While the global academic discussion focuses on the coverage of existential risks associated with the rise of a Skynet equivalent artificial intelligence; it is worth mentioning that there are divergent advances in biotech whichare as alarming and urgent as the rise of an all omnipotent and omnipresent AI. Those issues should be directed and scanned under a microscope because they are at our doorstep. We should note that the application of “wind tunnelling” towards new technologies is necessary to prepare for the future, and subsequently, we should mitigate the risks and anticipate the greatest threats associated with technology XYZ as well as the biggest opportunities.
If we recall the year 2011, virologist Ron Fouchier presented his enhanced version of the H5N1 which could create a pandemic of massive impact wiping out half the world population if not more. Fouchier was experimenting with the avian flu virus searching for virulence enhancing evolution paths. What he did is spread the virus throughout a population of ferrets, and it reproduced with an increase in its ability to adapt at each transformation; in ten generations, the airborne version gained so much in virility that it had the potential power to kill half of the human population.
A year after that, in 2012, CRISPR/Cas9 genome engineering/editing tool was first shown to work in human cell culture. It allows scientists to edit genomes which binds and splices DNA at specific locations. The complex can be programmed to target a problematic gene, which is then replaced or repaired by another molecule introduced at the same time. A highly precise method. In the past years there has been much researchwere many researches conducted, e.g. the first monkeys with targeted mutations were born, and even editing methods for preventing HIV-1 infection in humans. What this means is the introduction of a complex randomness factor. If in the past a handful of people had access to genomic iterations and experimentation; now this fact is about to be change, releasing the proverbial genie from the bottle, with little ability to control it.
Check out this short film Directed by the talented Vladimir Vlasenko, about a lonely robot who just tries to attract attention to himself. For more information, please see the details and links below:
Director & CG — Vladimir Vlasenko. Director of photography — Igor Guryev. Sound & music — Nikita Troepolskiy, Igor Smirnov, Danil Varakuta. Rotoskopy — Maxim Artemenko. Actors — Nadya Vecherya, Nastya Borsh, Alexandr Sheweiko, Alexandr Koval.
A little bit of smile inducing, starry eyed optimism to balance out the post-apocalyptic horror-show version of the Singularity depicted in the other shot film I posted.
‘PROTO’ is a short film, produced by Eye Candy Film as an international co-production between Screen South based in the UK and Film Fyn based in Denmark.
The film was shot in August 2011 at Robocluster in Denmark, a genuine working robotics lab. It was completed in June 2012 and will premiere later this year.
CGI was completed by VERL, Dundee. Additional CG was provided by James Kearsley http://www.jkstudios.tv/
DIRECTOR, WRITER: Nicholas Pittom PRODUCER: Richard Georg Engström PRODUCTION COMPANY: Eye Candy Film DIRECTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY: Luke Palmer
‘PROTO’ is a sci-fi action adventure, about a child-like, experimental robot, set in the robotics lab where he has been built. Although PROTO has been made to fulfil the ambitions of his creator, Prof. Andrews, he learns to find his own dreams and ambitions, and also the strength needed to realise them.
The main theme of the film is freedom, both literal and in the ability to choose one’s own destiny – to break free of expectations. We wish for the film, while an exciting and fun science fiction, to also capture a magical sense of wonder. PROTO will overcome the expectations and restrictions placed on him and discovering his true self.
Here’s a very in depth, approximately 6,000 word story (broken into 5 articles) with many pictures on transhumanism–from one of the world’s leading tech sites: The Verge.
Zoltan Istvan is very worried about the superintelligent machines.
He says the war over artificial intelligence will be worse than the Cold War nuclear arms race — much worse. It will be far more deadly, and whoever wins will control the world, eternally. This artificial intelligence might be being developed right now, he says, for all we know. At a government facility in the middle of the Arizona desert, perhaps.
But this is not what Zoltan Istvan is most afraid of, and neither is it the weirdest thing he will tell me in our week together driving 400 miles across the Southwest in his 40-year-old “Immortality Bus,” crudely fashioned into the shape of a coffin. As the presidential candidate of the Transhumanist Party, Zoltan Istvan is dedicated to spreading transhumanism’s gospel, like some modern day Ken Kesey who doesn’t even need acid for his trip.
Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University are building an AI platform that will “whisper” instructions in your ear to provide cognitive assistance. Named after Gabriel, the biblical messenger of God, the whispering robo-assistant can already guide you through the process of building a basic Lego object. But, the ultimate goal is to provide wearable cognitive assistance to millions of people who live with Alzheimer’s, brain injuries or other neurodegenerative conditions. For instance, if a patient forgets the name of a relative, Gabriel could whisper the name in their ear. It could also be programmed to help patients through everyday tasks that will decrease their dependence on caregivers.
For the software to exist as a working wearable assistant, it will need a head-mounted device to latch onto. For now, the team is using Google Glass for demos like a ping pong assistant, where the programs tells the user to hit the ball to the right or left depending on the position of the ball in relation to the opponent. In the video below, when the user follows the guidance it makes it harder for the opponent to defend the ball in the game.
My Thanksgiving was one filled with texting, Snapchat, Skyping, Facetime, Beam robots and ringing phones.
Some people HATE the way technology impacts their family at gatherings — people on digital devices rather than having conversations — “making us more alone, even when we’re together.” But is that really true?
As the line between tabloid media and mainstream media becomes more diffuse, news items such as Ebola, pit bulls, Deflategate, and Donald Trump can frequently generate a cocktail of public panic, scrutiny, and scorn before the news cycle moves on to the next sensational headline. According to Robotics Expert and self-proclaimed “Robot Psychiatrist” Dr. Joanne Pransky, the same phenomenon has happened in robotics, which can shape public perception and, by extension, the future development of robots and AI.
“The challenge, since robotics is just starting to come into the mainstream, is that most of the country is ignorant. So, if you believe what you read, then I think people have a very negative and inaccurate picture (of robotics),” Pransky said. “I spend a lot of time bashing negative headlines, such as ‘ROBOT KILLS HUMAN,’ when actually the human killed himself by not following proper safety standards. A lot of things are publicized about robotics, but there’s nothing about the robot in the article. It leads people on the wrong path.”
Hedging the Negative Media
Pransky has spent much of her time trying to present an accurate depiction and provoke thoughtful discussion about robotics that separates fact from science fiction, as elaborated upon in this well-written TechRepublic article. To that end, she’s spent almost her entire career educating the public on the real issues facing robots and robotics. Showing an actual robot in action, she believes, is the best way to educate the public about the potential, and limits, of robotics.
Pransky noted that YouTube videos, such as the Boston Dynamics Big Dog robot videos, are great for presenting robotics in a positive light. Yet a similar video, showing a human kicking the BigDog robot to test its stability, can also present a negative image to the general public — that robots needs to be kicked around because they’re dangerous, unintelligent, or won’t work otherwise.
On the contrary, futuristic feature films such as “Her” and “Ex Machina”, while still presenting darker plots, are a robot psychiatrist’s dream, she added. “What is it like to have a robot live with us? And to (have that robot) be a nanny and a lover and how will it change the whole family dynamic? These things, to me, are not science fiction, they’re inevitable,” Pransky said. “Whether or not it occurs exactly the way you see it in science fiction in our lifetime is a different question. To me, it’s not a question of when… it’s happening.”
A Call for More Logic — and Empathy
The area that Pranksy believes is most misconstrued is the media’s depiction of autonomous weapons in the military. The biggest problem, she said, is that most people now believe there are completely autonomous weapons in use. What the public overlooks is, even if the military did have autonomous robots, it doesn’t necessarily mean those machines would be 100 percent unsupervised by humans in the decision-making. The larger issue, she believes are the related moral issues, which need to be discussed.
“I really believe, when it comes to humans, the most important thing is not the future of intelligence and AI, it is social intelligence and emotional intelligence. If we’re going to be working with entities that technology has merged together, how are we going to get it right with something that’s not 100% biological versus nonbiological?” she said. “I think there should be more emphasis on issues like moral laws and stages of moral development. I think that is very important in any of these discussions.”
On a broader scale, the recent concerns about uncontrolled AI expressed by Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates shined a lot of negative light on robotics, Pransky said. She recognizes Musk, Hawking and Gates as some of the top minds in the world on the topics of future AI and robotics, but notes that “they’re not sociologists or psychologists”. Given that, Pransky said the public should take their views about the future of robotics with a grain of salt.
Looking to the future, Pransky sees the need to address the public’s concerns about robotics before the industry has a “Pearl Harbor moment”. She believes that robots are still “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” for much of the general public, and thinks lawmakers need to consider how the robotics industry will develop before the urgent, last-minute need arises.
“Recently, computers stopped United Airlines on the same day it stopped the stock market and we paid attention more. It’s human nature that, unless there is something catastrophic, we don’t respond as well or as quickly, but we don’t have to be so ‘doomsday’ about it,” Pransky said. “Robotic law is a very huge deal. We absolutely need to bring laws and regulation to federal attention.”
