The Path to Augmentation

There are two major problems that I see people having with the concept of technological augmentation.  The first, while easy to extrapolate the answer for, is still very difficult for people to comprehend (even for those of us interested in these things, or even in the same fields... heck, there is debate among scientists and engineers about whether the Singularity is actually something that could happen); that of "how".  They see big clumsy robots that can mimic (poorly) the natural ability to walk or climb stairs, or the lump of immobile plastic that often replaces a lost, flexible, functional limb, and wonder how we can make it even close to as good as the original.  How do we make artificial limbs with sensory feedback, much less natural control, movement, and appearance?  And even if we can do that, how in the world can we use technology to improve something as complicated as the brain?  Unfortunately all of the answers to those questions lie in trends and theory and conjecture (even if it is well-documented).  We aren't there yet.  Not even close.

The second problem, which is the one I want to discuss here, is that of "by what path" will these augments come into the social consciousness.  How will we come to accept the artificial replacements of our natural functions?  I believe that it will happen through the medical field.  Included below are some videos that show some of the remarkable advances in function replacement through technology that have happened in the last few years.

There are real hurdles to having technology improve our natural performance.  As Dean Kamen mentions in the fourth video in this post; "(Our arm) is way, way, way better than a plastic stick with a hook on it, but there's nobody here who would rather have it than the one they got."  Our technology is still trying to catch up to natural function, and lags behind in many crucial aspects.

However, we have been able to take some amazing first steps.  Remember, in most of our lifetimes we have gone from computers that took up entire rooms to ones that can fit in your hand and out-perform those early models by several orders of magnitude.  Just recently, in 2010, doctors in Britain and China have independently produced photosensitive chips that can restore sight to people with retinitis pigmentosa, a disease that causes the light-sensitive rods and cones in the retina to deteriorate.  Below is a video of a Finnish man, who had been completely blind, now able to recognize table settings and even read!  Image, in 40 years, what the smartphone version of this technology could do.

Also, in breaking news, brought to us by the guys who made BrainGate, which allowed people to control a cursor on a computer screen by thought alone, comes BrainGate2, which allows people to move a robotic arm just like they would their own limb.  In the video below, a paralyzed woman who hasn't moved her limbs of her own volition in 15 years is able to pick up a thermos and take a sip of coffee.  Technology like this could revolutionize treatment for paralysis, and is likely a first step to full-on cybernetic bodies, especially when paired with the work done by Dean Kamen and Darpa (see next videos).  Also, they hope to be able to use the decoding software that translates the brain's impulses to bridge spinal cord faults, possibly allowing paralyzed people to use their own limbs again... in a rough estimation of a technological nervous system.

In this report, the capabilities of DARPA's newest prosthetic arm is showcased.  These arms are controlled by nerve impulse rather than directly by the brain.  This results in a more precise and natural level of control than that of the BrainGate system, because it's one less set of logistical hurdles to overcome.  It works well for people who have lost limbs, and would not work well for people suffering from various forms of paralyzation.  They are even working on a rough approximation of haptic feedback by moving nerves that would transmit touch sensation to places on the shoulder and side that mechanisms in the prosthesis could then press on in order to let the wearer gauge the amount of force applied by the arm, or even gain improved fine motor coordination through more delicate control of individual fingers.  Imagine the eventual combination of these two technologies, and the eventual use of similar techniques for leg prosthesis.

In this video, which is quite long, but worth it to watch in full (if you just want the technical stuff, the first 7 minutes cover the meat of it), Dean Kamen, the creator of the DARPA arm, talks about the challenges, triumphs and reasons he is so passionate about this work.  The desire to replace what was lost, especially for those who have served in the military, I believe will propel this research into the realm of augmentation.  As Dr. Kamen said; "I'll stop when your buddies are envious of your LUKE arm."

And in a similar vein, here is a TED talk given by Aimee Mullins, a paralympic athlete (and main guinea pig for the sprinting prosthetic legs that Oscar Pistorius uses, who I'll talk about next), and model.  She talks about the ability of prosthesis to not only be functional, but beautiful as well.  She talks about how, through the imagination of children, and the envy of friends ("You're so tall!  That's not fair!"), prosthesis can possibly take us from merely human into the superhuman.

Finally, Oscar Pistorius is a paralympic athlete from South Africa, dubbed the Blade Runner and The Fastest Man on No Legs.  He was born without fibula (similar to Aimee Mullins above) and had his legs amputated below the knee when he was less than a year old.  He is currently one qualifying race away from making the 2012 London Olympics in the 400m.  Yes Olympics, not Paralympics (he'll be competing there, too), but the real thing, against the most able of able-bodied men.  A man with no legs, with the use of technology may soon be competing in the most prestigious athletic competition in the world.  He was actually banned for a short time from the Beijing Olympics because the IAAA thought his prosthetic legs gave him an unfair advantage.  Here is an excellent interview with Pistorius in which he talks about all of the things that have brought him to a place where he can make such spectacular history.

We are verging, in many ways, on the ability to match or exceed human ability with our technology, and it is my firm belief that through our attempts to give back to people what they have lost, we will slide unbeknownst into augmentation.  When the first person chooses to replace a natural limb with an artificial one, or the first person decides to implant a chip which lets him surf the web or use an external computer, we will have truly entered the time of the cyborg.  Once that happens I don't think there's going to be much that can slow it down.

There are many hurdles, however.  Next time I will be talking about those hurdles, and what we may be able to do to clear them.

The Big Bad Wolf: The Singularity and Humanity

This post was meant to be up many moons ago, but life got in the way (as it often does).  I promise to keep a much more regular schedule from here on out.  Anyway, here is my take on what is likely one of the most visceral possible problems of the Singularity.

Much of this blog will be focused on technologies that will help to bring about what is called the Singularity.  This is a point in time where we finally create a computer system that is more powerful than the human brain, or are able to enhance the human brain technologically, past which point the intelligence of the human race will increase exponentially.  There are a host of possible dangers with this.  From destruction at the hands of our Robot Overlords, to the Gray Goo Scenario.  However, there is another problem about which we speak (in specifics, there is almost always a subtext going through every discussion) much less often.

Many have called the Singularity the “end of humanity as we know it,” or the invention of a computer more powerful (intelligent) than a human the last invention that mankind ever need make.  The fear is that we will either lose out in the evolutionary battle against the superior AI that we create, or that by merging with our technology that we will become less “human.”

The idea of the Singularity (though the term was coined much later) first arose in 1965 when I.J. Good wrote of an “intelligence explosion” suggesting that if machines could ever surpass humans in intelligence that they could then improve their own intelligence in ways unforeseeable by their now-outmatched human counterparts.  In 1993 Vernor Vinge wrote, in what may be the most famous piece about the Singularity, that “Within 30 years we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence.  Shortly after, the human era will be ended.”  Vinge also posits four possible ways that this superhuman intelligence may happen:

1)      A computer that is sufficiently advanced as to be “awake” or a singular AI.

2)      A network of computers may “wake up” as a superhumanly intelligent entity.

3)      Computer/human interfaces may become so intimate that the users may be considered to be superhumanly intelligent.

4)      Biological science may advance to increase human intelligence directly.

The first three depend on the advancement of computer technology, based in large part upon Moore’s Law which posits (extrapolated, the original law was merely for transistors on a circuit) that the power of computers will increase exponentially, doubling every 18 months or so.  Ray Kurzweil, another important figure in the realm of Singularity study, has studied the history of information systems, from DNA to computers, and has shown that this exponential growth is fairly consistent through nearly every paradigm.  Basically every generation of computer benefits from the previous generation’s power and so can reach the next generation in a shorter amount of time.

“But!”  You may exclaim, “We certainly must be reaching the limits of our current technology.  They can only make silicon so thin, and current chips are already measured in the nano-scale, they must be reaching a limit to how powerful they can make our computers!”

The answer is: sort of.  Yes, we are reaching the limit of our current computer design, but there is already a wealth of research into new technologies that will allow us to build computer chips in 3 dimensions instead of the flat plane that our current chips currently use.  Improvements in nanotechnology and the use of carbon nanotubes and graphene are progressing rapidly, and will likely be able to take over where silicon leaves off.  And we’re even beginning to poke at the edges of quantum computing which uses the wackiness of entanglement and multi-state particle physics to transfer information at speeds that are all but instantaneous.  The point is that, even if the exponent slows, the advance in technology will not.  Barring an extinction event we should have computers more powerful than the human mind by 2045-ish.  We may also have neural prosthetics that enhance human intelligence.

But with the discussion of artificially enhancing a portion of ourselves comes the inevitable worry: will making artificial “improvements” create an artificiality in a person’s being/personality/soul?  Will the additional computing power of the new brains push morality by the wayside, for cold, robotic logic?  What use will emotion, community, family, and human connection have in a world where we are all supercomputers?  Where will heroism and altruism fit in a world where probabilities and best-case scenarios can be calculated by anyone in an instant?  What will inspire us when we can do anything we want?

Thing is… I don’t know how to answer that problem.  There is research into parts of the brain that include neurons thought to be the source of emotional intelligence that may allow us to improve our ability to connect and care about other people if we can (or want to) enhance those areas, but honestly I don’t know that that sufficiently answers the problem.  There is also the Kant-ian answer that through enhanced intelligence and logic, a greater morality will emerge, as we can better calculate the greatest possible good to come out of our moral decisions.  This doesn’t really comfort those afraid that we’ll all become unfeeling robots, however.  Quite the opposite, I would expect.

My only real advice in this regard is similar to the advice I would give people who worry about rising Governmental or corporate control: active, diligent attention.  Question the motives and effects of technology, especially that tech that could improve or enhance abilities.  There is a very real danger of enhancement technology creeping into modern ubiquity without a lot of attention paid to the repercussions.  We can only have a moral Singularity if we pay attention to the world and how we change it.