Political Relationships and Technological Futures
Posted by Jeriaska on September 25th, 2007
SIAI Interview Series – Jamais Cascio
The following transcript of the SIAI Interview with Jamais Cascio has not been approved by the author. Video and audio are available at the Singularity Institute website.
“Whether we talk about AI or molecular manufacturin, we may talk about them as being gadgets, nuts and bolts, we may be fascinated by the underlying circuitry, but the choices that we make about what we pursue and what we abandon, the decisions that we make about what goes into the code, and ultimately the policies that we develop around how to integrate this into society have political origins.”
Political Relationships and Technological Futures
“When will we see advanced artificial intelligence?”
There are obvious differences, in that you have faster processors and a better understanding of neural morphology and the like, but I still think that we are waiting for “a miracle happens here” breakthrough. You know, the classic cartoon, all the equations on the board and then “A miracle happens here,” you get the result. We still have not yet stumbled across what that miracle will be, which means that we could have an AI breakthrough tomorrow. We could have an AI breakthrough in fifty years. I’m not one of those people who thinks that AI is fundamentally impossible. I do however think that when we get something that we can legitimately call a machine intelligence, it will probably be very different from what even the most educated person here would expect to see. It’s going to be weird.
“Why concern ourselves now with the impacts of future technologies?”
Because preparation is always good. Because it could happen tomorrow, or more realistically, it could happen some time in the next decade. It is useful to start thinking through what the implications of developing certain kinds of intrinsically transformative technologies. It may well turn out that the kinds of arguments that we have around AI end up not really applying to what eventually emerges down the road as an intelligent self-aware machine, but turn out to be extremely useful when we are talking about the kinds of results from molecular manufacturing, or radical longevity, or any of these other kinds of technological developments that may somewhat superficially seem to be different from AI, but ultimately have similar kinds of impacts in terms of changing what it means to be human.
Something that I will be talking a bit about, and I think needs to be part of the broader conversation is the recognition that these are intrinsically political technologies. Whether we talk about AI or molecular manufacturin, we may talk about them as being gadgets, nuts and bolts, we may be fascinated by the underlying circuitry, but the choices that we make about what we pursue and what we abandon, the decisions that we make about what goes into the code, and ultimately the policies that we develop around how to integrate this into society have political origins. The more that we can make explicit the political aspects of these technologies, the better we will be able to handle the repercussions when they do eventually emerge.
“Do politics drive the development of emerging technologies?”
Drive? No. Do I think they are participants? Certainly. But politics for me is more than governance. Politics is about relationships and power. You can see political engagements happening across all spectra of society. Ultimately, when I talk about thinking about the politics of AI, I mean thinking about what kinds of changes we would see in terms of power relationships. What kinds of benefits and harm accrue to a variety of stakeholders. Not just the scientists, not just the people who run the businesses, but the people who are working and living and trying to have a regular life.
“What does a post-Singularity society look like to you?”
I would be hesitant to talk about what a post-Singularity society would look like, simply because the underlying nature of the Singularity is, you know, what the hell? But, let’s call it a post-transformation society, the society that we get after we start seeing the proliferation of these transformative technologies. The society that we get afterwards will be based upon the society that we had beforehand. That may sound like kind of a trite truism but it is really important to remember that because so often we hear that in conversations surrounding these topics – especially with the self-described transhumanist Singularitarians or however they want to call themselves this year communities – this kind of techno-determinism. Where once we get molecular manufacturing, the world will be changed because we will have democracy, or the world will be changed because of the existential risk apocalypse, ignoring the impact of the world that has led up to the development of these technologies.
The post-molecular manufacturing world will be democratized if and only if the world prior to the onset of MM has that trend already happening, if we are already moving in the direction of greater democratization. The world of post-MM will be locked down and riddled with digital rights management, or “molecular rights management…” now that’s a phrase I’m going to have to copyright. The post-MM world will be riddled with these kinds of controls if that is what the pre-MM world looks like. Realistically, we have this struggle underway, between the people who want to open up the future and the people who want to lock it down, regulate it, control it. And I want to be very clear here. I don’t mean “regulate” in terms of keeping things safe and responsible, I mean “regulate” in terms of controlling who can have access to the future and who cannot. I am very much on the side of having an open future. I would expect that most of the people here would agree with me in that regard. But I would also expect that very few of the people here have actually taken the time to think through the implications of what it means to be living in an open world or closed world today and how that will shape the course of the world after we get these kinds of transformative technologies in the hands of the people.
“Does the future scare you?”
Does the future scare me? Yes, and it thrills me and excites me. It fills me with wonder and it fills me with horror, simply because people thrill me and excite me and thrill me and fill me with horror. There’s a great line. Bruce Sterling the science fiction writer, designer, thinker, he says that the future is not a noun, it’s a verb. It’s not a destination, it’s a journey. I think the more we keep in mind that the future is something that we create and we are constantly in the process of creating, the better chance we will have of realizing that we should be conscious about what we are building and strive to build a future that we all can live in and enjoy.
“Do you support the Singularity Institute?”
I’m probably most widely recognized online as being the co-founder of WorldChaning.com, which is a website that focuses on looking at the emerging tools, models and ideas for building a better future. The focus is environmental, but really looking at the intersection of environmentalism, global development, technology, and social networks. All these different kinds of tools and concepts that really all-too-often get thought of in negative ways, but when you start looking at how they connect, you see that there is potential there for something positive. So, that’s my background. I have been thinking about the impacts of technology, the interrelationship between society and technology for a very long time. I have been a professional futurist for a good fifteen years. My observation of what the Singularity Institute does is that regardless of the nuances of how you define “Singularity,” or how aggressively you want to embrace or deny artificial intelligence, they have at their core a desire to be responsible. A desire to recognize both the risks and the benefits, and the actions that we as people do to ensure that those risks are reduced and those benefits are enhanced. I am all for that. Actually, there is a great line here. Dr. Jonas Salk, inventor of the polio vaccine, once said, the most important question we can ask is “Are we being good ancestors?” And I think the Singularity Institute is one of the handful of organizations today that has its intrinsic goal the idea of being a good ancestor.
