Dialog with Rick Moss: “Social Singularity” Tuesday, May 10 2011 

This is a dialog that grew out of an email conversation with Rick Moss, author of the recent book Ebocloud, which explores futuristic social networks combined with brain-computer interface technology. I find the topic interesting and am curious about work in this area.

Rick Moss:

Michael, here’s our question: Could a Social Singularity occur? You’re thinking, without a respectable definition of the term, what’s the point of asking? Granted, the usage of Social Singularity found out there is rather arbitrary. Mostly, it seems bloggers are tossing it around in an attempt to sex-up concepts like crowdsourcing and the “hive mind” without any sense of responsibility.

So I’d like to (humbly) offer up a reasonable definition based on ideas I stumbled into when writing my recently published novel, Ebocloud. I think it’s worth going through the exercise, and here’s why: a Social Singularity might very well be a heck of a lot more favorable to the human race than a plain old Singularity. Stay tuned to learn why.

As we all know, a Singularity is a technological mash-up that results in smarter-than-human intelligence. Unfortunately, the physical limitations of human gray matter tends to be the spoiler for Singularity theories that count on making people part of that smarter-than-thou equation. Neurons can only transmit electrochemical signals so quickly and they can’t multiply geometrically in the brain like computing power (as per Moore’s Law). That makes it more likely that the self-learning computers will win the ultimate Singularity Jeopardy match. Kind of scary.

In my Social Singularity theory, corporeal limitations don’t go away. In fact, they’re embraced. Let’s get into it.

For a Social Singularity to occur, I see certain conditions that will need to be met. The first: human minds—and a lot of them—will need to be networked to a very powerful computer network (let’s call it a cloud, since that’s the configuration of choice these days), presumably by way of brain computer interfaces, or BCIs. (This is the way it’s done in Ebocloud, details to come.) The objective of the human-cloud collective is to facilitate a feedback loop whereby human sensory data and biometrics are uploaded to the cloud to be aggregated, analyzed and used in various applications, then redistributed back to the human participants.

No, human nervous systems are not geared for data-intensive, multi-media input and output, so in my scenario, the cloud applications must be content with collecting small amounts of data from the humans (wirelessly transmitted to the cloud). And whatever information is sent back to the people must be in small, relatively modest packages.

Michael, we’ll get back to the big Social Singularity question, but based on what I’ve told you so far, can you imagine applications hosted on a cloud network that could be used by thousands of wirelessly networked human participants? Given their physical limitations, what if any potential do you see?

Michael Anissimov: What resolution? The resolution of sensory data and biometrics really matters. In a certain sense the internet already exchanges sensory data and biometrics so you’re being too vague here for me to say anything.

Ever heard of Quantified Self? They are doing this now. It’s written about in one of the most popular books on Amazon, “The Four-Hour Body” by Tim Ferriss. So in its mild form it already exists, not really futuristic because it’s already here…. but you probably mean something else.

RM: Yes, definitely something else. The Quantified Self movement is self-centered, whereas the applications I’d like to explore here would be for the general benefit of the species. Yes, Mr. Ferriss is selling a lot of books promising to “prevent fat gain while bingeing” and “produce 15-minute female orgasms” (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Ebocloud offers a glimpse of a possible evolutionary step for humankind. (How could it possibly compete in book sales?)

But to answer your question, Mr. Ferriss recommends such self-biometrics as weighing your own feces. You’re the scientist; I’m just the crackpot sci-fi author, but I’d say we’re looking to go lower res than that. Let me fill in some more details.

In Ebocloud, the massive humanitarian social network of the title is distinguished from rivals (i.e., Facebook) by its emphasis on physical-world interaction. And so the founding scientists want to augment the experience with a wearable interface that will allow users to sense the presence of their fellow members and work with them in close coordination. What they come up with is a BCI called a dToo (digital tattoo). Laser-bonded in substrate layers to the skin on the inner wrist, the device incorporates wireless technology to connect with “the cloud” and integrated circuitry bonded to the nervous system by way of nanotubes that seek out nerve endings. (It’s sci-fi…just go with it.)

After the dToo is applied, a map is made of the subject’s nervous system and two-way communication, at a rudimentary level, is established. And yet it’s quickly proven that when accurately administered, simple impulses sent to the minds of participants in a group can be used to great affect. Minor sensory stimulation coupled with neurotransmitter (e.g. dopamine) triggers indicates the presence and relative position of others in the network. Apps are developed to coordinate group movement so that work relief activities and arts projects take on super-human grace and efficiency. Essentially now an extension of the cloud network, the users begin to experience occurrences of spontaneous orchestrated movement analogous to herd behavior. (Picture schools of fish shifting in undulating rhythms.)

So Michael, given that we’re in the realm of speculative fiction, this is all highly … well, speculative, but yes… the challenge is working with low res information but administered to hundreds of thousands of participants. Do you begin to see possibilities?

Michael Anissimov: The Quantified Self movement is not at all based just around the individual, the whole point of recording the data is so that people can share it, compare their progress, and notice high-level generalities that would have been obscured if it weren’t for the recording. Also, I’m not a scientist, just a science writer.

The idea of a “digital tattoo” connected to brain-stimulating and brain-computer interfacing nanotubes is interesting, but wouldn’t it be easier to just have the tattoo on the head instead of the wrist? Anyway, sure, I see possibilities in this area — probably more scary ones than positive ones, because people already seem socially conformist enough, but I’m not sure. The first obvious beneficial application that comes to mind is the military.

Why would this work better with the military than in more a popular culture context? A couple reasons; 1) the military lives and works together exclusively, while civilians wander around between schools, work, yoga class, cycling club, etc. The idea of a select group of people binding together at the exclusion of all other people, like a cult, would be too socially shocking to take off very easily at first, 2) the military has more of a need for social cohesion and organization than civilians. Civilians do things casually, and generally are forgiven for small mental mistakes at work, whereas in the military, accurate coordination and communication is a matter of life or death.

Another fundamental limitation is the family unit. People are genetically programmed to place their family above other forms of social organization, in almost all cases. Non-familial, non-traditional forms of societal organization are often viewed with suspicion. That’s not to say that they don’t exist. Certainly there is the counterculture. This leads me to think that this system would be more likely to be adopted by countercultural groups, possibly with extremist goals. Why? Not because the technology is inherently sinister, but just because extremist groups have the desire to cooperate and communicate more effectively with a group, and most everyday folks do not. Many people already feel overbearing control at work — a digital tattoo that magnified that, in a work context, would clearly be unwelcome.

In a more positive context, I can certainly see artistic or cultural collectives using the technology to augment traditional activities such as theater and dance.

RM: Yes, I agree you need a terrifically strong social construct for the Social Singularity to occur and also that traditional groups aren’t at all idea. We might look to tap the power of online social networking but, unlike Facebook and such, there needs to be a driving sense of purpose. That’s what the ebocloud.com invention is all about. The ebocloud adherents are highly motivated to a) help themselves and their families, b) help their fellow members in the network and, c) improve the world (most likely but not necessarily in that order).

Ebocloud.com is based on an extended family concept first floated by Kurt Vonnegut back in the early ‘70s when he was inspired by the Ebo tribal culture of Nigeria. New ebocloud members are profiled and assigned to tribes, or “ebos”, each providing a mutual support system for “ebo cousins.” The sprawling cloud network is set on an open source app platform so members can organize ebo activities, running the gamut from neighborhood work parties, arts programs and pot-luck dinners to disaster relief efforts.

Ebocloud.com is a democratic, bottom-up organization, awarding “Kar-merits” to members for their altruistic efforts­—merit points they can draw on when they are themselves in need. The member devotion to ebocloud becomes cult-like, yes, but the founders build in checks and balances against individuals assuming power over the general will of the membership.

The ebos (each named for a different wildflower) are spread across the globe but work face-to-face within communities. At a point, the “cousins” take to tattooing their wrists with their wildflower insignias so they can recognize each other in public. Acknowledging “ebo-ink” becomes an important ritual. That’s why the ebocloud scientists go for a digital tattoo on the wrist, to mimic the social convention that has been adopted by the cousins.

It’s a fictional scenario, of course, in which all the pieces fall into place, resulting in a Social Singularity. I’m not asking if it would happen this way in reality, but if it perhaps suggests a formula by which one might occur.

MA: I’d agree more broadly that something like this could occur in the 2020s or 2030s if people formed groups around topics they thought were most compelling. Religious groups, like Christian, Jewish, or Islamic groupings, come to mind.

The most important thing about the Singularity is creating a transhuman intelligence. You can only go so far with combinations of humans, whatever superficial flourishes you put on them, be it a digital tattoo, karma points, or whatever. In retrospect a “Social Singularity” would more likely be seen as an ambient dynamic contributing to some specialist actually doing the neuroengineering or AI research necessary to launch a real Singularity. In retrospect, it will be the neuroengineering or AI that was seen as being the most crucial feature, not the social nature of the group that that spawned it.

I think the idea is interesting, but more like a pre-Singularity social phenomena, a “hyper-Facebook”, than anything else. It seems like the general human desire for socialization stays about the same, distributed in a bell curve, and isn’t heavily impacted by technology. The existence of Facebook did not necessarily make everyone hyper-social. Highly social people use it to socialize extensively, and those who aren’t very social to begin with don’t use it for that purpose.

If you’re talking about something with direct connections to the pleasure center of the brain, I would certainly call that neuroengineering, but unless the device is actually improving the quality of the information being processed, you still have the same old stupid humans. Hooking humans up to each other and hooking them up to drugs has already been done, but the scenario you describe does make it deeper. Maybe something like an ebocloud will herald a repeat of the 1970s. I think whether or not such a technology catches on will depend on the vibe of the era. The 1980s, for instance, were highly individualistic while the 1970s were communal.

RM: As the hypothesis is presented in Ebocloud, there is a distinct opportunity to, as you say, “improve the quality of the information being processed.” The transhuman superintelligence is achieved as “the cloud” network gains access to the sensory input of millions of dToo-bearing people. Imagine the network of supercomputers gathering stimuli from the sight, hearing and physical sensations of the tens of thousands attending a stadium event, aggregating it along with third party data, “stitching” it all together into a “vision” of the event, then feeding that unimaginably rich sensory experience back to the audience. And then, imagine these augmented human perceptions uploaded again to the cloud. It is in this feedback loop that I see the possibility of a singularity spontaneously occurring, but of course, only if the software designers are up to the task of channeling the resulting confluence of human/computer intelligence into something constructive or artistic. Otherwise, it’ll be noise multiplied geometrically.

In the Ebocloud scenario, I see social networking as integral to the achievement of a singularity, not as some precursor to such. Although I agree with your thinking that the technology’s adoption may depend on the “vibe of the era,” I see market forces being much equally influential. I expect that commercial social media firms will be flush with extra cash for R&D in the next ten years, as will the developers of personal digital devices and BCIs. The likes of Apple, Google and Facebook, with their billions to burn on wild-eyed notions, could very likely spur technological leaps in these areas. It would be nice if these developers were at least aware of the possibility of a social singularity so that they don’t stumble into the phenomenon blindly. That could be tragic.

John Baez Interviews Eliezer Yudkowsky Wednesday, Mar 9 2011 

From Azimuth, blog of mathematical physicist John Baez (author of the Crackpot Index):

This week I’ll start an interview with Eliezer Yudkowsky, who works at an institute he helped found: the Singularity Institute of Artificial Intelligence.

While many believe that global warming or peak oil are the biggest dangers facing humanity, Yudkowsky is more concerned about risks inherent in the accelerating development of technology. There are different scenarios one can imagine, but a bunch tend to get lumped under the general heading of a technological singularity. Instead of trying to explain this idea in all its variations, let me rapidly sketch its history and point you to some reading material. Then, on with the interview!

Continue.

Interview with New Humanity+ Program Director Tom McCabe: “The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number” Wednesday, Oct 20 2010 

Tom McCabe, a long-time friend and associate of mine, recently did an interview with h+ magazine. He will also be on FastForward Radio tonight at 7PM PST/10PM EST. Tom is promoting an upcoming conference, Humanity+ @ Caltech, which will be held December 4-5 in Pasadena, CA. I wish I would go, but unfortunately the dates conflict with my presentation at the Society for Risk Analysis conference in Salt Lake City. I hope everyone has a great conference there at Caltech!

Simplified Humanism, Positive Futurism & How to Prevent the Universe From Being Turned Into Paper Clips Tuesday, Jul 20 2010 

I recently interviewed Eliezer Yudkowsky for the reboot of h+ magazine, which is scaling down from being a magazine into a community blog of sorts.

The interview is a good primer for what the Singularity Institute is about and the basic rationales behind some of our research choices, like focusing on decision theory. This is a good interview to read especially for those not entirely familiar with the research of the Singularity Institute. It can also be used to promote the Singularity Summit, so please share the link!

Here are the questions I asked Eliezer:

1. Hi Eliezer. What do you do at the Singularity Institute?
2. What are you going to talk about this time at Singularity Summit?
3. Some people consider “rationality” to be an uptight and boring intellectual quality to have, indicative of a lack of spontaneity, for instance. Does your definition of “rationality” match the common definition, or is it something else? Why should we bother to be rational?
4. In your recent work over the last few years, you’ve chosen to focus on decision theory, which seems to be a substantially different approach than much of the Artificial Intelligence mainstream, which seems to be more interested in machine learning, expert systems, neural nets, Bayes nets, and the like. Why decision theory?
5. What do you mean by Friendly AI?
6. What makes you think it would be possible to program an AI that can self-modify and would still retain its original desires? Why would we even want such an AI?
7. How does your rationality writing relate to your Artificial Intelligence work?
8. The Singularity Institute turned ten years old in June. Has the organization grown in the way you envisioned it would since its founding? Are you happy with where the Institute is today?

David Orban Interviews Béla Nagy on Quantitative Futurism Monday, Sep 21 2009 

Béla Nagy will be among the speakers at the upcoming Singularity Summit 2009 in New York.

Interview with Dr. Steel Wednesday, Aug 13 2008 

Dr. Phineas Waldolf Steel is a mentally twisted but awe-inspiring figure whose interests span the production of propaganda, the construction of chronically malfunctioning robots, puppet shows, and an ongoing attempt to become World Emperor for the purpose of turning this planet into a Utopian Playland. His growing movement aims to move beyond conflict and war to forge a world that makes fun the top priority. His multi-faceted persona is an example of what people can do when they are highly creative in a variety of cultural areas.

Dr. Steel is an entertainer, leader, musician, artist, and thinker. If you’re interested in finding out more about him, check out his website. The laboratory in the toyland section is particularly entertaining. As an independent artist, Dr. Steel hasn’t sold out to any record companies yet, though I’m sure that he would accept a big contract if it were part of his master plan for world domination. His music has been described as “hip-hop industrial opera”, which is correct in the abstract, though I’d also add “experimental”. Imagine nerdcore intermixed with assorted sampling, nutty beatboxing, guitars, reed instruments, choirs, and an accordion.

Dr. Steel is no stranger to transhumanism, as you’ll see in our interview. He has written songs called “Build the Robots” and “The Singularity” that serve as his odes to all things robotic and post-biological. You can get the mp3s from his latest album here, or all three here. Dr. Steel is one among a growing group of transhumanist musicians and artists.

In a world of pre-packaged, corporatized, formula-driven entertainment, I find Dr. Steel to be refreshingly different and rebellious. I was so intrigued by his self-presentation and approach to the world that I had to sit down and ask him a few questions. They begin below the image.

Accelerating Future (AF): Dr. Steel, have you heard of transhumanism? Do you consider yourself a transhumanist?

STEEL: Absolutely, I do consider myself a transhumanist. The desire to transcend biology, as Ray Kurzweil is known for saying, remains at the forefront of my consciousness. I am frequently frustrated with the limitations of my current, physical form and I foresee great possibilities as we evolve into electronic life.

AF: Some of us think that the fastest way to get really useful robots is to build an artificial intelligence that designs these robots for us. Given your checkered past in robot development, have you considered this option?

STEEL: Indeed, there will come a time when artificial super intelligence will be able to out-think and out-perform us. To see “the robots building robots building robots” is one way of refining the evolution and development of technology based life. However, I am most interested in integrating our consciousness into this technology. To be able to back-up one’s brain and utilize this as the basis of such creations will allow us to integrate ourselves into the next step of existence. Our creativity is our greatest power, and in fact this is what I believe the true purpose of the universe is; to create. Humans have been able to harness this ability in unique ways and to build upon that by upgrading ourselves will be the key to moving into a new field of infinite possibilities.

AF: In your video of robotics you mention nanotechnology. If you could use advanced futuristic nanobots for one application, what would it be?

STEEL: Oh goodness, there are so many possibilities. Though, for the fun factor I would have to go with the use of foglets. These clusters of nanobots programmed to manifest in their designated form could prove very useful indeed. Be it the replication of a Tyrannosaurus Rex or a very comfortable arm chair, foglets could provide hours of maniacal entertainment.

AF: One of the biggest challenges of space travel would be isolation from the bulk of society and absence of an Internet connection. What would you do to amuse yourself on a long journey through space?

STEEL: It’s interesting, what you describe as a challenge reads a bit like a vacation in my book. I would, however, require a great deal of reading and writing material. Such a journey would certainly give me the time to complete my illustrated manifesto….oh, and I would need an accordion as well.

AF: Even among those of us that are obsessed with the amazing potential of artificial intelligence and the coming Singularity, we are concerned about mankind being destroyed by AIs gone wrong. Is there anything we can do to avoid this negative outcome?

STEEL: It seems to me that if mankind successfully creates something that ends up wiping out the entire species, then we deserve such a demise. There is always a way to overcome a problem and it is this sort of creative thinking that makes us so very special. If we are not up to the task, then evolution has passed us by and electronic life would then inherit the Earth. It’s also important to remember that when being chased by a robot, it’s best to keep a garden hose and a bucket of magnets handy.

AF: With achievements in art, video, music, philosophy, and complete insanity, you have shattered the traditional boundaries of creativity, expression, and existence in general. Is there any way for us to become as awesome as you, Dr. Steel?

STEEL: Why thank you ever so much for the tremendous compliment. I must assure you, however, that I am but a simple carbon life form. Until I am able to transcend biology, I hold no more potential than any other human on the planet. Let us all reach beyond our grasp to obtain the title of “awesome”.

Peter Thiel on X-Risks, Singularity, H+ Thursday, May 1 2008 

Interview with Ron Bailey at Reason. This is from last September. Excerpt:

Reason: Why are you supporting the Singularity Institute?

Thiel: I think it’s a group of really smart people working on an important problem. I think that the basic rule on philanthropy that I have is that I want to donate money to causes that are worthwhile but where there are no market-based mechanisms for them. There is a category of things that would benefit all of humanity but where the benefits are very diffuse and the costs are concentrated. Maybe it’s very long-term. So I focused my philanthropy on things with a 20-, 30-, 40-year horizon. The horizons are too long for a for-profit company to take advantage of, and the government and universities are not pushing things because maybe it’s too unconventional or it doesn’t easily fit into a particular political agenda or vision of the future. Those areas are probably systematically underfunded. It may be the only area of philanthropy that’s underfunded.

Continue.

Michael Anissimov on Immortality Update Sunday, Apr 27 2008 



This is ImmInst’s weekly streaming video show, with Justin Loew. I just did this interview about an hour ago. Topics covered: upcoming conference in the Bay Area, Lifeboat Foundation, economic and feasibility benefits of AGI, the word “Singularity” losing all meaning, immortalist strategy, etc. There is some audio static, but it gets better a little later on. I start talking around 6:40. Show length: 1 hour. On the unFriendly AI topic: I should’ve focused more on my actual answer, which is that the risk of UFAI is serious, but instead I answered, “what about people’s objections to AI leading to regulation against it?” I take the former seriously, but not the latter.

Summary of Recent Interviews Wednesday, Mar 26 2008 

I have given six interviews in the last year. All are audio except for the most recent.

Changesurfer Radio – May 5, 2007
Existential risks, AI, genetic engineering and space exploration

The RU Sirius Show – May 6, 2007
Immortality or Oblivion?
Give me immortality or give me death!

Podcasting the Singularity – September 18, 2007
A conversation with Michael Anissimov

The Future and You – March 5, 2008
March 5 episode: Michael Anissimov

FastForward Radio – March 16, 2008
Conversation with Michael Anissimov

Future Blogger – March 24, 2008
Interview: Michael Anissimov

Interview with Future Blogger Tuesday, Mar 25 2008 

My interview from yesterday with Future Blogger is here. A shorter summary of some issues in the interview and my highlights for the next ten years are here. First question:

V: What do you do and how is that related to the future?

MA: I am a blogger, fundraising director for the Lifeboat Foundation (LF), a director of the World Transhumanist Association (WTA) and a science/tech writer. All of these are related to futurism – my blog discusses futurist issues, the LF looks at future risks, and the WTA represents the futurist philosophy of transhumanism. As a science/tech writer, I do some writing about the latest technologies and materials, like carbon nanofoam or hypersonic flight, but equally enjoy writing about the frontiers of the sciences like paleontology, astronomy, and biology. Not everything I do relates to futurism, but much of it does.

Continue.

Michael Anissimov on FastForward Radio Monday, Mar 17 2008 

Last night I talked to Phil Bowermaster and Stephen Gordon on FastForward Radio. These guys are really fun and totally comfortable on the air. This was a long interview — I was on the phone for an hour and 15 minutes! (Although I only talk with them for a little under an hour.) If you want to hear me yakking it up, this is the place to do it.

Topics discussed included the relationship between Cosmicism and Transhumanism, my opinion of Dale Carrico’s critique of transhumanism, politics in transhumanism, Eliezer Yudkowsky’s “Transhumanism as Simplified Humanism”, nanobots vs. nanofactories, what I think will happen after the Singularity, mentioned the new AI Panic blog, and said which approaches I think might give rise to Artificial Intelligence. At the end I give a pitch for listeners to donate to the Lifeboat Foundation.

Also: this is the 500th post on Accelerating Future!

The Future and You Interview Tuesday, Mar 11 2008 

Recently I talked to Stephen Euin Cobb of The Future and You. The 71-minute mp3 is here. Past interviewees have included sci-fi authors Greg Bear and Vernor Vinge, senator John McCain, and our friends Aubrey de Grey and George Dvorsky.

If you are a writer or producer for a popular website, TV show, podcast, or magazine, and would like to interview me, send an email.

Episode summary:

“Michael Anissimov, the well known futurist, blogger and transhumanism activist is today’s featured guest.

Michael talks about many future-oriented topics such as: transhumanism and the singularity; cryonics and Paris Hilton; solar power verses nuclear power; synthetic biology and Craig Venter’s new artificial organism; and his own involvement with the founding of the Immortality Institute.

The Immortality Institute is a life extension activist organization that today includes hundreds of paying members and an active online community. Michael was one of its co-founders though he was still in High School at the time.

Currently Michael is the Lifeboat Foundation’s fundraising Director for North America; He is very much involved with the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology; and was recently voted to join the board of the World Transhumanist Association.

Hosted by Stephen Euin Cobb, this is the March 5, 2008 episode of The Future And You.

In this interview Michael expresses his enthusiasm about the ongoing revitalization of the World Transhumanist Association, which includes the new webzine being put together by R. U. Sirius.

He also discuses two technologies he feels could have a radical destabilizing effect on the world once they reach a certain threshold–which they may do within 20 years. These technologies are molecular nanotechnology (MNT) and Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). While their potential benefits are great, if not handled with extreme caution, he feels these technologies could cause disaster.

He also describes the trends he sees going on within the transhumanist movement today, and how he expects these trends to play out during the next few years. For example, he sees that the general public is beginning to warm up to transhumanist ideas thanks to movies and TV; but that there is still a lot of fear of transhumanism among the religious right. He agrees that there are a lot of closet transhumanists who haven’t come out yet. But he also says the new transhumanists seem to be of all ages, not just young people. He sees the next few years as a time of much greater acceptance of the transhumanist ideas and idealism.

Michael is a science and technology writer and consultant based in San Francisco. He has given talks on futurist issues at seminars and conferences in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, San Francisco, and at Yale University. His blog (acceleratingfuture.com) has become one of the primary focal points within the futurist community, including the communities of transhumanists and singularitarians. His blog features his own writings, the writings of others, as well as many important links to other sources of information about the future.”

Next Page »