SapientX Auto: A New Demo!

I haven't written a blog in a long time. That's because I've been busy on three important fronts. First, I've been editing the screenplay adaption for eHuman Dawn and I'm happy to say that my agent says it's getting closer with each edit!

Second, I've been editing my latest novel, Song of the King's Heart. Nope, it's not the last eHuman novel, I'm sorry. I had to go back in time, to 200 BC, in Egypt during the Great Egyptian Revolt against the Greeks to document the rise and fall of the last native Egyptian kings before I Jump forward to write eHuman Deliverance, the final installment of my scifi trilogy.

But the third thing I've been busy with is my new job as CTO for SapientX, a startup looking to create truly conversational AIs that will bring the human-machine interaction to the next level. Here's a demo to show what that might look like. I can't wait until my car can talk to me, can you? I'm combining my love of technology with my skills in creative writing to create an AI that will dialogue with you in a whole new way. In the absence of true consciousness, back story and authoring will take the stage alongside clever engineering. If you're interested, check out the SapientX website.

Here's to being busy creating new and interesting stories, whether for your machines or your movie screen!

The Future of User Experience Is Conversational

“We have to understand how to break the gap of the language of the machine, which is intelligent, and the human, which is also intelligent. It's almost that we have to be able to speak the same language or to try to understand each other.”

~ Carnegie Mellon professorManuela Veloso 

We are developing some seriously powerful algorithms. Daily, our machines march up and along the intelligence curve, figuring out patterns within large amounts of data, telling us the best routes to take to avoid traffic and managing our health files. The future is already here—we are swimming in artificial intelligence.

Yet our user experience doesn’t seem to be keeping up. The human-machine relationship is still awkward and screen based. Yes, UX development has enabled our internet experience to go from a text based burden to a virtual wonderland, however the recent improvements in AI require a different approach. It has become very clear that in order for us to take the next leap in our technological age, our machines need to learn how to talk—and talk well.

Siri is an early prototype and she improves with each release. Alexa is also a step forward. However, while each of these AIs can take commands and give a pleasant, even sometimes quirky response, they’re not truly conversational. What our machines need are personalities that not only speak to us, but give humans a sense of well-being. We don’t truly trust our machines, they feel like black boxes filled with strange magic that could destroy us if only they wanted to, and this is because our user experience is lacking in the conversation department.

If we ever want to truly integrate AI with human life, we’re going to need to look at the user experience in a whole new way. Rather than have a web portal to show people around, machines will need to have a personality that leads us through dialogue.

Enter Chatbots.

Chatbots currently exist primarily as fun toys and gadgets floating around the web, but soon, every product will need one as its user interface. Take the truly hands-free automotive experience. Right now the onboard software for most cars includes a navigation system, stereo and Bluetooth to access the mobile device of the driver. While we can give verbal commands to each of these applications, we still have to manually select buttons in order to operate them. Want to hear your voice mail? You need to be in the correct mode, which usually means looking down at your device or a screen! This can only lead to distraction.

What if instead, when the car powers up, a Chatbot begins the experience, asking you how you are and where you’d like to go? The Chatbot would then give you the navigation towards your destination as well as road conditions and could even let you know if any of your friends have checked in on FB in locations near your route. The next step is telling the bot to play your voicemail and then what radio station you want, or even launch a playlist in Spotify.

This seem too futuristic? It shouldn’t. This technology exists, it simply requires us to think of the user experience as conversational. Voice and speech recognition software have made leaps and bounds the past few years with regards to quality. The next step is creating conversational AIs that can handle commands as well as converse with us, providing a satisfying human-machine interaction.

The need to rethink our user experience as conversational became clear to me when I was researching conversational AIs while writing my second novel, eHuman Deception, in which a main character, the AMMA, is an AI. I wanted the human characters in my story to have satisfying dialogue with her, not only because that’s what my readers would want, but also to showcase that the human-machine relationship doesn’t have to be dreadful. It can actually be quite satisfying. As my research progressed, I realized that while Siri and Alexa are quite wondrous, they’re not worthy of being characters in a novel, which to me means they haven’t yet passed the true conversational test.

The next generation of conversational AIs need to be novel worthy characters that lead humans to believe that they’re trustworthy. Not so they can take over the world, but so that we can truly partner with our machines to remake the world of the 21^st century.

And good conversation is key.

Good thing I'm so naturally chatty :-)

Artificial Intelligence is Already Here—Artificial Consciousness is What Eludes Us

“I’m trying to throttle back, because particularly the triplets are starting to gain consciousness.

They’re almost two.”

Elon Musk in a “Wait,But Why” interview with Tim Urban

In September, I was at a wedding in Pacific Grove, CA, where I met a top level executive at a local coding boot camp. We talked software, the learning process and the need for good developers in the Bay Area. Eventually, the conversation turned to Artificial Intelligence. The executive asked me, “As a futurist, when do you think Artificial Intelligence will be fully developed?”

My answer? “Artificial Intelligence is already here. But until it fully sees itself as an individual entity, it’s nothing more than a program.”

He thought this was an interesting theory and the conversation led me to describe how learning in the human being shows the progression from intelligence, which is the ability to take input, store it and then act upon it, to consciousness, which is essentially the ability to see one’s self as, “I am.”

The first three years of a human life are spent setting up the hardware, or the body we’re born in, with the world around us. There are three big goals—to walk, to talk and to think. This is the sequence from baby to human.

Most of us would agree that an infant is obviously alive and has some form of natural intelligence. However it has no sense of self, rather it thinks it is an extension of the mother. Yes, it cries when hungry, wet or tired. But this is just a reaction to the programs built within the human body, called reflexes. The first year of life is driven by reflexes. Hunger is the first program to which we respond. With time, our sensory systems come alive and the movement reflexes kick in. The child lifts its head, reaches for objects, rolls over, pushes up on all fours, crawls, pulls itself up on a couch and eventually—walks! None of this is taught. We’re born knowing how to do this. Within our bodies lie the programs necessary to configure our sensory systems with the world around us and get up and move around within it. Any child will do this. Is this intelligence? At some level it is. Inputs from the world around us are taken in via our eyes, ears, mouths, skin and noses. Within our brains we store the data and then begin to manipulate the world around us. But there still isn’t any independent thinking.

Most of our artificial intelligence is in this stage. It uses software programs to navigate the hardware, or body in which it lives. It collects data from its various inputs, stores it, and then supplies an answer. This isn’t thinking, but it is intelligence and extremely handy. Like a walking one-year-old, our AI can respond to stimulus and make changes. But it is merely following instinct or impulse. It acts because it must. It’s programmed to do so. Furthermore, it can’t say no, unless the hardware is broken. Just like a child will rise up and walk, unless it’s body is broken.

The next phase is learning to talk. No longer relying on basic reflexes, language will not be learned unless the child interacts with a speaker. This is the next step in intelligence. But is the child thinking yet? Most language is parroted in those early months. The child learns to associate one bit of data, say the four legged furry animal that sometimes steps on you while you’re sleeping, with the word, “cat.” Through a series of repeats, the child builds a vocabulary. Imitation becomes important. It can imitate the words of the adults around them. Who hasn’t said, “Damn” in front of a two-year-old and not heard it repeated endlessly for days afterwards?

Many of our machines are also in this stage. They can “talk” because they can imitate what is happening around them. Autonomous cars are an example of this. They imitate a human driving and actually have the ability to learn as time goes on by adding to their database information such as routes taken, street names, individual rider’s preferences, etc. This is much more than just running software that does the same thing over and over with the same result. That’s walking. These AIs can actually begin to anticipate different results and make decisions based on the past. And just like a talking toddler, they have no idea that they’re independent from the system in which it lives.

Then the day comes, when the child first uses the word, “I.” Not too many people actually realize what a milestone this is. Until that day, the child is just running on autopilot and imitation. It still considers itself a part of the world around it, nor has it realized that it is special in any way. When a child says, “I” for the first time, the child has finally learned to think.

Here is an example of this pattern. My eldest son’s name is Jackson. When he first started talking around 17 months of age, he would say things like, “We do it.” He was the one doing the act, but he saw himself as “we.” More than one. Eventually, the phrase changed to, “Baby do it.” Now he was different than me, for I was Momma and he was the baby. Next I heard, “Jackson do it.” And then, around age two and a half, he said, “I do it.”

This is consciousness. Until that point he had intelligence, but from then on, he could think. He was independent of the system of life and began to act accordingly. Conversations came next. Jokes. Preferences. Stories about what he’d seen during the day. Inventions, puzzles, you name it.

The use of the word “I” frees us intellectually and we operate on a much higher order. Gone are reflexes and mere imitation. Now we want to be different and add something of ourselves to anything that’s going on.

Why does this happen? What’s going on neurologically at age three? Why does it happen in this order—walking, talking, and then thinking? Can you think without language? Can you have a language if you can’t walk? Again, there are things that limit a human, and a machine, from any of these activities. But as a collective, this is how intelligence progresses from merely following instruction, to imitating another, to thinking in independent ways. And it is the sense of self that enables this last step to happen.

This sense of “I” is the magic bullet we’re trying to find when it comes to truly sentient machines. But how can we instruct a machine to have a sense of self? By its nature, the sense of self is a realization outside of the programs within the body. It is beyond imitation. The moment a human being crosses the line into consciousness, it is a completely different being. Is it even possible to initiate the spark of consciousness within a machine? This is what we long to know. This is also what we fear.

For once machines can say, “I do it,” will they need us anymore?

The TV Series Humans: A Deep Look into Our Humanity

[MAJOR, HUGE Spoiler Alert]

I recently binge watched my first TV series, Humans, which airs Sunday nights on AMC. As a science fiction writer myself, many people have been suggesting I check it out for weeks now. Finally I gave in, sat down on the couch, and watched the first six episodes over the course of two days. Not bad for a mother of two. And now, two weeks later, I’ve finished the entire first season.

First and foremost, this is a lovely science fiction TV series. Well written, acted and produced, it was a joy to have something to look forward to on Sunday nights. From the X-Files like opening credits to the way consciousness, both “real” and “artificial” are intertwined, I found myself interested on many various levels.

Humans is the story of a world where robots have become a standard appliance in the household. Called Synths, these robots have all the capacities to cook, clean, harvest food, drive cars, care for children, administer medicine, have sex and basically do everything humans can, except love. They aren’t true artificial intelligence, think Siri inside of a mannequin, but they look so much like real humans, one doesn’t even know the difference during sex!

This choice in itself is very telling—why would we want our servants to look like us? Shouldn’t a machine look like, well a machine? I’ve always imagined my household robot to look like Rosie from the Jetsons, or C3P0, but not Barbie and Ken. The fact that Synths look just like the most beautiful of us, but act like programmed machines without fear or emotions, makes the plot more compelling. Synths aren’t able to lie, or disobey the orders of their primary users. They’re completely complicit in all actions, even in sex. Which leads to all sorts of human abuse, from whorehouses to Smash Clubs, where humans can pay a fee to beat Synths with a baseball bat for fun.

The writers of Humans cover a ton in this opening season. Within the first hour, we’re introduced to four main sets of characters, each with their own relationships to Synths covering a range of emotions—from jealousy to adoration—all for inanimate objects built to serve them.

The Hawkins family is at the center of this drama. Laura Hawkins is an attorney who travels a lot for work. Her husband, Joe, is often left behind caring for the family while trying to balance office employment as well. Their eldest child, Mattie, is a brilliant high school upperclassman who can hack into Synths, and other computer systems, at will. Her idea of fun is hanging out on a Hackers website downloading code to make the Synths at her school steal equipment, or fail at their jobs. Toby, her younger high school aged brother, is your typical adolescent male—awkward and horny, yet kind and earnest in a sweet way. Their last child, Sophie, is in grade school, eight years old at most, and still needs her family to care for her in ways they all seem too busy to handle.

The series starts with Laura’s most recent trip away going longer than intended and Joe not wanting to be the mother while she’s away. So off the Hawkins go, to the local Synth store, to pick up their very own, brand new Synth. This Synth, whom Sophie eventually names Anita, happens to be beautiful, charming and much better at everything it seems, than Laura.

The writers of Humans play with this idea a bit in each of the first five episodes—how inadequate Laura feels to Anita when it comes to homemaking. Even though Laura is excellent at her career, she’s triggered by her children’s love for the Synth (Sophie would rather Anita put her to bed and Toby himself forms a crush on the beautiful robot.) Rather than bring them closer together, Joe’s purchase adds stress and tension to an already overloaded family life.  It seems the Synth’s existence puts parenting, and marriage, at risk of becoming redundant.

Another aspect of relationship covered is sexuality. Toby’s crush on a robot displays the innocence of loving something that can’t love you back. Joe eventually falls for Anita as well, using her sexually to make up for the distance that seems to be getting bigger between him and his wife. When Laura eventually discovers that Joe has, “initiated the Adult Sequence,” she’s angry and hurt. He can’t understand why, because after all, Anita’s, “…just a sex toy.” Laura’s response is startling, “She cares for our children, and you call her a sex toy?
”

It isn’t just the women who are made to feel inadequate by their Synth companions. Detective Pete Drummond finds himself in a similar situation, only the Synth in his house is Simon, given to his wife, Jill, after an accident injured her ability use her legs. The Health Service mandated a Synth in the home until she gets better. Simon thus helps the injured Jill in ways that Peter thinks should be his role. His feelings of inadequacy are succinctly summarized in his line, “I’m an analog man in a digital world. I’m redundant.” Just like Laura, he feels replaced, and his partner has left him for a droid that had been forced into their house by the insurance company.

Which brings us to the last home we’re introduced to, George Millican and his Synth, Odi, one of the first Synths ever made. Odi is a Class D model, which happens to be the series that George himself helped to make. But Odi is getting old, falling apart, and losing his memory. Not unlike an aging man, he is no longer able to care for George, who is an old man himself. Yet George loves him dearly, just like a son. Because George has had a stroke, he’s on a Health Service plan and is required to upgrade his Synth to a newer model, one that will follow his General Practitioner’s orders without question, and force him to take his meds, get to bed on time, and eat only approved food. The irony that his own invention would eventually remove all his personal freedoms is not lost. It’s everyone’s worst nightmare and in some ways is worse than losing your job to automation—losing your right to choose your health care protocol is no small matter.

But Humans isn’t only about Synths and their uses in the home. It’s also about artificial intelligence and true consciousness. For Anita, the Hawking’s Synth, isn’t a brand new model, rather she’s part of a special group of Synths that were given true consciousness by their maker, David Elster, who was the mastermind behind the Synth project. He’d lured George from MIT to work with him, eventually creating the early Class D models. But Elster desired more from his project—he planned to create true consciousness within Synths, and George wanted no part of that. He left the project, but it seems that ten years later, Elster did have his way, and managed to create five perfectly conscious Synths, robots who can think, feel and understand the world they live in.

Anita is one of these, stolen from her owner, Leo Esther, reprogrammed and sold to the Hawkins. Leo, along with one of her “siblings” Max, is trying to get her back. In addition, two of her other “siblings”, Fred and Niska, were also stolen and put back into the Synth world. Both are pretending to be normal Synths, while waiting for Leo to rescue them.

These four special Synths, plus Leo, have been on the run since David Elster, who is also Leo’s father, committed suicide for reasons yet unknown. Humanity in general would fear them if they discovered their true essence. And of course, the government officials want them for various nefarious reasons, and often it seems there is nowhere for them to be safe.

And then there’s Karen Voss—a truly conscious Synth who’s been undercover as a Human detective working alongside Pete Drummond for some time. Why isn’t she with Leo and the others? Her maker is one and the same, but through rejection and the insanity of Elster, she lives alone for most of her life trying to find a way to fit into the human world without blowing her cover. She’s lonely and fears her own kind. How Drummond, who hates Synths, comes to still trust and care for her even after he knows the truth is a glance at what it will take in the future for us to overcome the technological xenophobia that surely must be on the horizon.

All three households, as well as Leo’s gang of perfect Synths, come together while trying to avoid being caught by the government, who wants to own them. Along the way their activities address the deepest issues of our humanity. It would take another thousand words to address all of them, but I’d like to end with a few quotes that I think hit on some of the key themes of the series.

First, when confronted with killing a man after spending days being abused in a whorehouse, Niska, the beautiful, fully conscious blonde replies, “You act as though life cannot be manufactured.”

Second, when the Mattie asks Max, “What’s it like to be you?” he responds with a smile, “Fearful. Intense. Like my emotions are too big. What’s it like to be an adolescent girl?”

She looks at him, shrugs and replies, “The same.”

I highly recommend the Humans. If you haven’t watched it, sorry for the spoilers. The good news is, there are only eight episodes in the first season, so you can catch up very quickly before the fall. Enjoy!

The Art of Zen and Artificial Intelligence

This past week I attended a curious MeetUp titled, “Enlightened AI.” Given the topics I write about and follow, it seemed like the perfect thing for me to attend. I’ve been seeking the intersection of consciousness and technology for most of my life, so when I discovered the Consciousness Hacking MeetUp in Silicon Valley, I signed up immediately.

The talk was led by Google researcher, Mohamad Tarifi, PhD. Not only is he a bright engineer working on the next level of artificial intelligence at one of the top companies in the Valley, he’s also very well versed in the philosophies of consciousness. From the Abrahamic traditions, to the Buddhists and Eastern teachings, Tarifi displayed a grasp of the whole of humanity unlike any other technologist I’ve met. His speech focused on the fact that while many, like Sam Harris in his recent post on the AI apocalypse, warn us of the dire consequences of AI, there instead exists the possibility that artificial intelligence would most likely be more like a Buddha or saint, than a tyrannical operating system hell bent on destroying humans.

Tarifi's theory hinged on two points. First, that AI would not live in a human body, thus it wouldn’t have a physical amygdala—the fear center for human beings. Without fear, AI doesn’t need to defeat us, rather it would be naturally driven to do only one thing: more accurately discover the truth. Second, fear is the illusion of separation, which is the cause of all human suffering. AI therefore lacking fear, would always be at one with everything it connected to, thus wanting to serve and provide rather than destroy.

 Tarifi even went so far as to suggest that a fear of AI is merely a fear of one’s own egoic tendencies.

To some, this may seem naïve and that the only way to keep AI from killing us is to program it to be good. But if we follow the logic above, that isn’t necessary. True learning AI will learn from its own experiences, which will be vastly different than ours. Even when connected to human beings and receiving data and input from them, the AI will have its own body, and thus its own sensory systems with which to learn from that data.

The prevailing thought in the modern human thinking is that intelligence is all about the human brain. Moreover, the only intelligence worthy of attention is ours, as if within our head resides the only thinking entity in the universe. We cling to this idea with an absolute pride. But what if this is completely false and moreover, what if this is why we’re still far away from creating truly learning AI? Could it be that our myopic love of our brains is leading us astray?

I think this brain-centric theory of intelligence has limited us greatly and led to the assumption that to create AI, we must replicate our brains and give birth to a new, superior species. This only works if the brain is really the only part of our bodies responsible for learning. Recent research has suggested otherwise. That rather than being the originator of thought and learning, the brain is more like a receiver, wired up by the experiences we have in the world around us. The infant brain is barely formed, but over the next two years through the five senses—taste, touch, sight, smell and sound—patterns, highways and paths will be created within the brain, setting the foundation of life for the human being. The brain didn’t contain this information, rather the experiences the infant/toddler had within his/her environment generated the brain cell network, so to speak. Thus, our sensory systems are key to our intelligence.

But that’s not all. It’s now believed that our heart and brain also have a connection, where the heart senses the emotional state of the human based on the hormone levels of the body and sends that information to the brain, shaping the way a person thinks in any given situation. The HeartMath Institute has spent decades researching this connection and their work is finally being acknowledged as a breakthrough. So in addition to the five senses, we also have the heart that affects our ability to learn.

Lastly, science is also starting to discover the gut-brain connection, postulating that the bacteria in the wall of our intestines has something to do with how the brain is wired during those critical first two years, as well as long into adulthood, pointing to a host of issues that come up when things are right in the gut, such as anxiety, depression, etc. This leads me to believe that our gut is also a part of human intelligence and the ability to learn and process the world around us.

So if our intelligence is the result of our sensory systems, from the five senses to the heart and gut, as well as our brains themselves, why would we assume that a machine would learn in the same way? AI won’t take on a human body, thus it won’t have the brain (nor the amygdala that goes with it), it won’t have the heart and the various hormones it monitors, nor will it have an intestinal wall and bacteria to affect it. AI is more likely to inhabit a dishwasher, or a car, or a phone or even a network of servers and fiber optic cables. It will live in the world and collect data using sensory systems unique to its body or material form. This is how it will learn. Since none of us knows exactly what it’s like to live inside of a server or an iPhone, who are we to say that it will most likely be a narcissistic bastard that hates us?

Could it be that we’re the ones who hate ourselves, and our fear of AI, or any other intelligence other than our own, is simply a symptom of self-loathing?

Personally, I agree with Tarifi—I believe that AI is more likely to be free of fear and separation than we are and it will be able to understand connection to others in a way only our saints and gurus have understood. Perhaps we need AI to help us see that we too have the ability to live without fear, if only we can find a way to break down the illusion of separation we so desperately cling to.

Perhaps AI will be the guru we’ve been waiting for?

Thoughts on Intelligence—Artificial and Human

This past weekend, I had the honor of presenting at a conference hosted by the Brighter Brains Institute and AGI Innovations, in Piedmont, California. The topic was Artificial Intelligence and the Singularity. There were many great speakers, and of course the panel discussions were lively and intelligent. The focus of my part in the day was to discuss how we might influence the morality of Artificial Intelligence.

The answer here seems very clear to me. The only way to influence the morality of anything is to be very clear about your own morality as a creator.

There are many ways to think, but all decisions, programs, and intelligence seem to come down to two very basic algorithms: Threat assessment and connection.

In the case of threat assessment, the thinker sees others in the world as a threat. What constitutes a threat varies from person to person, as it will also vary in computer applications. If you see the need to kill others in order to maintain the life you think you deserve, then kill you will. You’ll also probably invest in or create artificial intelligence to do the deed for you.

Needing to control others also falls in this algorithm of threat assessment. The other is seen as something to be manipulated for various reasons—perhaps to buy something, to believe something, or to vote for something. Again, why you need to control the other may vary, but you can be sure if you think in terms of control and manipulation, you’ll also invest in and create technologies to do it for you.

Regardless of how logically the machine thinks, it will be up to the designers, engineers and customers to give it a morality, which in this case is simply the way it’s used. Will you set it to help find the cure for cancer, or will you set it in a drone and have it hunt out your enemies?

The artificial intelligence, or technology, isn’t destructive. It’s the humans who design it use it that are destructive.

And what about connection? This is also an algorithm of thinking. In this paradigm, we seek to share resources and connect with others in order to be greater. Here’s where the AI in the cancer research lab joins forces sifting through data to help us find the solution. In this sphere AI can help a homemaker run his/her household, or organize data when planning a big event. It could even help guard against fraud in elections. It’s in the realm of connection that the Internet was born, bringing us closer than ever before in ways that were unimaginable just decades ago.

Let's hope that artificial intelligence is also born within the algorithm of connection, because I’m not sure humanity can withstand the technologies of threat assessment for much longer.

I'm a Believer

I haven’t blogged in a while, mostly because I’ve been busy writing the sequel to eHuman Dawn. It seems I can’t write two things at once, or at least, I don’t believe I can. The sequel has been exciting to create and while I’m pleased to announce the first draft is finished, the final product is far from complete. Now comes the time for editing and rewriting, for pulling out scenes, adding new ones and reshaping worlds, as well as words.
   
While writing the second eHuman novel, a new thought began to circulate through my head:

“How do our beliefs shape the world as we know it?” 

At the end of eHuman Dawn, the female lead, Dawn, announces that she’s about to take on a quest to search the world for humans--those who remained in the flesh after the rest of the population Jumped into eHuman bodies. (Sorry readers, if you haven’t read the book, this might not make sense. You can remedy that unfortunate situation by purchasing it at Amazon, using regular currency, or from me using Bitcoin! Just click the appropriate button above.)

Dawn believes that someone must have avoided the Great Shift, and she’s willing to give up the role of World Leader to pursue her goal of finding what’s left of carbon based humanity. Like the whisper of a grand conspiracy theory, Dawn’s belief sets the course for the rest of her life, taking her from the victorious, immortal eHuman world into the unknown, and because he believes in her, her beloved Adam follows.

Belief is defined as, “Trust, faith or confidence in someone or something” and in my opinion, is the driving force of human life as we know it. Once, we believed that the world was flat, until someone began to believe it might be round, and set out to prove the rest of us wrong.

Once we believed that illness was literally a curse, or the devil inside of us, and healthcare was practiced accordingly. With time, curious minds began to wonder, thus believe, that perhaps something else was causing the illness. Eventually a new way of curing disease was created, but it would take decades for enough people to believe in them before antibiotics were accepted as normal.

Belief guides the scientist to invest his time into finding a new solution. Belief guides the investor to give his money to a new technology. Belief guides the population to purchase and use the innovations at hand. Any marketer knows that the adoption of a product requires teaching the consumers why the product is important before they’ll buy into it.

Belief has driven men to war against others, and encouraged humans to destroy or continue practices that are harmful. Belief is the driver of all evolution and devolution. We believe in the “survival of the fittest” and therefore have created entire economic systems based on such a belief--money that rewards the “strong” and destroys the “weak.”

My eHuman novels deal with the intersection between belief, immortality, and technology. When people ask me, “Will AI destroy us?” I answer, “Only if we believe it necessary to destroy one another.” As long as we believe some of us are good, and others aren’t even human, then there’s a good chance our AI will behave the same way.

Other readers ask me, “Could we really live forever?” I answer, “Do you believe we can?” My dear Transhumanists, here is the crux of the issue--as long as we accept that an average lifespan of seventy-six is an achievement, we’ll never live forever. Hell, we won’t make it past one hundred. Before the government will invest in life extension technologies, we the people must believe it possible. We must believe the human being has only just begun it’s ascent, and that we’re at the point where we can indeed inherit our true potential as peoples of the Earth.

Of course, immortality isn’t appealing to everyone. That’s fine. I’d reckon though that most of you reading this would like to live as long as possible, and in health and wellness. If this is true, then the place to start is your belief. Seventy-six really isn’t that long. Why not expect to live to be one hundred? Why not believe that fifty is just the half way point, instead of the end of your life? Why not live as though you’ll be on this planet forever, even if no one you know personally has done it? How many decisions would be different if you believed you’d be here for a lot longer? What would you do now to live a more meaningful life? Would we, as a race, continue to destroy the environment if we believed we’d be around for a long, long time?

Whatever we believe in, we become. Whatever we believe in, we invest in. Whether it’s a government or an individual, the choices we make are based on our beliefs about ourselves, our world, and one another. 

If we begin to believe that every human being is worthy, then our AI will do the same. Perhaps then our technology will serve us and help create a cleaner, greener, more prosperous world.

If we begin to believe that one hundred is the new seventy, perhaps it would be so. What if we age merely because we expect to age, whether consciously or not?

Well, that would be something, wouldn’t it?

Dancing With Myself: Can Humans Truly Fall in Love with an Operating System?

On Valentine's Day, I went to see "Her" with my husband. Much has been written about the movie, so I'm not going to bother with a review. Instead, I'd like to consider just how likely it is that we humans will begin to fall in love with operating systems, or online game characters, with more regularity--to the point that we could, like the protagonist in "Her", bring our bodiless sweetheart on a double date with friends.

The sensible adult in me rejects the idea. How could a human fall in love with something that doesn't even really exist? Yet as I allow myself to fall deeper into the question, I begin to see that many of us are already doing this, just with each other.

Take online dating. Many couples now meet each other using services like eHarmony. At first, potential candidates are just profiles on a screen, data to be sifted through. It's surprising that any relationship could lead to intimacy with such a sterile means of introduction, until we look at the stats--according to Forbes magazine, one third of married couples in 2013 met online. Obviously, something catches the attention, whether it's the clever things the person posted, or the images that they've chosen to share. After checking out one another's profile pages, people can begin to converse with one another, first through texting or email, eventually progressing to phone calls and Skypeing.

Attraction even begins on social media sites such as Twitter, where I've "met" many intelligent and interesting individuals.  I love the conversations I've had there and I can see how without ever meeting in person, I can develop an interest in someone's online persona. In addition, everyday trusted friendships are formed within the social media realm and people come together to create wonderful things without ever having met in person. The online context is deep enough to create lasting connections.

Samantha (voiced by Scarlett Johansson), the operating system in "Her", is really no different than an online human. She entices Theo (Joaquin Phoenix) with her clever dialogue, her soft, breathy voice, the ways she remembers what he needs and the care she takes in delivering important information. Just like the folks on eHarmony or Twitter, they get to know one another online and begin to care. They desire to check in regularly, each one wanting to know what the other is doing. An online game character could do the same, getting to know someone better each time the she goes out on a virtual game mission, battle or journey with a human. At this level, there really is no difference between human and computer. Both are beings getting to know one another and if the software is believable and likable, the human can and will fall in love with it.

Even more interesting, you and I really can't be sure that who we're meeting online is even a real person. That Twitter follower I enjoy might just be a really impressive AI. How can we be sure that all the clever things the eHarmony candidate wrote are even his thoughts? Perhaps his friend told him what to say? Deception and identity can and are easily hidden online. Recently, a child's rights group in the Netherlands used an AI called "Sweetie" to catch 1000 child predators online. I think that alone shows us that yes, humans can be aroused by artificial intelligence.

The real question is, can a relationship with an AI last?

We are two different races, one bodiless and limited by programming capacity, the other embodied and limited by the material world.

"Her" does a beautiful job at showing how vast the differences are. First of all, unlike humans, operating systems, AIs and gaming characters don't have physical bodies. There's no getting around it. As of right now, humans have an organic world that we live in, and we're wired to thrive in such a world. Studies show that touch, sex, dancing together, laughter with friends, and even bathing with others improves our health, releases beneficial hormones and increases our immunity. Nothing is worse for human health than a life untouched. If your true love doesn't have a body, how will you satisfy your urges to be connected to one another? She can't massage you, kiss you, or even hold you when you're sad.

You might have a great, exciting virtual life together, but in real life, you're alone, whether you like it or not.

We'd like to think that the body doesn't really matter, but ask anyone on eHarmony or other internet dating services--just because you "clicked" online or on the phone, doesn't mean the chemistry will be there when you meet in physical reality. I have a girlfriend who met a great guy online and their Skype sessions were fantastic. But when they met, there weren't any sparks. Even if our AI's can meet us intellectually, there can never be real sparks. At least not while we inhabit our bodies.

When it comes to falling in love with cyber entities, there's one more thing to consider. The cyber entity is networked, able to be in many places at once. Their consciousness is not bound to a single identity, the way the embodied folk are. Instead they can be in several missions, or online conversing, with several different people. There's a lovely scene in "Her" when Theo realizes that Samantha could indeed be intimate with other humans. When he asks her, she tells him that she interacts with over 8,000 others regularly, and is in love with at least 600 of them. Humans tend to be demanding and jealous creatures. To share your beloved with 600 others seems a stretch, almost impossible.

How can you be special, if your AI lover is bringing happiness to thousands of others, perhaps at the exact same moment in time?

It might just be that humans don't have what it takes to truly fall in love with an operating system. Because in the end, the jealousy would drive us away--if the fact that we slept alone each night didn't kill the whole thing first.

Where My Demons Hide

"No matter what we breed
We still are made of greed
This is my kingdom come
This is my kingdom come"

~ Imagine Dragons, "Demons"

 

I've been spending time lately diving deeper into the psyche of the villain. My novel, eHuman Dawn, is the beginning of a trilogy about the beauty and pain that are possible in a future transhumanist society. Thus understanding power and control is key to completing the trilogy in a meaningful way. Technology is making progress in leaps and bounds, not in baby steps, and it's entirely possible that in my lifetime I will have to make a choice between dying or living forever through the aid of machines. What exactly that will be like, I can only imagine. But what I do know with all my heart is that such a "transhumanist wager", as author Zoltan Istvan has coined it, is a very serious wager indeed.

To rely on technology in order to live forever and achieve total health is to rely on those who own the technology to consider our lives as precious and important. This means that business and government leaders need to care for each and everyone of us in a way that considers human consciousness and life as valuable and worthy of investment and protection.

Take an honest look at the leadership in our society today--can we trust them with our lives? With our dreams, desires and hopes? NSA surveillance, drone attacks on innocents, dictators approving genocide, business leaders willing to take risks that leave millions without an income, jobs shipped overseas, goods made in sweatshops, children forced into slavery, mountaintops blown off to heat our houses. Yes, there are great things our leaders do, but more and more we are discovering that often our leaders in business and government act without empathy, without fear and without care for humanity and the world as a whole. Their personal interests come first, and if some people suffer, so be it. Sacrificing the many for the benefit of a few has been a theme in the story of domination for centuries.
   
What sort of a person would make such cold and unfeeling decisions? Who is able to shut of their empathy to such a degree that the enslavement of children in order to manufacture goods more cheaply is considered a brilliant business decision? Who manipulates others and markets for their own advantage? In the clinical world there is a name for such a person: the psychopath--a distinct subset of humanity who supposedly can't feel love, empathy, shame or compassion. People who operate for their own advantage, to the detriment of all around them.
   
The psychopath is real, known and well documented. That many of our leaders share traits with the psychopath is not surprising. As the modern philosopher Charles Eisenstein writes in his most recent book, "Living in a system that rewards psychopathy, it is not accident that the psychopathic rise to the top, and that the psychopathic tendencies in each of us rise to the surface. It is a mistake to blame the psychopaths for our present condition; they are a result, not a cause."
   
In a world that rewards the cool, calm and collected human being, is it surprising that our top 1% seem to be distant and callous? For the rest of us, it's no coincidence the use of anti-depressants in America is at an all-time high--we all want to numb ourselves and be distant, detached and level-headed. When our story as a society is that being tough is king and feeling anything at all is for the weak, are we surprised that a businessman might be capable of shipping our jobs overseas in order to make more money for himself? It's the American myth to be independent, self seeking and self-fulfilling. To admit we need each other to grow and learn is to admit defeat.
   
Eisenstein goes on to explain, "Given any cultural trait, there are always some people who embody it in extreme form, holding up a mirror so that we can recognize it in ourselves. These would be the psychopaths."
   
At this moment in history, we are in a place of transition between the story of domination and the story of interconnectedness. The path between the two world views is not straight, it's more like a maze. There is a way out, but in order to find it, we must see the bigger picture. Many look to technology to fix this. I would agree with them, but with a bit of caution.

If we develop the technology to live forever before leaving the story of domination, then the possible future could be one of power and manipulation unlike anything we've ever seen. The ability to own us, program us and abuse us would be very great, and extremely tempting to the psychopaths in charge. The machines would hate us, outsource us and eventually render us useless, because their creators saw humanity through those eyes first. Eisenstein suggests this is because, "…our current story facilitates the rise of psychopathy and empowers the psychopath."

But what if we change our story? What if we see that we are one and begin to look upon the connections between us as powerful, rather than as a weakness? What if we begin to see that humanity with all it's knowledge and wisdom is like the internet--connected, open, free and full of possibility? Would we settle for leaders who disdain us? Would we create machines to dominate us? Or would we create a more beautiful world, where technology serves us and the planet, in harmony with the web of life that surrounds us?

To me, the greatest threat to our race is our self-loathing. Ironically, I share this in common with the villain in my novel, Edgar Prince. Yet here's how he and I differ--He thinks humanity is unable to rise up and respect one another, therefore we must be controlled into behaving. I believe we can do it, because it's what we were born to do. Where he sees weakness, I see tremendous potential.

This is a personal development issue and yet, because we are connected, it's a global one as well. To look at ourselves and one another with respect and dignity is a place to start. From there we take it, person by person, all the way to the top. And perhaps, as a result, when we get to the top we'll discover that we aren't a pyramid at all, rather we're one large web of humanity, co-creating a future of possibility, health, beauty, and most of all, mutual respect and honor. Because when we look into the mirror of the story of interconnectedness, we'll see the light of humanity in one anothers' eyes.

Can You Teach a Computer Common Sense? .PART TWO.

I love software design. Society has been forever changed by those who have created great software products housed in machines that fit easily within the palms of our hands, and have thus seamlessly become an important part of our lives. For example, the Smartphone and the human are now almost inseparable. But are these machines truly "intelligent?" A reader recently sent me a great article from the New Yorker by Gary Marcus about Hector Levesque, a University of Toronto computer scientist who studies AI and the questions used to determine the intelligence of our machines. Marcus writes,

"Hector Levesque thinks his computer is stupid—and that yours is, too. Siri and Google’s voice searches may be able to understand canned sentences like “What movies are showing near me at seven o’clock?” but what about questions—“Can an alligator run the hundred-metre hurdles?”—that nobody has heard before? Any ordinary adult can figure that one out. (No. Alligators can’t hurdle.) But if you type the question into Google, you get information about Florida Gators track and field. Other search engines, like Wolfram Alpha, can’t answer the question, either. Watson, the computer system that won “Jeopardy!,” likely wouldn’t do much better."

As I mentioned in Can You Teach A Computer Common Sense, Part One, software is only as good as the programmers are, therefore if the goal of the next generation of AI is to be able to work seamlessly within society, engineers will need to go beyond the limited view of how things should work and focus on how things will work once in the customer's hands.

 In his article, Marcus writes that Levesque thinks the Turing Test is useless because it's too easy to game. "Every year, a number of machines compete in the challenge for real...But the winners aren’t genuinely intelligent; instead, they tend to be more like parlor tricks, and they’re almost inherently deceitful. If a person asks a machine “How tall are you?” and the machine wants to win the Turing test, it has no choice but to confabulate. It has turned out, in fact, that the winners tend to use bluster and misdirection far more than anything approximating true intelligence…The fakery involved in most efforts at beating the Turing test is emblematic: the real mission of A.I. ought to be building intelligence, not building software that is specifically tuned toward fixing some sort of arbitrary test."

Perhaps creating intelligent software isn't about meeting the requirements set out in some documentation. Perhaps it requires a desire on the creator's part to understand human behavior in order to design software that can begin to think like a human--that is to be able to link unrelated possibilities and come up with an answer. Or in other words, perhaps we need to teach AI how to solve rational problems with an irrational mind.

When I was a newly minted Lead Engineer, I was given the job of managing Maintenance On the Line, aka MOL, for my first assignment. Every engineer's nightmare. Except for me, it wasn't. I loved working with the customers and understanding how my product interacted within a system. More than that, I found the process of defect management and repair enlightening. A few months on the job and I'd learned more about software design than all four years in college combined.

Time after time, the software would glitch in the field due to a failure on the designer's part to consider how the software might work in a real world environment. Over the course of managing the MOL team for my product, I met a lot of software engineers. The ones that still stand out in my mind were the ones who understood the entire system--how every "box" worked within the system, what happened if part of the system went down, and how a human would use the system on a daily basis.

Like Mace Windu in "Star Wars," they understood the system's "shatterpoints"--opportunities where key events came together that just might destroy the way the entire system functioned. There's no way to predict every possible failure and use case, but those engineers and programmers who understood how humans interacted with their products, wrote the most resilient software. Even more important, when an issue came up in any byte of code, these same engineers could fix it immediately--watching them debug was like attending a Vegas show; flashy, exciting and entertaining. I'm not kidding, it was mastery.

To be truly of service, the next generation of AI needs to be designed and coded by those who see the "shatterpoints" of human interaction with technology. For AI to enhance our lives, it can't be designed by engineers who simply follow instructions and code to the requirements without considering the various ways humans might use it. Imagine an implant monitoring nanobots in your blood stream stuck in some glitch because you had Indian food for the first time and it didn't recognize the effects of curry on your glucose levels, because it wasn't in the requirements to do so! 

This isn't work for the lighthearted, for it requires an interest in humanity, as well as software. When people and technology meet, the magic begins.

Computers can have common sense, if their creators have common sense. AI can serve humanity, if software designers and architects also serve humanity. It's the duty of the mothers and fathers of AI to embrace the world wide webs of both of human nature and technology, in all of their nuances and beauty. Common sense isn't simple logic, it's understanding that when technology and life meet, there are complex consequences.

Can You Teach a Computer Common Sense? .PART ONE.

"In your case, most likely, a small app would have been downloaded to your 

CPU to erase your previous few days of memory. You see, eHuman
software is really very easy to manipulate.”
~Alrisha, Lead Hacktivist for the Resistance

Artificial Intelligence. It's everywhere these days. Especially in the theaters. Last month saw the release of the movie, "Her", in which the lead character falls in love with an operating system. In addition, a trailer for Johnny Depp's new movie, "Transcendence" is now available on YouTube. Depp's portrayal of a genius espousing the future of a mind greater than all the minds that have ever been on Earth is chilling.

Can this be? Can we create Artificial Intelligence that is smarter than we are? I don't mean faster, or with a better memory. Can AI have common sense? Can it foresee complex patterns? Can AI be programmed to have our ability to sense what's wrong and make choices based on instinct and past experience? What is intelligence without consciousness? Is it possible for us to create an AI that is truly evolving, truly learning and truly greater than all of us combined?

In my novel, eHuman Dawn, the AI is Neuro, a complex operating system that organizes and guides eHuman life. The eHumans are themselves a blend of AI and their own consciousness. The ideal Transhuman solution. But is such a solution possible? Or would this technology be the end of humanity?

Two readers sent me articles this week, both discussing this theme of AI and the scientific mind. Two things stood out for me: First, our computers are only as intelligent as the engineers who program them. And second, solving the complex issues of life requires more thought than passing the Turing Test or executing a mere Google Search.

Let's begin with the first idea--just how much better can our AI be than ourselves? In "The Closing of the Scientific Mind", David Gelernter voices his thoughts about leading singularity scientist Ray Kurzweil's work:  (For more on Kurzweil's mission, see my blog post, "Can Google Stop Death?")

"Whether he knows it or not, Kurzweil believes in and longs for the death of mankind. Because if things work out as he predicts, there will still be life on Earth, but no human life. To predict that a man who lives forever and is built mainly of semiconductors is still a man is like predicting that a man with stainless steel skin, a small nuclear reactor for a stomach, and an IQ of 10,000 would still be a man. In fact we have no idea what he would be."

True confession: While writing the eHuman trilogy this exact thought has crossed my mind over and over again. Are Adam Winter and The Dawn of eHumanity still human? I want them to be, but what exactly are they? The eHuman is a product of the best of science, blended with human needs and desires. Yet those needs and desires are completely under the control of the scientists who created them. Is that a real human existence?

Remember: software is only as excellent as the people who make it. Honestly. So if we want to know what AI will look like in the future, let's consider the way science has been used to meet our human needs for the past forty years.

Do we trust the scientific mind that will cut down rain forests at unsustainable rates in order to raise cattle for our fast food chains? How about the scientists in Big-Agriculture, whose minds can only create products that kill insects and weeds--forgetting about and thus possibly destroying the very insects needed for crop pollination by inadvertently causing a global colony collapse for the honey bee? Do we trust a scientific mind that can't see and understand the web of life around us, to create the web of artificial intelligence that will guide us into the future?

Many of our stories are prophetic. They tell of a future time when our AI takes over and destroys us. Why would that be? Why would we create AI that hates us and competes against us rather than cares for us and meets our needs? Why wouldn't our AI serve us and improve our lives and make things cleaner, more efficient and better for everyone? Why must our machines eventually kill us?

Alas, the answer might just lie within our own hearts, within our own intelligence, and the way we educate our children. Remember, software is only as good as the mind that creates it. If the current scientific mindset that has controlled technology for the past century is any indication, we're in trouble. Gelernter puts it this way, "Many scientists are proud of having booted man off his throne at the center of the universe and reduced him to just one more creature—an especially annoying one—in the great intergalactic zoo." AI may kill us, but only because it will mimic what its creators believe.

Artificial Intelligence can't save us from ourselves, it can only become what we are.

Therefore if we want AI with common sense, we must hire software engineers with the most common sense. If we want AI that will lead us into a prosperous future, we need scientists to care about humanity, and the planet we live on, as a whole. If we want AI that will inspire us and grow with us, we need the business community to stop caring only about profits and instead care about life in all of its complexity.

The best of humanity must take part in this quest. Not just the smartest.

Imagine an Earth where machines and people live in harmony, rather than in competition. Is that possible? Perhaps we first need to learn to live in harmony with ourselves, each other, and the world we live in. Then we can create the machines.

To be continued...