat Dortmund) titled, “Recognition and Simulation of
Emotions,” Kleine-Cosack discussed the exigencies surrounding AI perception and
emotion recognition. I will examine the issues of emotion perception in AI presented
in his paper in future posts. In sum, he argued that “the acceptance of autonomous and especially humanoid robots will be
directly dependent on their ability to recognize and simulate emotions.” An especially
useful context to place Ng’s overview of AI cognitive perception. (Link).
AI
abilities to place sensory information (perceptual information) in social
context, and the development of unique AI responses to those sensory stimuli,
are a whole other ballgame. Yet, the formalization of “systems of knowing”
provided here take a large step toward integrating robots into human
experiences.
Philosophical
inquiry has demonstrated the traps inherent in developing formalized (ontological)
systems and vocabularies, yet I am reminded of a phrase from my favorite science-fiction
opus, Dune, when Thufir Hawat (one of the many characters in the Dune series
that characterizes the dynamic range of transhumanistic expression) states, “the
first step in avoiding a trap, is to know that the trap exists.”
In the wake of Apple WWDC 2012 (commentary), a few notable changes are likely to occur in the mobile landscape, especially in
regard to mapping solutions and applications - maybe. Apple’s announcement to integrate
its own mapping software into iOS6 (Apple devices) signals that a new player has
emerged in the mapping techno-marketplace…a marketplace that has been
traditionally dominated by Google, and in the minor key, AOL via Mapquest.
A useful
comparison of Google and Apple map functionality has been put together by
Casey Chan at Gizmodo. This overview
provides sufficient context for the discussion that follows here on how
Apple’s entry into this particular area of technology will impact Google Maps
in the narrow frame, and map technology innovation in the larger frame.
Google Apple
(image courtesy of Gizmodo).
Tale of the Tape:
Google: significantly more depth and detail
Apple: Turn by turn voice navigation (which is available for
Google Android users)
Winner: Google. Depth and detail in data is more important
than the promise of “shiny” things.
Content. Innovation.
Apple’s new map solutions in iOS6 (granted in beta) will
spur greater competition in the map marketplace for user share, which may in
the long-run drive innovation. Google’s
history of collaborative innovation will likely mean we will see some exciting upgrades
and enhancements to its current map solutions, which are already robust. These
changes will be exciting.
We have seen a trend of making maps more interactive. Might
we see Google add-in more social media features to map solutions, whereby users
can scroll over areas on maps and pull up user comments on the locations shown.
Social comments on locations in the map could be added to existing drop-down
menus that allow users to get deeper feedback on the maps they are developing
and viewing.
E.G.: Want the local skinny on a route and locations therein?
Looking at 101 North as you head to San Francisco? Scrolling over locations on
the route in Google Maps, we might be able to find user comments on a variety
of topics – traffic, quickest routes, roadwork, best places to eat, and shortcuts.
Yes, these are available on a number of other
sites and stand-alone applications – will these features be more integrated into a
complex, yet easy to navigate, elegant single map solution?
Google can mix map solutions, with social media commentary
(re: useful user tips/advice), with Wiki style background information tied into
SM applications such as Yelp.
One thing we can be sure of….Google will innovate and end
users will reap the benefit of more robust, interactive, and interesting map
solutions.
Musings on the Future
of the Human Body and Technology
The growth of bio-technologies has forced us to reconsider our
collective definitions of what it means to be human.
Cyborgian
theories, expressed in a variety of media, crystalized in research with the
publishing of Donna Haraway’s cyborg
manifesto in 1991. The melding of
organic and technological systems in sporting bodies has been investigated by a
number of excellent researchers including Dr. Ted Butryn, and
colleagues, who have written extensively about the integration of
technology into elite athletic bodies.
In the new century, we will have to confront our notions of
the organic and the technological; the human and the cyborg. We will be forced to extend the boundaries:
morally, ethically, politically, socially, and economically. For many it will
be uncomfortable. Others tragic. Others beyond imagination. This evolution will transform the human
experience. As with all social issues...access, power, and privilege
will be concerns. Not ironically, I hope technology allows
me to live long enough to see these transformations occur in earnest.
We are already cyborgs to some degree, using various technologies
to enhance our bodies, extend our lives, and buffer against illness, disease,
and injury. The line of transgression is
often drawn when we discuss elective augmentation
of the human body via technology. Yet, we are
already there. Vaccinations, inoculations, pharmaceutical drugs, performance enhancing
drugs, contact lenses, synthetic body parts, laser surgery, nano-bio-technologies,
tissue regrowth…we have not been 100% human for a long time. And it’s exciting.
The oldest in our societies often have bodies reconstituted via
medical technologies. Grandmother with
the hip replacement due to osteoarthritis; Grandfather with a pace maker due to a heart attack. Cyborgs
all. Marginalized populations such as returning
war veterans equipped with C-Leg prosthetics - cyborgs.
It leads to questions. What is human? Where do you draw the line? And how does that definition relate to legality and power?
How much of me “needs” to be human to be considered by human
law and be eligible for the human rights applied therein. What is the nutritional label? Which
percentage balance of human to tech? Will we have a cyborg bill of rights and
how will this differ from human rights charter? An
VI or AI bill of rights?
Classic science fiction films such as Blade Runner and Gattica
have mined this bio-genetically enhanced, stratified future social structure. Separate
societies of the enhanced and the non-enhanced. The Digital Divide at its most spacious.
Casting into the far-near techno-future, we will see a great
diversity in expressions of human life.
I + technology + my body insert into the world – both digital
and physical.
Which Kind of Cybrog are
You?
a) Human consciousness that lives entirely in organic-techo
computer systems, never manifesting in human body form
b) Human consciousness that can be downloaded into avatar
bodies
c) % human to % cyborg (from 1% human to 99% cyborg, in
reverse, and all ratios in between)
There has been lots of talk about Google Glasses in the
internet blogosphere. WebProNews has posted a fun infographic
outlining the basics. Enjoyable as spoofs maybe, a more productive
action may be to project into the future the transformative possibilities technologies
such as Google Glasses may have on a wide range of fields.
Consider this case scenario:
Paramedics wearing advanced Google Glasses would be able to
gather real-time data on accidents scenes including patient vitals. That
information would flow to mobile services in the ambulance that will be sent
real-time to emergency room hospitals, allowing ER practioners to access all
patient data ahead of entry in to the ER. End result: Immediate care and
diagnosis. No downtime. Reduced ER costs. And importantly, reduced cost for the
patient as care is streamlined.
Healthcare not your cup of tea:
Imagine how Google Glasses may impact the way we watch
movies, view art, and see music visually.
Outside the mundane activities of regular life, smart glasses
have the potential to revolutionize a variety of professional disciplines.
Google Goggles have endless applications in education.
As an amateur futurist and professional educator, Google Goggles is an example of the type of application that can be introduced into the classroom settings now, indeed applications like this may free faculty and students from the prison-like confines of the classroom physical space. Visual recognition software that links to databases providing real-time, textured data responses that allows user to easily access/migrate information across media platforms is straight out of every awesome science fiction RPG video game I have ever played.
Here is a short diverse list of disciplines that could transform teaching models using goggle apps.:
Environmental studies
Art History
Graphic Design
Architecture
Kinesiology
Civil Engineering
Landscape Design
Medical fields
