Genomes, Genomes! Step right up and get yaarrrr Genomes! Only $999


It is *so cool* to be around to see some of the most sweeping changes in human history unfold right before our eyes.    www.23andme.com, the new service that will provide you with your complete genetic blueprint,  brings the potential for a sea change in the way humans will view our relationship to each other and to our own biology and chemistry.  

This company is brought to us thanks to the amazing work of the Genome Project, which fully documented a complete human DNA record.   23andme allows all of us to get a copy of our own genome – at a fraction of the cost for the first set of DNA.

 Hopefully this will also help us along the path to a better philosophical and emotional relationship to the world that spawned all of us from physical and evolutionary processes that we continue to grasp in more fascinating detail.

www.23andMe is also intriguing as it’s the brainchild of  Google founder Sergy Brin’s wife and early Google employee Anne.    One of the exciting things about Google is that the founders and early employees are not only brilliant – they are also young and enthusiastic technological visionaries who, unlike some of their predecessors like Tesla, have *tons* of money to invest in these visionary technological dreams.     

Will I be signing up for a copy?   Maybe, but even though $999 is an amazing deal it’s a lot of pizzas, so I’m going to wait for the first …. ummm … “Genome sale”.

Novamente – teaching virtual entities to “fetch”


A sign that things are starting to hop in the field of artificial intelligence is how a topic of conversation that would have been considered fanciful – or even insane – some 20 years ago would now be fair game at any Silicon Valley pub or coffee shop.    Novamente is a fascinating company doing fascinating development and research guided in part by the idea that the best path to computer general artificial intelligence (that is, intelligence much like we humans have) is through a similar-to-human-intelligence  learning path.    To this end Novamente is teaching virtual entities to fetch, recognize themselves, and other early stages in human learning.   This is taking place in part in the Second Life virtual world.  

Sounds crazy?   Just a game?  I don’t think so.  It may be optimistic to think that AI thinking can come about in this way, but it’s sure worth a try.   

Novamente

Driving under the influence of computers


 The DARPA autonomous vehicle competion is on today in California.   It’s sponsored by the US military’s advanced technology division and seeks to create vehicles that can navigate without human intervention.  

The stakes are high in this competition where the top vehicles will take home millions in prize money – presumably for their university research.

These vehicles would be remarkable enough if they simply roamed through the desert as in past competitions, but this year the DARPA challenge is taking place in an urban environment, where fifty regular cars with human drivers will be zigging and zagging and presenting the autonomous vehicles with the advanced challenges of driving in a city.

Ashlee at The Register is liveblogging the event, though she seems pretty grumpy from the lack of coffee.   C’mon Ashlee, the military only has a $500,000,000,000 budget – and you want free coffee?

An autonomous ground vehicle is a vehicle that navigates and drives entirely on its own with no human driver and no remote control. Through the use of various sensors and positioning systems, the vehicle determines all the characteristics of its environment required to enable it to carry out the task it has been assigned

The Illusion of Will. Prisoners of the synapse?


This morning I stumbled on a reference to a book by Harvard Psychologist Daniel Wegner called “The Illusion of Conscious Will” which is one of those interesing books I’d like to read but probably won’t.    My coffee pal Roy had clued me in to this research some time aog, and the key point is available online via reviews and such, and it is simply this:

We don’t have conscious will.    Things happen to us, and we process them using our conscious mind, but we don’t *make them happen*.

Now, at first glance this deterministic view seems absurd.    Of course, one might say, I control my actions.    But determinist psychology folks point out that it’s increasingly clear that our actions are *preceded* by brain activity and events that would suggest – I think I’m getting this right – that by the time we are doing “conscious processing” about the thing we are doing, we are already engaged in the activity.   ie the “cause” of our actions comes before the conscious processing period.     From a nice review of Wegner’s book I understand he thinks we confuse this “after the fact” processing with “control”.

Although I am pretty much a determinist I am also uncomfortable with the idea that we are sort of passive players in a predetermined universal play.    The “gut test” says we control our actions and decide what to do.  

I think my ongoing hypothesis about this will be  similar to my idea that consciousness is a conversation between different parts of our brain.  These conversations, many of which are taking place during waking hours and some during sleep, allow us to process information very creatively and act on mental models of the world around us.   It seems we might not have control over our actions 0.1 seconds before them, but that we might have control via processes that happen seconds before as our brain runs through various scenarios.     Now, I think Wegner would say – correctly – that for any given conscious thought you can show there is a preceding electrochemical activity (synapse firing and such) that is not reasonably defined as conscious.  

However what if that initial spark of reflection is unconscious but then leads to a back and forth conscious conversation within your mind that in turn leads to the action. Would that be free will?

[my brain answers –   dude, no way, you have no free will.   Now, stop blogging obscurities and pass the damn M&Ms!]

What is “Intelligence” ?


Some good posts are popping up over the the Singularity Institute blog, though the discussions have been taking that odd “hostile academic” tone you often find from PhD wannabes who spend way too much time learning how to reference obvious things in obscure ways.

Michael Anissimov asked over there “What is Intelligence” and offered up a definition that could apply to human as well as artificial intelligence.    

I would suggest that intelligence is overrated as part of our evolutionarily designed, self-absorbed human nature, and in fact is best studied as separate from the states of “consciousness” and “self awareness” that are harder to define.    I think computers – and even a simple calculator – have degrees of intelligence but they do not have consciousness or self awareness.    It is these last two things that make humans think we are so very special.    I’d say consciousness is neat but probably a simpler thing than we like to …. um … think about.

Over there I wrote this in response to Michael’s post:

My working hypothesis about “intelligence” is that it is best viewed and defined in ways that separate it from “consciousness”.  I’d say intelligence is best defined such that it can exist without consciousness or self-awareness.   Thus I’d refer to a computer chess program as intelligent, but not conscious or self aware. 

I would suggest that intelligence is a prerequisite for consciousness which is a prerequisite for self-awareness, but separating these three things seems to avoid some of the difficulties of explanations that get bogged down as we try to develop models of animal and non-animal intelligence.  Also, I think this will describe the development curve of AIs which are already “intelligent”, but none are yet “conscious” or “self aware”.   I think consciousness may turn out to be simply a *massive number* of  interconnections carrying on intelligent internal conversations within a system – human or AI.

A stumbling block I find very interesting is the absurd notion that human intelligence is fundamentally or qualitatively different from other animal intelligences.   Although only a few other species appear to have self-awareness, there are many other “conscious” species and millions of “intelligent” species

——–

A good question about intelligence is “WHY is intelligence”.   The obvious answer is evolutionary adaptivity, which in turn helps explain why our brains are so good at some things and so bad at others.  e.g. Human survival was more a function of short term planning rather than long term planning, so as you’d expect we are pretty good short term planners (“Let’s eat!”  “Let’s make a baby!”  “Look out for that car!) and pretty bad long term planners (Let’s address Social Security shortfalls!, “Let’s fix Iraq!)

New telescope will help with search for ET


Thanks to some megabucks from Microsoft founder Paul Allen there’s a new telescope on the block and it will soon be bigger and better at spotting aliens than anything to date.   Here is the BBC story.

I would argue that alien life is almost a certainty, but *finding it* is not at all certain since the distances to other systems are so great that even if there is intelligent life on planets of our “next door neighbor” star, Proxima Centauri, and even if they are beaming some TV shows or data in our direction, it would take about 4.5 years for us to get the signal and another 4.5 to send one back.   Now THAT is lag time in a conversation.   

Think how hard it would be to buy and sell stuff with alien dudes that were, say, 50 light years distant.  The ad would have to read “If you act right NOW on our special offer, you might get it just before you DIE of old age.  Only $9.95 and supplies are limited”.

But if the new scope finds more life perhaps they will have invented technologies we can only dream of, or more likely and hopefully they’ll have intelligence extending capabilities that we could copy.    Kurzweil’s singularity promises immortality, but it’s best not to hold your breath on that one quite yet.

Singularity Talks Online


Several talks from the recent Singularity conference are now online and linked up at the Singularity Institute website.    I just read the transcript of Google’s Peter Norvig who seemed cautious but optimistic. 

Norvig is clearly one of the key insiders working in one of the places where a general AI could possibly crop up even without human intervention, though I got the idea Norvig felt that was not likely anytime soon.    I was disappointed he didn’t elaborate on what Marissa Mayer mentioned to me last month after her keynote at the Search Strategies conference – the idea that search results for some queries are increasingly looking more and more like the product of human-like intelligence.    I should note that Mayer did not seem to think this was a sign of impending general AI from the Googleplex – she just thought it was a very interesting development.

Why “recursive self improvement” could be the key to enlightenment.


This excellent article by Michael Anissimov describes two versions of how things could shake out in the coming Artificial Intelligence revolution, and suggests that it’s more likely strong AI (that is, computer-like devices that think pretty much like we do) will lead to an explosive increase in intelligence as a result of “recursive self improvement”.    The idea is that the intelligent machines will operate much faster than our brains can function, but will also tend to improve on their own designs.  

For humanity, design improvements on our brain architecture have been a very-very slow process governed primarily by evolutionary challenges.  Basic analytical intelligence almost certainly emerged in animals as an adaptive advantage in terms of survival.   Unlike our cousins the higher apes, human brain power has combined with community history to allow us to build technologies that last through many generations, and more importantly to *improve* as new people grapple with new problems.  This technological explosion is a fairly recent phenomenon but should still be considered a very slow process compared to the type of progress you would expect to see in an environment driven purely towards advancing the technologies surrounding “intelligence”.

If Anissimov and many others in strong AI research are correct, the time between the advent of conscious, recursively self improving computers and a massive explosion of intelligent machines could be very small – a few years or even possibly just a few moments.    

Currently, we humans do a handful of physical transformations that take us off of the slow evolutionary treadmill.   Glasses are a simple technology that changes us.   Corneal transplant and heart stints are “advanced” technological enhancments to our bodies.    Cell phones and computers are technological enhancements to our brains (and yes, the company called “BrainGate” has now connected computer chips directly to brains allowing human brains to directly interface with computers to do simple tasks).   

Still,  earth’s painstakingly slow evolutionary processes has yet to develop a creature that will be able to rebuild itself every few days into a vastly superior version of the former self.   We appear to be within a few  decades of that type of entity.

The implications of this re-evolutionary development cannot be overestimated. 

300,000,000,000 civilizations in the Universe


If we assume as some have suggested, and extremely conservatively, that there are only about 3 intelligent civilizations per galaxy (my view is that this number will soon be shown to be absurdly low) and also assume fairly conservatively that there are 100 billion galaxies in the universe, this leads us to a rather spectacular number of some three hundred billion civilizations in the universe.    Unfortunately we’ve only found one of them.

299,999,999,999 intelligent civilizations to go.

Hubble Ultra Deep Field


If you want to get lost in the most incredible picture ever taken, or just if you catch yourself feeling too significant, head over to the Hubble website’s zoomable Ultra Deep Field photo.   Pull in a few of the approximately 10,000 galaxies in this view for closer inspection, realizing our own entire Milky way galaxy with its approximately 100 billion stars would be but one of these.  Then try to wrap your head around the fact (and be sure to realize that we are talking about pure scientific fact here) that the deep field is only showing us a portion of our own night sky that is about one *tenth* the diameter of the moon.    A full accounting of all the galaxies in the universe might yield *hundreds of billions” of galaxies although the estimates of the number of galaxies seem to vary wildly.    I don’t understand this because it seems we could extrapolate from the Hubble untra deep field’s view a pretty good number for the total assuming a roughly even distribution of galaxies throughout the universe.

As feeble minded humans I don’t think we can even come close to appreciating the significance of the Hubble pictures or the numbers.  

My personal guess is that there are already many intelligences in this vast universe that can comprehend the cosmos in a meaningful way, and that we have a shot at that kind of intelligence eventually when we find ways to enhance our intellect with computerized intelligence.   

Here is a wonderfully written article by Anthony Doerr on this topic