The Singularity Summit
October 29, 2008
On October 24th and 25th I attended the Emerging Technology Workshop and Singularity Summit, both hosted by the Singularity Institute.
“The Singularity” is basically a point in the near-future where technology has expanded and evolved to such an astounding degree that, from where we stand today, we cannot even conceive of it. Part of the reason for this, Singularitarians believe, comes from the fact that eventually AI will surpass human intelligence and then continue to improve itself. So we standing here can’t understand what that further-future technology will be like because AI more intelligent than us will be creating it. It’d be like a small child trying to predict what a genius engineer is going to make next. The kid just doesn’t have the cognitive tools necessary to do that.
Now I’ve been interested in the intersection of technology and ethics for quite some time – I got funding from UCLA to go to Stanford’s Human Enhancement Technologies and Human Rights conference back in 2006 and started a project during my senior year at UCLA on constructing an ethical framework from which to view enhancement technologies (or basically anything that has the potential to alter our relationships), oh, and I took a fantastic Science Fiction/ Speculative Fiction course at UCLA during my senior year that Katherine Hayles taught. So I’m into this. That’s not to say I’m “pro” the Singularity – I just find thinking about these topics engrossing.
But here’s the problem: I fear that the vast majority of the people who go to these sorts of conferences (both the one at Stanford a while back and this one last weekend) are so infatuated with the prospect of these technologies that they fail to take seriously the sorts of moral and ethical questions that ought to be raised in light of them. There is such a blind naive conviction that technology is both inevitable and good that their moments of reflection come off as little more than a mere gesture to the worries people are raising. A gesture and nothing more.
There are exceptions, though. I spoke a bit with Eliezer Yudkowsky (mostly I listened… since another guy ended up hijacking the conversation) and the sort of stuff he’s working on is an example of someone actually thinking about how to answer people’s Asimov-type worries that AI that is self-improving could end up harming us. So the question he thinks about is sort of a meta one (if I understand it correctly) – what sort of governing principles would you give to AI such that it would be "friendly” in all its future incarnations. We can’t foresee all the situations this AI will be in, we can’t even foresee what it’ll be like, but suppose you can create fundamental principles that would govern it’s future self-improvements.
But of course, if you’ve read “I, Robot” (NOT the movie people – the book is TOTALLY different…and by “different” I mean infinitely superior), you’ll remember that even with the three laws of robotics, a lot happened that, while aligned with the rules, was counter to what people may have wanted. [see, for instance, “The Evitable Conflict” for an enjoyable and scary example]
So there’s no doubt Eliezer has his work cut out for him 
I’m actually not really that interested in the question of whether some AI is going to enslave me. Instead, I focus my attention on a question that I think is a bit closer to home, namely, what do we need from each other in order for us to have eudaimon (or flourishing) lives as individuals. This question, when asked in the context of technological innovation, leads me to examine a technology to see if it somehow fundamentally alters our ability to get those needs met from each other. Because if that’s the case (that the foundations from which we create a base that allows us to live flourishing lives is jeopardized or corrupted), then that technology is in fact not an advancement of human good. Why? Because it’s undermining my very ability to be the sort of person who could even have a flourishing life. This is exactly the framework that I’m trying to flesh out – and I think it’s exactly the framework we should be using to examine these technologies.
So back to the conference…
While I enjoyed hearing about a lot of up-and-coming technologies (of particular interest to me was the semantic web stuff and a talk given by Esther Dyson about 23andme), I was more than a little concerned that instead of taking the time to have a discussion about the moral and ethical questions that should be addressed before we decided to move in a certain technological direction, the two days were basically spent hearing about the latest and greatest tech candy.
Here are a few things that really did stand out:
1) During the first day a guy from the Department of Defense got up and basically made a plea to the people in the room to take seriously the exploration of the ethical issues surrounding the creation of technology that can create autonomous vehicles. He said that it’s not like he’s in a position to really have those discussions but they are important. First, it was a bit disturbing to think the DoD think itself exempted from ethics discussions but that withstanding, this was quite exciting. The excitement, however, was quickly followed by disappointment. The response from those with the power to continue creating and advancing those technologies was along the lines of, “look this technology is a-moral – it just is the ability to, say, have a vehicle roam around all on it’s own. If someone ends up hooking it up to a bunch of machine guns so it can go out and kill people, that’s an ethical question about the application of the technology – which is beyond my scope.” And THAT captures the problem. The people inventing feel that the application of their technology is beyond the scope of their concern. They just want to keep working in their bubbles, oblivious to the rest of the world. And I want to contend that it’s not until the people making technologies acknowledge their moral culpability (at least to some degree) for the use of their technology that we will see compatibility between our moral and ethical convictions and the use of technologies. We are always trying to push the ethical deliberation off to someone else. That’s got to stop.
2) Like I mentioned, Esther Dyson from 23andme’s Board spoke. I about died from excitement. During the break I summoned all my courage, telling myself that “even if the rest of the conference totally sucks, it will have all been worth it if you say one sentence to Esther Dyson”. And so I did. At first I’m sure I was a bit incoherent but finally I think I asked her a mildly interesting question regarding my concerns about 23andme. She seemed interested and told me to email her so we could talk further. At that point I about squealed with delight. So that was neat.
3) People kept saying the singularity was “inevitable”. This drove me insane. Like eye twitching/ head jerking to the side insane. You are depriving yourself and all of us of our agency when you suggest that a certain course is inevitable. We are making decisions (with more or less care) and those decisions are what result in a certain future. Jamais Cascio gave the closing keynote after the first day and in the course of it said both that the Singularity was inevitable and that we were making incremental decisions every day that were leading us in a certain direction. You can’t have both dude! I’d like to stick to the latter please!
And as a side note, it’s very difficult to have a discussion about if we should proceed in a certain way if you’re talking to someone who thinks we have no choice but to!
So that was the conference. I’m happy I went – it’s given me more to think about… and a lot of things to look up!
Stanford Center for Internet and Society Speaker Series: Information Policy in the Next Administration
October 23, 2008
On Monday I went to my very first lunchtime speaker series presentation at Stanford’s Law School. I’ve been on their mailing list for at least a year and was always so sad when I heard about all these fascinating talks going on up at Stanford while I was down in LA! (This is not to say UCLA didn’t have awesome talks as well [in fact, the Center for Society and Genetics hosted some great ones]… I just want to go to everything!)
This talk was about what Tim Wu (the presenter) thought were going to be the big info policy players during the next four years.
The four categories were
1. Broadband
2. Wireless
3. Copyright
4. Media Consolidation
And, though not really a part of the main vein of discussion, we spent quite a bit of time talking about digital v. cable television stuff, too.
Here are the main things to think about for each of these topics
1. Broadband
- Basically he felt like not much was going on here. (long story short)
2. Wireless
- This is an area where we can expect to see quite a bit of action – especially around two main areas
First, around spectrum generally and white spaces specifically. If you don’t know what “white spaces” are, the time has come to brush up. But, to save you the wiki search, I shall explain a bit (caveat: I’m a bit fuzzy on some of this): so basically there seem to be two sorts of white spaces.
- The first sort comes as follows: say I’ve got channel 10 which occupies a certain Hz spectrum. Then say you have channel 11 – and 10 and 11 are “right next to each other” in the spectrum. Well we wouldn’t want them to be exactly next to each other (as in I end at 679 Hz and you start at 680 Hz) because then there’s a high probability that we’ll drift into each other. This would be like when you start to hear two radio stations simultaneously on the radio when you’re driving in the middle of nowhere. So the idea was you need a buffer area between stations to prevent that from happening. That buffer area is considered a “white space”.
- The second sort is different. Say I have channel 10 like before and I’m actually hosting a kick ass radio show where I’m enlightening the world with my insights when I’m awake and playing awesome tunes while I sleep. Then say you own channel 11 but you aren’t doing anything with it. Say you don’t have the money to actually produce a show. So it’s basically dead air. This unused channel is also considered “white space”. It’s somewhat similar (though as Tim also points out, this analogy isn’t so good for those with his position) to me owning land and having a house on it and you owning a plot of land and it never being used. It just sits there. [insert tumbleweed rolling across it].
Now, the “white spaces” that people are talking about when they say things like “free the airwaves” are the white spaces of the second sort. These people (like this guy and Google in fact) think that if the spectrum isn’t actually being used (so not just owned but actually used), then those who have the technology to detect that it’s not being used should be able to use it. So if you can develop a radio that can detect channel 11, then go crazy! You should be able to start using that spectrum to launch your cool, but generally inferior to my own, radio show. As of now this isn’t the case – if someone owns the spectrum then you can’t use it – even if they aren’t.
As of now the future of unused spectrum is unclear – there’s definitely a push (at least in Silicon Valley) to open it up – in large part because they want to use it as a way to deliver wireless Internet to everyone. This is of course great for the world in the sense that that means more people will have access to what is no doubt the number one place we tend to go for information (the Internet) and it’s good for companies like Google – who make their money from people clicking on ads… on the Internet.
I don’t know what my position is yet on this topic – mainly because I just haven’t done nearly enough reading on it to feel well informed. But, now is the time to develop one! It’s the people who can think critically, clearly, and (perhaps sadly) most loudly about these sorts of topics that shape the policy surrounding it.
The second area has something to do with the equivalent of the net neutrality debate but on cell phones and wireless platforms. It’s easiest to explain through hypothetical: If you’re Apple and AT&T can you just ban napster off the iphone? Can you choose Yahoo! or Google as the search engine for a certain phone? Where users will have no choice (except the choice to buy the device to begin with)? Do the net neutrality principles apply to wireless communications? If wireless phone-like platforms become the dominant way we come to the Internet, will that change our opinions on these questions?
On this I do tend to think that people carry over (or at least want to carry over) the norms of the computer to the phone. And I think that’s because people still, when they think “Internet”, also think “computer”. So whatever is Internet accessible, is going to be framed by those principles we think worked best on computers.
Further, people are starting to more and more see access to “all of” the Internet as some sort of right. The idea of censorship is so repugnant (at least in the US) that I think the idea of someone like Apple having the ability to dictate which browser and websites one can view will, starting relatively soon, be seen as an interference with freedom. The main reason we haven’t seen a cry against these bundling behaviors in the past comes from the fact that when a technology is new, people just have less demands as to what that technology ought to be like. Not that long ago the idea of searching the web on a phone was unheard of – so when it first started to develop, we didn’t feel deprived of something when, say, we had to use a certain browser on our phones. It may not even have occurred to us to demand otherwise. But again, once a technology and way of life develops, we start to expect more and more freedom around its use.
This is my guess anyway.
3. Copyright
- Doesn’t think much will happen here in the administration and/or Congress. However, he predicts there will be some Google decisions that are important — but that’s going to be in judiciary. (I’m thinking Viacom and the like.) Perhaps we might make it more criminal to infringe.
- He doesn’t see anyone pushing that hard for copyright reform – mainly because he thinks both sides are afraid of Hollywood – so they try and stay away from any sort of policy changes that Hollywood would perceive as not in their favor. (comforting, isn’t it?)
- The only exception to the not-much-will-happen occurs if people talk about creating structures that can better detect copyright. So it’s not really about copyright itself so much as a question of how platforms should be structured.
4. Media Consolidation
- The anti-trust division was in a “coma under Bush,” which allowed for some major media consolidations that he thinks should have definitely at least raised anti-trust red flags. Thinks no matter who wins, there will be a significant increase in the level of scrutiny (not 60s-70s activist justice department, but certainly heightened.)
The last two questions I found interesting have to do with the future jurisdiction of the FCC.
1. Apparently in the DC circuit right now is a case that will decide if the FCC, and to a lesser extent the FTC, will have jurisdiction over the Internet domain. Even among “tech-left” (i.e. libertarian-y where the Internet is concerned) there’s disagreement about what the answer should be.
2. If we open up all the spectrum, it seems the scarcity that gave credence to the FCC’s being able to, in a sense, limit free speech by not allowing anyone access to spectrum, may disappear. So once scarcity is eliminated, is there a first amendment argument for the FCC not having authority?
Interesting!
I plan to attend all of the speakers I find interesting and relevant – so stay tuned for more!
Half Dome Glory!
October 8, 2008
During the weekend of September 27th, a brave and fearless group did the unthinkable! the unimaginable! They hiked Half Dome!!
“Wait…this happened during the weekend of the 27th? It’s friggin October 8th, Heather. Why have you become such a lame and late blogger?”
Alright. I accept the criticism. But at least let me attempt to mount a defense.
First, I moved. Finally! No more creepy-land for me! So I got back from Half Dome glory Sunday night and spent Monday packing (because of course I had packed exactly nada before leaving… Naturally) and on Tuesday the movers came! And then, as if that weren’t enough, on Wednesday I had to go to an ethics and compliance conference all day. See? So busy!
So I thought I’d write this over the weekend but, alas, every time I open my blogging program on my personal computer it freezes. I tried deleting it and re-installing but to no avail. And then to make matters worse, my camera got stolen!! At, ironically enough, Lovefest! So all my Half Dome glory pictures were lost! So I’m writing today because I’ve finally come to the conclusion that no, someone is not going to respond to my craigslist lost and found post. My baby camera is gone. And I just bought that thing in June!!!
The good news is my trusty fellow adventurers took plenty of pictures. And, of course, my trusty flip is still with me.
So now on to the story…
The players. First, let’s introduce them via video (because video makes everything more interesting):
So in words you’ve got:
Eric (who you’ve met before)
Sarah (a friend of mine from way back in the day. [“the day” being junior high])
Sam (Eric’s friend. They met while backpacking in Alaska together with NOLS)
Sean (A fellow Googler who I met for the first time while getting in his car to drive up to Yosemite. Basically I sent an email out to the SF2G list saying that our campsite could hold two more and, if anyone wanted to come along for guts and glory, they were more than welcome. Sean was game and so was…)
Jacob (the second Googler to respond. I met him for the first time the day before we left while biking to work)
Me (but of course)
So how’d it go?
Well first off, it took us about forever to get there. Why? Because we got lost, oh, conservatively, about a zillion times. Jacob is a software engineer. Doesn’t that mean he should be good at directions?! Well we found out that’s just not true. Well it’s not true that he’s no good at navigating… I still contend that as a software engineer he should be.
It’s entirely possible we drove at least 50 completely unnecessary miles. Now I didn’t really care but we all learned that Sarah gets pretty car sick pretty easily. And the idea of her puking all over Sean’s lovely car was sort of a figure-out-how-to-get-there-quickly motivating factor.
But I’m happy to report no throwing up occurred.
So after getting lost, listening to the presidential debate while eating dinner while driving, and lots of over-shares, we made our way to Tuolumne meadows. Eric and Sam, who drove up from LA (and were expecting us to arrive before them by a few hours), were already there.
At that point we went straight to bed (I think it was already passed 11pm…and the idea is to start Half Dome ridiculously early).
Well here’s some advice for future badass hikers. Tuolumne meadows is really not a good choice for campsite location. I didn’t really understand this ahead of time and couldn’t have prevented our going there anyway because:
1. I’ve only been to Yosemite twice and neither time did I actually camp there – so I don’t have a mental map of where everything is.
2. I’m told that Tuolumne was the last open camp area by the time we made reservations.
But anyway, the point is this: Tuolumne is about an hour drive away from “the valley” – which is where you start the half dome hike. So if you want to, say, start the hike at 6, you’ve got to leave the campsite a little before 5 – which means you’re eating nasty oatmeal at like 4:30.
And that’s going to be a big “no”
So instead we opted for the late start variety. And by that I mean we probably started hiking about 9:30.
Pretty much right away we knew we were going to have a problem. Sarah’s backpack weighed a significant portion of her total bodyweight and about five minutes in she said something like “Whoa. This backpack is killing me!!”
At that point I looked at Eric and gave him the “this means problems” look.
But no matter, we forged on.
Basically there were a LOT of stairs, a LOT of dirt particles in my face, a LOT of sour gummy octopi (my hiking snack of choice), and a LOT of me wanting to steal everyone else’s water.
Which brings me to another point. I, when hiking, prefer to drink an insane amount of water. I brought two bottles, each about 32 oz (so that’s 8 8oz glasses for those of you keeping track) and I could have easily finished them off by lunch (which was at about 11:45). Instead, I finished them near the top and decided to take water from dear old Eric. He of course is used to this. When we bike together I’m fairly confident he brings that second bottle specifically because he wants to make sure he gets at least one bottle for himself.
[*side story* When I was young I was, let’s just say, quite plump. When I’d say something to my mom about this her response was always, “Oh, Heather. If there were a nuclear explosion and we were in some sort of food-barren post-apocalyptic setting, you’d outlive everyone! You’re just built hearty because you’re built to last!”
Beyond thinking this didn’t really make me feel any better, mainly because I couldn’t convince myself that the chances of that happening were high enough to make my then-current suffering worth it, I now know that in reality she was wrong! Even if I could live on very little food for a long period of time, I sure as hell would die of dehydration long before everyone else! So I totally lose!]
So back to half dome… the hiking continued. And then continued some more. Oh and then some more after that.
So that was exciting (in a masochistic way) – plus I really enjoyed seeing the happy proud squirrels running around.
The bad news was that we were hearing the line to go up the cables was two hours!! And, considering we started really late, that would mean not getting back until well after sunset. This concerned me because doing the Vernal fall stairs in the dark (not everyone had lights with them) is just plain dangerous.
So we had a solution. We decided to create a new top of half dome and claim our victory there. See our explanation…
So after that we hauled it down to the valley, barely breaking at all.
One thing I distinctly remember was fantasying about the water fountain at the base of Vernal Falls. We were out of water early on the descent and all I could think about was how much water I was going to drink. Like frakin gallons of water. I wanted to swim in a sea of drinking fountain water, sprout gills, and just gulp and whatever-gills-do-to-water all the water in existence.
And upon arrival at said water fountain I pretty much did exactly that. I think I drank somewhere along the lines of eight to ten glasses of water in about two minutes. Felt a bit sick afterwards, but oh it was worth it.
At the end we ended up eating at the buffet in Curry Village because the pizza line was out of control. No matter – it was delicious.
After that we got s’more stuff (I made s’more eating a requirement), drank a lot of alcohol, and had fun hanging out around the campfire.
The next day we got up, got some food (sadly by the time we got there breakfast was over!), and made the long and significantly less chit-chatty drive back.
So overall it was an intense and awesome experience. It was great to meet some fellow Googlers and it was great to finally get out for some outdoorsy goodness.
I can’t wait for our next trip!
…though I am more than willing to wait for the next I-can’t-properly-bend-my-legs-for-four-days experience.
Oh and thanks to Sean and Sarah for their photos!