| Home Forums Library Media Gallery Glossary Links |
 |
Imagine you have running on your computer a small piece of code, even something as small as 1 kilobyte. Consider this small program a node. Imagine this node in turn generates output data that is based on two things - the first being determined by the specific algorithm its running and the second the data it receives at any one instant from hundreds or thousands of similar nodes elsewhere on the network (i.e. nodes running on other peoples computers). Imagine still further that all of these nodes, potentially hundreds of millions of them around the world, are all running and communicating with each other at light speed, and at increasingly faster speeds, based on available idle cpu time. At first you might compare such a scheme to SETI@home or other similar grid computing projects. The difference here though is that unlike grid computing projects, these nodes have no central controlling authority. This is important, just as the brain has no central controlling neuron or clusters of neurons.
The next question is what happens next? I'm not entirely sure, but the possibilities are both compelling and disturbing. First of all, it would depend on exactly how the seed node was created and instructed. What if it was given the simplest of rules, just like basic cellular automata that Stephen Wolfram describes? In this case, we would have no idea what evolve until it was released and ran through potentially quadrillions of massively interacting iterations. However, unlike basic cellular automata which occur on 2D or 3D grids, this p2p node system would, like the human brain, interact with tens of thousands of potential "neighbor" nodes. Further, these nodes would not just interact based on locality (latency times), but on semantic connections as well. The possibilities for experimentation here are endless, and even risky. Why risky? Because the level of complexity this p2p node network could achieve would be astounding, possibly exceeding the complexity of the human brain by orders of magnitude. It would represent a major advance over traditional neural networks (like the human brain) because connections would be made based on any definable means whatsoever, rather than on neurochemical convenience or traditional computer architectural constraint. The constraints would be more software than hardware based. And since computers are general computing platforms, such software constraints may not exist as we currently know them, since this type of informational exchange would exceed and surprise the person(s) who created the original seed node in the first place.
What this would essentially represent is a totally decentralized, out of control seed based cellular automata intelligence.
To me it seems the creation of such a thing would be totally reckless. Who is to say someone hasn't already done something like this? Who is to say that right now, running on your computer is some trojan node doing just such a thing?
Amazingly enough, what I have just describe would be one of the simplest possible implementations, and yet it is quite possible the end result of it running long enough could be some kind of super-intelligence. In other words, there might be a superintelligence running on the internet right now. One of many problems with this type of superintelligence is it emerged based on totally self-referential internal feedback. Nowhere in the scheme were humans, or the human world even taken into consideration. Quite possibly this type superintelligence, assuming it could evolve from the above scheme, would have no idea that humans even exist. It would by all definitions be an alien intelligence in every way that counts.
Ok, now lets start this experiment over, except this time we take a great deal more care about how its created and implemented, starting with the first node. What if we created a node that was general purpose enough, but with the specific goal reflected as much as possible the needs and wants of every participant on the network. A kind of avatar or virtual assistant that learned from everything you say and do. Obviously creating such an avatar would depend on the level of software advancements currently available. Lets assume we created this node today with the best minds in the world creating the best possible virtual avatar that we can. This though is only half the problem. The other half is how to these virtual avatars (smart nodes) interact with all the others. It seems that there would be a nearly endless number of semantic levels in which they could communicate. What if instead we created these avatars as basic "blanks" in which each human user defined them as they went along? More importantly they are open-sourced so that the best minds could continue to offer plug-in modules that enhanced these avatars in different ways. This way the marketplace of supply and demand of human needs would determine the courses, pathways and options these avatars took.
Meanwhile, why all these millions of avatars are running, even duplicating themselves, and intermingling at hyper-speeds all around the network, communicating with millions of other avatars, carrying on complex and subtle negotiations on your behalf, and in turn modifying themselves as they go along, what then do we get? Would we get a superintelligence from this as well? And if so, what kind of superintelligence would emerge? Interestingly such a superintelligence would likely be far more reflective of all of us. In a sense this new emergent superintelligence would be us. No longer would it simply be the amorphous global brain of all of us talking, but an actual instantiating global superintelligence that continually learns and improves upon itself based on constant human input.
One possibility of course is that someone or group of someone’s could modify their avatars to subvert the system towards less democratic means, in which their avatars, like agent Smith, takes over every one else’s. Who is to say what would happen then.
As you can see, I have no easy answers to how all of this could evolve, but the possibilities of p2p superintelligences seem to be much closer than I previously realized, for good or ill. One thing is for sure, the more open sourced it is the more resiliant it becomes to malicious tampering. The question then is what can we do to create the most friendly p2p SI possible? Eliezer Yodkowsky has his own ideas, and I'm pretty sure they are not p2p based. I would be very interested in getting comments from working members of the Singularity Institute on this.
Related:
Peer-to-Peer Games
Peer-to-Peer Virtual Culture
Over the last few months I've been getting more and more blown away about what is happening on the internet. I can trace this back to my time in San Francisco in May. Mark Pesce and John Gilmore, two if there ever was some of the most distinguished internet celebrities, were at Mind States. They were kind enough to spend time with me, so I asked them a simple question - "Will the internet be locked down, now or at some point in the future?". They both laughed at me, as gods might do, but they looked at my innocence and said, "where have you been? The genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to put it back in!". "What about hardware?," I asked John, and he said, "It's just another machine running on code. Therefore it's software too, and software can be hacked!". Ah ha! I finally got it, silly me. And then, as quickly as it started, the gods resumed their more important conversation on things beyond the comprehension of a mere mortal like myself.
So I had an epiphany today, finally, about what this all meant on a practical and technical level. Well, right now we have a ton of highly successful p2p networks, programs and clients readily and freely available to download whenever you want. They are almost, if not impossible to censor or stop. The joke is on them, and all of this mea culpa from developers and companies is just lip service. They are playing the game to stay in business. They know their business model, like everyone else's is threatened by all of this, they're just not telling you, because they still need your money.
So basically, this means that the moment a company announces a new hardware or DRM implementation or system, even global wide re-standardazition or downright government and/or UN mandate backed by billions of dollars to censor the internet, WILL FAIL. They will fail because the moment they try to implement such a system, all it takes is a few hours from some clever 16yr old to code around it. Immediately the code is available on the internet, and within hours thousdands if not millions of copies will have been distributed. Before the control system could ever be in place, there will already be two steps ahead of them in releasing a work-around. Then the moment they try to block that code escape, more software is released on the then most robust p2p system, and around and around we go, except the hole to freedom keeps getting wider, because the pace of developing a 10 line program is a million times faster than the thousands of lines and thousands of hours to convert the internet over. So any attempts to shut down, block and censor the internet will become all the more pathetic and wasting. The sooner all of these companies, systems and governments of the world accept the reality the better off we'll all be. Whining about it will prove useless. It's kind of like people whining because cars and telephones came around, but they came anyway, because having one gave you such an advantage over not having one.
The same is true today for the internet. Having a free and open interenet is much more powerful and liberating that not having one. What does this mean for capital? Well it will become liberated too. Not in some weird right-wing Ayn Randian Extropian hell, but liberated from control. There will be no control of capital, which means the richest man in the world will have no more real power than anyone else. Because this capital freed by the network itself will be totally frictionless, fast and unstoppable, therefore making everyone rich. No more corporate control and wage slavery. Say hello to the leisure society. Of course the rich folk are all freaked out about this, because they are still addicted to being at the top. If everyone was as rich as they were, then what would make them special? Those poor unfortunate bastards who made money their goal and tied it around their self-esteem, as is happens in modern american capitalism, are in for the biggest ego deflation of all. If they are special because of their money, and since they spent ALL OF THEIR TIME earning that money, they have nothing else to show for it.
Oh well. It's not a matter of liking or disliking this scenario. It's inevitable. I realized it a few years ago, and so I now devote all my time to spreading as much joy and happiness in the world as possible.
Much love to all of you all for sticking through and supporting this site.
Paul
I know I've started a bit of a shitstorm with my optimistic posts. I really do understand, and feel the pain you might be feeling with the current state of the world. I'm not afraid to tell you that I have had many restless nights and stressful, and even tear-filled moments, at how despairing it can become. But I am at a point now, that optimism is the most productive and healthy option. So be good to yourself and give it a whirl. As Chris Arkenberg once told me, we really are in the final war between the forces of history that have kept humanity down throughout the ages, and the forces of liberation that are finally breaking free. This war is not about weapons of mass destruction or political will, it's a war of thoughts and ideas - yours, mine, everyones. As long as people continue to believe them, things won't change. So here's letting you in on a little secret - they can't win if you don't believe them. For example, they can't maintain martial law, so all they can hope to do is keep in you line with fear and lies.
So listen up, this time, we the people, are finally going to win. It will not be some stale victory, but a lasting and permanent one. One thing is for sure, we will be very damn grateful once we are there. The only sad truth I can say is as MCP2012 mentioned in a recent comment, the transition from now to then, could very well cost lives, many, many lives. But here is some more good news that I came across today that continues to give me hope that things are moving our way.
xMax sparks low power wireless revolution :
This new wireless technology is totally disruptive. To understand just how revolutionary this technology is, and will be around the world, consider how bad the current internet is going to be if Doc Searle's greatest worries come to pass. He believes, and rightfully so, that the telcos and cable companies, who own almost all the internet pipes in the US, are attempting as we speak to control everything that flows through them. What this means for you and me, is no more free and democratic internet. If they have their way, the internet will become a top-down pyramid of locked DRM content from them to you the paying schmuck and criminal they think you are. If they manage to get their way, say goodbye to everything you ever loved about the internet and its liberating power.
But there are many things that will never allow this draconian, dark age future to come to pass. The first is the nature of capital itself which will continue to reward ANYONE who trys to create something better. If the telco's want to lock it down, first hundreds, then thousands of smaller companies will come into play to make a new internet, Google has already bought up thousands of miles of "dark fiber" for reasons unknown. But if their recent actions are any indication, they could very well be positioning themselves to become the savior of the US internet in the advent of a telco lockdown. They are already offering free Wi-fi in several places. Unfortunately Google has already used their muscle power in equally un-free-market ways. For example, they had the city of Mountain View give them a monopoly on free wi-fi access. Totally bullshit, but that's the story. But alas, that brings us to another more promising possibility:
xMax technology can change everything all over again. It gives the power of the network to everyone. It will allow anyone with $100 to set up their own very long range (up to 20 miles) wireless ISP. And because the power is so low, it falls outside the range of FCC regulation. Of course, they could try to regulate it, but then they open up a pandora's box of major public backlashes, not to mention that to regulate low power wireless like xMax, means that now wireless airplanes, remote controls, and garage doors now fall into this regulatory scheme as well. Not to mention the already pervasive wi-fi that is already out there.
With a technology like xMax saturating the marketplace, you're looking at the ability of every computer becoming a node on the network. This type of network is also know as a mesh-network. With every computer equipped with one of these xMax transcievers, what are the telco's going to do? At this point, it will become completely obvious, even to your average consumer just how unfriendly and downright customer hostile the telco's are. Who needs cell phones, cable TV and commercial Clear Channel radio, when everyone can download, transmit and communicate anyway they want, whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want from small, cheap and out of control, very powerful, long range xMax-like devices?
And even if the worst case scenario comes to pass, and the Telco's manage to lock the internet down in the US, what about the rest of the world? All it takes is a small conglomerate of free networks somewhere to give them a strong competivie edge over those parts that lock it down, that in the information economy, those maintaining those lockdowns will do sp at their own peril. Capital favors liberty.
Links:
I just read this and was blown away. I admire the awesomeness of Google's vision, but also fear what it all might mean. The capacity of the company is so far beyond Microsoft there is no comparison. In the end however it is a coporation and one that is managed by a very small number of people. Google is the ulimate polarity of centralization and decentralization all in one. They may well soon become the most powerful company in history precisely because it has and will provide the most powerful mind tools that mankind has ever had. It is becoming powerful because it is making everyone who access to it powerful. In fact the power of Google is quite frankly more complex than I ever could have fathomed a Super AI ever being. If there is a a new intelligence emerging, it is the internet itself, and its about to get a serious upgrade from Google.
I don't know what Google is up to, but they aren't kidding around:
So why buy-up all that fiber, then?
The probable answer lies in one of Google's underground parking garages in Mountain View. There, in a secret area off-limits even to regular GoogleFolk, is a shipping container. But it isn't just any shipping container. This shipping container is a prototype data center. Google hired a pair of very bright industrial designers to figure out how to cram the greatest number of CPUs, the most storage, memory and power support into a 20- or 40-foot box. We're talking about 5000 Opteron processors and 3.5 petabytes of disk storage that can be dropped-off overnight by a tractor-trailer rig. The idea is to plant one of these puppies anywhere Google owns access to fiber, basically turning the entire Internet into a giant processing and storage grid.
Ever brilliant Dale Carrico wrote this piece recently that clearly articulates my own position as well as problems with the singularity idea.
Technophiles who drift uncomfortably in the direction of the megalomaniacal end of the temperamental spectrum often wax enthusiastic about the near term arrival of post-biological superintelligence. Undaunted by the relentless deferment of the "inevitable" arrival of even the modest artificial intelligence we've been promised interminably by enthusiasts for decades, they warn of and (let's be frank) pine for the near-term and inevitable arrival of greater-than-human artificial intelligence to this day in the same urgent, sometimes hushed, tones.Not to delve too deep into my skepticism about this way of thinking, I will simply suggest that these starry-eyed projections (1) tend to overestimate our theoretical grasp of intelligence in general, (2) tend to underestimate the extreme bumpiness we should expect along the developmental pathways from which the relevant technologies could arrive, (3) tend to assume that these technologies, upon arrival, would function more smoothly than technologies almost ever do, and (4) tend to exhibit a rather stark obliviousness about the extent to which what we call technological development is articulated in fact not just by the accumulation of technical accomplishments but by social, cultural, and political factors as well, in consequence of which they simply rarely take these adequately into account at all.
I have no doubt that technology will continue to accelerate. I also have no doubt that computers in general will get smarter. And finally I have no doubt that given time, future intelligence will vastly exceed current human levels. What I do doubt however is that this greater-than-human intelligence will be an AI.
My position has always been that greater-than-human intelligence will be us. The future of intelligence is much more likely to be IA (Intelligence Augmentation) - augmented humans, and soon afterward fully nanoengineered post-humans. Singularitarians are probably correct in their assumption that its much simpler, theoretically speaking, to create a super-intelligence from scratch without all the messy genetic inheritances and logical fallacies that have plagued human intelligence throughout history. But like Dale points out, they vastly overestimate the complexity of actually doing so. This is why my position has always fallen on the more difficult task of figuring out how we humans can use what we have to make ourselves better. This means that both a combination of inner transformational work, along with the outer work of technological development will be necessary to make the transition to a greater-than-human, kinder-than-human intelligence. I think a good start would be to acknowledge the vast human potential (unassisted by technology) that has yet to be tapped.
Combining this human potential along with the powerful tools of nanotechnology should bring about this greater-than-human intelligence we seek. Otherwise, if current events are any indicator, without this kind of inner 'spiritual' transformation these unleashed technologies will bring destruction rather than liberation.
Those in the AI camp have no faith that such an inner transformation can occur, which is why they have put all their faith in a aritifical superintelligence. Some of them have put their faith in one individual who claims to be the one person who has the one solution to making all this happen.
So who is the more foolhardy?
Future Hi pal Tyler Emerson has just launched 3 Laws Unsafe with the opening of I, Robot staring Wil Smith.
From the Press Release:
Atlanta, GA – In anticipation of 20th Century Fox’s July 16th release of I, Robot, the Singularity Institute announces “3 Laws Unsafe” (www.asimovlaws.com). “3 Laws Unsafe” explores the problems presented by Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, the principles intended for ensuring that robots help, but never harm, humans. The Three Laws are widely known and are often taken seriously as reasonable solutions for guiding future AI. But are they truly reasonable? “3 Laws Unsafe” addresses this question.
Tyler Emerson, Executive Director of the Singularity Institute: “The release of I, Robot is a wonderful chance to engage more people about the perils and promise of strong AI research. The constraints portrayed in I, Robot appear extremely dangerous and excessively lacking as an approach to moral AI. The Singularity Institute’s detailed approach, by contrast, utilizes advanced technical research for creating a mind that is humane in nature.”
“3 Laws Unsafe” will include articles by several authors, weekly poll questions, a blog for announcements and commentary related to I, Robot and the Three Laws, a free newsletter subscription, and a reading list with books on relevant topics such as the future of AI, accelerating change, cognitive science and nanotechnology.
The Singularity Institute’s Advocacy Director, Michael Anissimov: “It is essential that more considerate thinkers get involved in dialogues of AI ethics and strategy. Although AI as a discipline has a dubious history of false starts, the accelerating growth of computing power and brain science knowledge will very likely result in its creation at some point. In the past few years, technologists such as Ray Kurzweil and Bill Joy have been informing the public about this critical issue; but more awareness is now needed.”
The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence (SIAI) was founded in 2000 for the pursuit of ethically enhanced intelligence by creating humane AI. SIAI believes the ethical and significant enhancement of intelligence will help solve contemporary problems, such as disease and illness, poverty and hunger, more readily than other philanthropic causes. SIAI is a tax-exempt non-profit organization with branches in Canada and the United States.
Red Herring Blog: "Disruptive innovations" via Roland Tanglao:
Every few decades a brew of technologies creates the possibility for not just a single disruptive innovation, or a few in an industry, but a wave spread across business, work, and daily life.Connecting all things to all things. And making them smart.The next brew is simmering.
What are the ingredients? Some are familiar: wireless, XML, GPS, mobile devices. Others are less well known, or still struggling to get out of the lab. Smart dust, cubic-centimeter sized computers. MEMS, which gives computers the ability to sense and react to their surroundings. IPv6, which will allow everything to have an IP address. RFID (radio frequency identification) tags, which attach data to objects. Flexible LEDs, printed onto plastic sheets and foldable into origami shapes.
Taken individually, these are novelties. Taken together, they promise to create a profound yet extremely simple phenomenon: the collapse of the boundary between the digital and the physical. In the foreseeable future, cyberspace and real space, the worlds of data and things, will merge. Understand the implications of this merger, and you can better understand how individual technologies – and products that use them – will fare in the future.
We're already seeing the beginnings of that breakdown.
Mobile phones show how addictive constant connectivity can be: there's a reason the Finnish call cell phones kanny, an extension of the hand. Wi-fi hot spots and laptops let us enjoy a still-fractured ubiquity, giving a glimpse of an always-on, always-available Web. (As William Gibson said, the future is here, it's just not evenly distributed. Right now, it has an effective range of about 150 feet.)
RFID, sensors, and smart dust are building intelligence into every manufactured object. GPS has moved from the yachting set to weekend hikers and soccer moms (those little bubbles on the roofs of new cars contain GPS locators).
IPv6, the next-generation Internet protocol, will let stationary objects describe their locations. IPv6-enabled street lamps or traffic signals, for example, could warn utilities when they're about to malfunction; if their Internet addresses were associated with physical locations, they could function as a physical address, letting repairmen pinpoint their locations.
Add it all together, and you get what computer scientists call "the Internet of things." It's a world in which data is part of the world; physical and virtual addresses are associated; things have senses, the ability to communicate, and the capacity to cooperate; and we can create and access information almost anywhere. What happens when computers leave the world, and cyberspace becomes part of it? When we have billions of tiny computers capable of working together? When the Web is experienced not as a separate universe, but an overlay on the world?
We're going to find out.