Category Archives: Singularity

Growth EP and the bonus track!

Ijumaa_is

Contextual Essay:

Concept

Growth (Deluxe) is a musical project that mostly explores spiritual aspects of love, peace and happiness, while briefly, in a bonus song, touching on our material and philosophical relationship with technology. I want to invite the listener to grow as an individual, and inspire them to progress with meaning and be happy. By impacting one person, in consequence a ripple effect could occur for 10, 15 or 20 years. Imagine the inspiration of one human to change themselves, inspiring someone else!

Methodology

The project is F.I.S.T, (fast, inexpensive, simple and tiny). It was put together by using free recording software and a relatively cheap Blue Yeti microphone. I recorded the Whole project at home so there was no paid for studio time. I did all the editing and mastering on each track. To post my songs, I used Sound cloud, a free platform for artists.

Research

The…

View original post 446 more words

Pitch Comments

Ijumaa_is

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 1.34.53 pm.png

I don’t have a link to this comment because it is awating moderation and won’t show up normally. Jessica’s Pitch was about the future of online media, through short videos she wants to educate us on the current state of online media, and the overall space of online media in terms of content creation and trends.

My comment set out to ask her how she could veiw her own place in the space of online media and asking how could she mould the future of the online world. As a filmaker/Youtuber I gave a few tips about making her informative videos engaging.

I think my comment was applicable and considerate towards her interests, suggesting another level of perspective into her work (through the lense of the self). Through inviting Jessica to consider how she may edit her videos, I am expressing a desire to see her do well and make…

View original post 230 more words

What will Artificial Superintelligence mean for Human life?

The following is an essay i produced for my research in the subject of emerging media issues (BCM310) as a student of the University of Wollongong. I considered it relevant to the topic of cybercultures as well therefore i am sharing it here – I am by no means an authority on the matter of superintelligence, however it is a topic which intrigued me. Any comments or feedback, you can reach me at @samhazeldine.

Transcript:

“What will Artificial Superintelligence mean for Human life: A conceptualisation of the coming technological singularity & it’s impact on human existence”

Introduction

Throughout the last century in popular culture there has been representation of superintelligent or human level A.I with varying sense of morality dating back to cinema of the late 1920’s. These representations have forged popular discourses around advanced A.I and their role as catalysts, creating a dichotomy of thought towards a dystopian or utopian future beyond the singularity. Academic understanding suggests we utilise cautionary dystopian ideals to reinforce the notion of prevention of uncontrollable A.I. growth. This is assuming our technological development reaches a degree whereat deep learning aided by quantum computing is efficient and reliable, following which the singularity can unfold.

Through careful analysis of the works produced by philosophers and theorists such as: I.J Good, Ray Kurzweil, Nick Bostrom and others –  this piece will discuss the potential for artificially superintelligent beings to lead us towards a bright utopian future or a uncertain dystopian future where we survive as relics of a bygone era.

Developing the notion of ‘The Singularity’

The original concept of a technological singularity was set up by mathematician; Alan Turing in the 1950’s:

It seems probable that once the machine thinking method had started, it would not take long to outstrip our feeble powers… They would be able to converse with each other to sharpen their wits. At some stage therefore, we should have to expect the machines to take control. (Turing, 1952)

This somewhat gloomy prediction plays on the developing notion of an eventual dystopia which in the years since Turing’s expression, has been reinforced by popular culture with films such as Blade Runner (1982), Terminator (1984)  and I Robot (2004) reinforcing these ideas of machines in control.

A contemporary and coworker of Turing’s;  I.J Good is another theorist which provides an important theory known as the ‘intelligence explosion’ (I.J. Good, 1965). This hypothesis details how at the point of achieving superintelligence, A.I will be able to build more sophisticated computers and this feedback loop reaches a speed where innovation is incomprehensible by current standards and creates unlimited intellectual potential beyond our reaches of control.

This idea of gradual, exponential increasing in computational potential is the basis for Moore’s Law which follows a formula which calculates that the power of computing and integrated circuits doubles each year.

A trend which author and computer scientist Ray Kurzweil applies to the potential of artificial superintelligence, driving innovation to reach the singularity by 2045:

$1000 buys a computer a billion times more intelligent than every human combined. This means that average and even low-end computers are vastly smarter than even highly intelligent, unenhanced humans. (Kurzweil, 2006)

With regards to impact, Kurzweil reimagined the phenomenon of the singularity as being ‘neither utopian nor dystopian but having an irreversible impact on our lives as humans, transforming concepts we rely on to give meanings to our lives’

Despite the future beyond the singularity being largely debated, there is no doubt among those who study A.I. that the singularity will occur, it is only a matter of achieving the level of sophisticated computing necessary.

Superintelligent A.I. by 2045

To achieve a point of singularity within the timeframe ascribed to by several modern theorists including Kurzweil and also Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom who states that:

There is more than 50% chance that superintelligence will be created within 40 years, possibly much sooner. By “superintelligence” I mean a cognitive system that drastically outperforms the best present-day humans in every way… (Bostrom, 1997)

This opinion, like Kurzweil’s should be considered as just that, an opinion, however as is the case with all visionaries the degree of credence which can be placed on their ideas require further, deep examination. By deconstructing the ability to fulfill such a prediction and what it might require happens in the next 20-30 years to reach this point,  it can be better understood what the likelihood and consequences may be of this intelligence explosion occurring. The concept of deep learning is a key factor in the progression towards human level artificial intelligence.

Deep learning is essentially a computer’s ability to capture information from various sources including inputs by users, analysis of big data and store this information in neural networks. This is similar to the functioning of the human neural/memory networks created in our brains, however this method in machines such as computers is not limited to physical space like that of the human cranium thanks to ‘the cloud’.

For example, through programs such as GoogleDeepmind, experts were able to utilise deep learning techniques to teach their AlphaGo A.I. how to defeat the current European champion of a board game known as Go – a 2,500-year-old game that’s exponentially more complex than chess (Metz, 2016). Such an achievement is a clear-cut example of the early potential in deep learning technology, moreover this method of machine learning is also utilised on a consumer scale in the form of Netflix entertainment and Amazon purchase suggestions with benefit to both audience and business.  

Running in congruence with this development of deep learning technology is the race to develop a stable, usable and reliable quantum computer. Quantum computing involves the processing of superpositioned qubits of data and applied algorithms, which is then used to solve complex problems potentially much faster than traditional binary computers. With current iterations in their infancy, examples such as the cutting edge: D-Wave 2000Q 2048-Qubit computer are the size of a small bathroom and cost $15 million USD (Temperton, 2017). Despite this, experts at the Google A.I. innovation laboratory have led the surge in development of this potential into results, with Google’s director of engineering claiming in 2015 after a collaborative research project with NASA and USRA: “What a D-Wave does in a second would take a conventional computer 10,000 years to do…(Manners, 2015). However; academics, scientists and philosophers alike concur that this technology still requires significant development in usability and general optimisation to reach anything resembling practical application.

In an attempt to speed up the optimisation and usability of their computers D-Wave Systems Inc. has introduced Qbsolv, an open-source software designed for anyone with an internet connection to experiment and attempt to solve optimisation (QUBO) problems unique to the quantum computer through a simulation on traditional computers or on one of their own systems. The open source community has been a tremendous driver for several technologies such as Android OS, WordPress and Linux OS, assisting these programs in removing bugs and optimisation inspiring the creation of the Qbsolv software for users to tangle with. An action which would please the authors of The Journal of Machine Learning Research 8, by way of their 2007 paper concluded:

Researchers in machine learning should not be content with writing small pieces of software for personal use. If machine learning is to solve real scientific and technological problems, the community needs to build on each others’ open source software tools. (Sonnenburg et al., 2007)

By utilising this inherently collaborative action in development, quantum processing capability will continue on it’s exponential upward trajectory. Then, by applying this sophisticated method of computing to the equally exciting deep learning potential of machines, the idea that superintelligent artificial life is more than 30 years away is scarcely believable. Thus Kurzweil’s prediction of 2045 doesn’t appear to be outside the realm of possibility – So what does this mean for humans beyond 2045?

Planning for Singularity

Regardless of timeline, there is a universal truth among all well-versed researchers that experts will achieve superintelligent A.I. at some moment in the coming decades. At this point of Singularity, if events unfold as I.J Good hypothesised in 1960 we should share more concern:

Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an “intelligence explosion,” and the intelligence of man would be left far behind.  Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make. (I.J Good, 1965)

There is an inherent relevance to these sentiments due to the nature of deep learning among A.I. and although an intelligence ‘explosion’ is a fairly dramatic term the end result could quite possibly be the same, although more gradual – but does our intellectual inferiority necessarily determine our place ‘under machines control’ as Turing foreshadowed?

Perhaps a better angle of enquiry is to consider why a number of researchers and industry leaders reflect the perception that we have ‘no need to be nervous’ about the future after superintelligent A.I. as though we will somehow be able to control these machines or simply ‘unplug’ them as notable software engineer Grady Booch expresses:

We are not building A.I. that control the weather, that direct the tides, that command us capricious, chaotic humans. And furthermore, if such an artificial intelligence existed, it would have to compete with human economies, and thereby compete for resources with us. And in the end — don’t tell Siri this — we can always unplug them (Booch, 2017).

These ideas are problematic in more than one way; for example: the level of credence placed on the integration of human values and laws into the psyche of a superintelligent A.I. is too high, a view which is shared by the likes of Facebook founder and CEO; Mark Zuckerberg (Dopfner and Welt, 2016). It is a naive anthropomorphist assumption that once superintelligent A.I. begin to create other, more sophisticated machines that our value system won’t filter out gradually through each iteration, much like the initial message in a game of chinese whispers. Booch ends with reflection on the notion that this point of our technological development is far away and that we are being distracted from more ‘pressing issues’ in society.

This lack of mindfulness surrounding the potential consequences of superintelligence concerns those who advocate for an oversight of the rapid A.I. development, in particular Philosopher and Neuroscientist; Sam Harris who makes one point in particular which resonates powerfully:

No one seems to notice that referencing the time horizon is a total non sequitur. If intelligence is just a matter of information processing, and we continue to improve our machines, we will produce some form of superintelligence. And we have no idea how long it will take us to create the conditions to do that safely (Harris, 2016).

The final sentence, although dark and speculative, is an accurate assessment of the state of affairs. For example: the rate at which both Google’s Deepmind and quantum computing/A.I. programs are advancing have resulted in some anxiety as development exists largely unregulated. Granted this  allows unencumbered freedom of innovation thus speeding up development, however these companies driving forward are taking an incredible risk if superintelligent A.I. exists without proper safeguards in place – Bostrom likens this to children playing with a bomb. (Bostrom, 2013)

Such safeguards could be as simple as determining what jobs will exist and what will be redundant once humans are replaced by A.I. – a process which has already been undertaken in the field of manufacturing. A significantly more complex consideration would be to reorganise the social structure in areas such as: government, education and business management. This will become necessary as the efficiency and overall output of superintelligent A.I. is naturally higher, thus having these machines in roles such as an educator, or in an organisational position will become commonplace.

There has been progress towards safeguarding the development of superintelligence, with Business Magnate and Futurist Elon Musk as well as several other technology moguls generating a project called OpenAI in 2015, this is a research company aimed at ensuring ‘friendly A.I.’ The way OpenAI plans to achieve their utopian mission is by utilising the cautionary predictions from the likes of Stephen Hawking, Stuart Russell and Nick Bostrom who believe that entering the singularity unprepared is existential suicide – and putting A.I. source code into the open source community for widespread ubiquitous access. This method seems counter-intuitive, however by placing the same technology in the hands of everyone, it takes the potential power out any particular individual company or agency. Co-chairman of OpenAI, Sam Altman explains:

Just like humans protect against Dr. Evil by the fact that most humans are good, and the collective force of humanity can contain the bad elements, we think it’s far more likely that many, many AIs, will work to stop the occasional bad actors than the idea that there is a single AI a billion times more powerful than anything else (Levy, 2015).

Despite these noble intentions it is easy to see how this utopian mission could be laid by the wayside by some form of collaboration between like-minded ‘bad actors’, crucially though, this is a step in the right direction. With the progress which will unfold over the coming decades, it is to the benefit of all humankind that visionaries such as Musk, Kurzweil and Bostrom continue to review and address the risks surrounding superintelligent A.I. development – to remove the possibility of an existential crisis.

Conclusion

In the thorough examination of the works of philosophers, scientists, experts and businesspeople, there can be no doubt that the singularity will occur, speculation as to when and how are generally subjective predictions based on computational trends or isolated empirical research. However, there is even less certainty beyond the singularity, thus it is essential to apply a cautious, scientific approach to instilling values, ethics and integrity in our original iterations of superintelligent A.I. – thus responding directly to Harris’ and Bostrom’s anxieties.

An idealistic future perspective would be that instead of existing in extremes, such as the dystopian wasteland in Blade Runner or have a race of subservient robot slaves – but rather live in an environment where humans coexist with A.I. in a collaborative effort reaching common objectives – an ideal which will take some serious planning.

References

The politics and ideologies of data visualisation: A sociological perspective

Cybercultural Research Project: Second Progress Report

Since my first progress account I have renamed my topic, The politics and ideologies of data visualisation: A sociological perspective. The following is an updated outline that will guide the production of a research report or digital artefact.

Introductory Remarks

I will employ data visualisation to mean ‘the visual representation of statistical and other types of numeric and non‑numeric data through the use of static or interactive pictures and graphics.’  For now, I will define cyberculture simply and according to Mirriam Webster. I will also distinguish data from information in order to lay groundwork for the introduction of emergent critical perspectives associated with the politics and ideologies of data visualisation (abbrev. dataviz). For example, the ideological work that data visualisations do introduces dataviz conventions as functioning to produce a sense of ‘objectivity, transparency and facticity.’  In reality, graphics may be value-laden, ambiguous and fictitious (See also: Seeing Data 2016).  The introductory paragraphs will also note broad relevance of the topic, defining the concepts of information saturation (or overload), ‘data explosion’ and data science.

A sociologist in training, I will overview abstracts and biographies of a recent sociological conference to underscore the progress of Sociology in recent years, as these have been significant guides in my research. I will cite Healy and Moody’s view of Sociology as lagging in the use of visual tools.  This research will note the historical association of social work with the development and implementation of national policy circa the welfare state in 1946 to present. The Australian Commonwealth has exercised control over the direction of national social policy since the founding of the Commonwealth Research Bureau in 1944 (Morning Bulletin 1947). The privatization of social services will be raised as a related issue of concern in neoliberal contexts like Australia.

The four arguments introduced in my first progress report will be summarized for my audience and continue to guide topic development.

Research Body

Accordingly, I will exemplify how both past inventions and futuristic thinking have shaped the development of data visualisation technologies and practices. Examples of what science fiction has technologically foreseen will be provided in reference to a presentation by Jeffrey Heer titled A Brief History of Data Visualization.  This source will be coupled with a Milestones Tour to provide an overview of current DV trends and research areas. Augmented reality (AR) will be exemplified, envisioned in 1968 and famously employed in AR animation by Hans Rosling in recent years.

Of what was been culturally foreseen and is of relevance to the topic, I will cite Huff in his ‘prophetic’ reference to GH Wells in How to Lie with Statistics‘Statistical thinking will one day be as necessary for efficient citizenship as the ability to read and write.’ I will also quote Aldous Huxley’s utopiandystopian Brave New Word (1932), in which ‘liberties and individuality’ have been lost ‘in the name of universal stability’ (Shmoop 2016).  This will be an allusion to the implication of social work with national population and fiscal policy targeting ‘illegitimate‘ children during 20th century Australia.

In the second section of the report’s body I will exemplify how governments and bureaucracies have significant authority in the relationship between the user and the computer, aiming questions of cyberculture at the legitimacy of related structures of command.  The following related research into dataviz forms an amended outline of sources extending on my first progress report and is a work in progress:

A glossary of terms will accompany an introduction to an Australian case study detailed in my first progress report. Entries will underscore the prodigious influence of digitally enabled communication, networked computation and media technologies in proliferating issues of related concern, including population trends and curvessocial entropy (see also: Galtung in 1967), exponential growth and singularity.

This case study will critique a dominant discourse and related DV by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, positing national social policy in contemporary cyberspace arenas.  An alternative DV will provide a statistical estimate of an historically marginalised group. Statistical relativity will be discussed and feature David McCandless’ take on the topic.  This work will be emancipatory and state author biases.

Conclusion

The conclusion will summarise identified limits and affordances of our technology infused realities, including: data inadequacies, the need for increased scepticism of data and new hypotheses.