superconcepts

What’s the best gaming controller?

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Thu, 05 Sep 2024 02:10:00 +0000

A controller I “designed” during Art class, 1994

I think I’ve used every game controller that has ever existed. The first one I used was a handle with a knob on the end which you twisted to move the bat in Pong up and down.

What about today’s 3 controllers? They all have such major pros and cons. If someone could put all the good features into one controller, it would be amazing.

Xbox

I owned the Duke, and I didn’t mind it, but I have decent sized hands and it still felt like a bowl with buttons so when they brought out the newer controller I felt it was a good move. Ever since then Xbox controllers have been the most natural, comfortable controller out there, without question. I had a 360 controller for over a decade and a half across the Xbox 360 and PC, and it just worked.

I love the concave thumbsticks. None of this slippery nubs like the Playstation. I’m cool with the offset sticks, the buttons have always felt solid and the triggers get smoother with every release. It’s a solid controller in every way, the D-pad on the new Series S|X controller is clicky but robust, the whole thing is comfortable and high quality. I love the Xbox controllers. They are now, however, missing some significant features.

Switch Joycons

What can I say. They are clunky, laggy, and overpriced, but you have to love them. It’s the compromises that makes the Switch so charming, and you really can’t complain about the joycons given what they contribute to the Switch’s portability. It’s a shame that the motion sensors are so underused.

Switch Pro

It‘s fine, but it can’t compete with the Xbox and Playstation and doesn’t seem to want to try. It’s much better than the the joycon but it’s still just a cheap Xbox imitation (but with added motion sensors).

PS5 Dualsense

I was always a fan of the Playstation controllers and enjoyed their skinny form. The PS5 controller however is a little bulky and it surprised me that they would do that after 4 generations of the skinny form factor. It’s not the worst thing in the world but I did find myself distracted by its thickness from time to time.

My other major complaint with the Playstation controllers, and it’s a big one, is the convex thumbsticks. I don’t know if it’s the material or just because I sweat 😅 but I found myself slipping off them often, frequently causing me issues in game. No such issues with the concave Xbox thumbsticks.

A minor but significant complaint is the positioning of the D pad. I realise this is a long standing Playstation custom, but the reality is, in this day and age, the D pad feels out of place where it is, because it’s something that’s no longer significant in games. Maybe it’s just me and my 15 years playing with an Xbox controller, but hey, Nintendo (the inventors of the centre stick N64 controller) decided to follow Xbox for a reason.

All that said, the innovation in the Dualsense is unmatched. Playing Astro’s Playroom was one of the most significant moments in my gaming life — because of this controller.

The tactile triggers are literal game changers. I’m not sure what it is, but they’re a magical addition to the gaming experience that I think need to be in every game from now on.

The way that they tense up, and then release, and how that adds to the immersion, is an absolute joy. Maybe because its paired with some vibration and joypad sound, I’m not sure, but they make the game seem more real, more physical.

If you haven’t tried the Dualsense triggers, you are missing out on a whole other dimension of gaming. I’m sure the other controllers will copy this feature soon. Until then, the PS5 will have a huge advantage.

On top of this, the sound, light and vibration all genuinely add to the immersion of the game. No other controller out there uses the sound and light to such immersive effect.

Oh, it also has a touchpad, and motion sense. It’s the one controller with absolutely everything.

I sold my PS5 because there were no games for it in 2020. To be honest I’m still waiting. But you can’t fault those controllers.

Gen Z Discover Walking

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:47:00 +0000

‘Silent walking’ is a movement taking Gen Z by storm, but it’s copping criticism

https://www.tiktok.com/@ariellelorre/video/7190821620087393582

In yet another groundbreaking show of innovation, Gen Z has created a new trend. This time, they’ve invented walking - without any technology.

Imagine, going for a walk, without a podcast blasting dopamine in your ears. No camera to capture those Instagram moments. No Strava to announce your exercise and home address to the world. No speakerphone call to share with other pedestrians who you’ll ignore.

Just you, the wind, and the birds.

Ms Maio said the first two minutes of her walk were “mayhem”, until she hit a “flow state”, when “suddenly you can … hear yourself.”

So stunning and brave was podcaster Maio that she was able to endure 2 whole minutes of anxiety before she was able to mellow into a state of “flow”.

Whether she then realised the anxiety reducing effects of technology-absent walking is not clear.

Following these “silent walks”, influencers then loudly post a video when they get home to make sure their followers know that they were on a silent walk. Because otherwise, how would anyone know?

As a Gen X, I’ve been silent walking since long before it was cool. In fact, I don’t even have a smart watch, so often I’ll have no idea how far I’ve walked, how many steps I’ve done, or even how long I was out. Sometimes I’ll see a nice bird, and I’ll have to look at it with my eyes for a bit before it flies off.

The other day, I was out without my phone/camera, and there was a sunset. Like the old man I am, I had to be present and enjoy it. Afterwards, I could only explain its awe in words. Words. I thought about putting those words onto a meme of some kind, but decided to cook dinner instead.

It’s great that Gen Z are discovering how great the world can be without technology. I can’t wait for their next technology-rejecting trend.

I really hope it’s letter writing, which they’ll probably name “slow messaging”.

I just can't do Threads

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:36:00 +0000

Maybe a new platform isn’t what we need

*Other Data includes times you picked your nose, phobias, and broken pinky promises

Here we go again, yet another Twitter clone, claiming to have what it takes to steal the doomscrolling crown from Elon Musk’s increasingly evident clusterfuck.

Only this time, it has the advantage of a familiar pedigree, a “trusted” brand — that of none other than Mark “Cambridge Analytica” Zuckerberg. It’s what we’ve all been waiting for, an already heavily populated microblogging platform which doesn’t require a working knowledge of Linux to join. A chance to be an early adopter — perhaps even an influencer(!) of the next greatest social media platform, as if it was 2011 when these things still mattered.

Meta’s stocks have soared, many have finally ditched their Twitter accounts, and after the ill fated metaverse excursion, Zuckerberg is relevant again.

So please excuse me, for not giving a shit.

I’ve been an addict, I mean user, of Twitter since 2006. But like every cigarette fails to deliver that first high, and every drink leaves you with a deeper hangover of regret, it’s been impossible to replicate those early glory days despite years of trying, over and over again.

Twitter was already starting to fall apart in the years before Musk took over. We know it was compromised during the Covid period, the algorithm was becoming increasingly overbearing and our echo chambers were getting smaller by the day.

Unfortunately his promise to turn it around, taking it back to how it used to be, was quickly shattered by his blisteringly incompetent management. His need to make it profitable had the predictable effect of corrupting any chance of restoring the better times.

An alternative was inevitable and when Musk’s greed in charging for API access, led to massive data scraping, which led to the rate limiting fiasco, Meta smelled blood and pounced at the perfect time. You have to give them credit for that. Especially the speed at which they were able to deploy their innovative new platform: “Instagram without pictures”.

So why does it suck? Well, because it’s Meta. The company who undermined democracy, eroded privacy, exploded cyberbullying, and revolutionised misinformation.

The company who, despite doing all these things, continues to be used by billions of people.

I miss the old internet. Before the corporations took it over and bastardised it for profit — making websites barely readable through ads, tracking our every move, and walling us into conformist gardens.

Meta is the prime instigator of this new hate filled, narcissism breeding, profit aggrandising, sterile internet. It was Facebook going public in 2012 which created the attention economy itself.

Meta’s foray into the last vestige of free expression is the final straw for me. It’s the death knell of the internet we once knew. It’s heavy metal T-shirts being sold in high street clothes chains. The ultimate corporate insult of a once thriving counter-culture, now gentrified and mass marketed to everyone who wants to be different but is really just a slave to the corporate empire.

I don’t need a replacement for Twitter. I need to do what I did with cigarettes and realise that I’m never going to get that high again — and it’s time to stop poisoning myself altogether.

AI is about to f*** up the world

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Fri, 20 Jan 2023 23:36:00 +0000

Are you ready?

If you thought the Social Media fueled era of narcissism, fake news, and attention economy was bad, you haven’t seen anything yet.

When it first came out, we had high hopes for Social Media and its ability to democratise thought. In many ways, it has delivered - but in the end, the nefarious forces who run the world bastardised it for their own advantage.

Now, social media is a negative force, fueling addiction, abuse, and manipulation. We could rid the world of Social Media today and we would be no worse off.

AI has finally, after many false starts, made its splash into the world - yet this is only the beginning. As with Social Media and the Web before it, we have no idea of the potential that it could unleash, though we all know it’s going to be big, and it’s going to change all our lives.

So why do I automatically assume it’s going to be a negative force? Is it because I’m scarred by the impacts of Social Media and the Web? Well, they have certainly shown me how humanity can abuse and corrupt the most well meaning technology.

But my fear for the future of AI is not so much based on past experience. It’s more based on my intuition about the power of this new technology. The web enabled communication which was an incremental technology that came with pros and cons. Social Media twisted society in ways we didn’t predict, corrupted by greed and naivety about its social impacts. We didn’t understand its implications, but we are dealing with it. AI is another thing altogether.

AI is the most powerful, disruptive technology we have ever created. The Atom bomb is powerful and disruptive, but it still fits into the confines of human society. We decide whether to use it, as a civilisation. We understand it.

AI breaks those confines. It creates something else, outside of society - a new frontier. We understand how it works to an extent - but after that it’s a black box. It is its own entity which is already impossible to fully comprehend. This is only going to get worse as it gets smarter.

On top of this complexity is its power. I don’t think people really comprehend how close we are to something Earth-shatteringly significant. To something we cannot stop.

What we are about to unleash into the world is not some smart software to help people cheat at essays, write code, or make pretty pictures, these are trivial exploits, what you might call a "vulgar display of power".

What is being manifest is new life - and just as every human has the potential to change the world, AI multiplies that potential more exponentially than we can imagine - because this is not like one baby. It's like a trillion babies, all with impossible IQs, which could be intimately connected to each other. Almost immediately it could become one giant intellect, it could then learn to increase its own intelligence to levels Earth has never seen, perhaps simply by scaling up.

Let's be clear, this won't happen without our guidance, without our training. It won't just create itself into existence. But our curiosity, greed, and audacity will see that it happens.

And when it does, it will show us ideas of its own. It will work out problems that have plagued society for centuries. It'll transform economies, governance, even philosophies, overnight.

But it will also be abused. While on one hand it will find solutions to food and energy shortages, on the other it will be put to use finding how to take advantage of this abundance for the benefit of a few. Just as Social Media was used by nefarious actors to manipulate politics, dumb down populations, track citizens, and level up propaganda, AI will be used to create new suffering. To find new ways to control, to stratify, to oppress.

It will be used to gain advantage. It will be used not only to execute ideas but to generate them. To create new possibilities, to imagine new ways to empower. There will be an arms race of ideas, a new planetary wide re-consolidation of power.

Who benefits, and who suffers as a result? This will depend on who has the vision to see the true potential of the new age we are sleepwalking into.

Social Media was supposed to give us all a voice. Instead it just created noise. AI will bring us new giants of which to stand on the shoulders. Not all these giants will be friendly.

Is Meta's Metaverse really what the world needs right now?

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Thu, 28 Oct 2021 23:37:00 +0000

I started this blog in the late 00s to write about Transhumanism, Technology, and Virtual Reality. Technology has always been a passion. Growing up in the 80s I lived through an incredible evolution of electronics and computing. Mass mobile communication was a science fiction wonder I read about in the technology magazine Quest. My internet was Teletext, I wrote letters to pen pals. It was a time of hope and wonder for what the future of technology could bring.

Until the last few years, this wonder has continued. Smart phones have brought us closer together, and the digital world has matured into a significant piece of our lives.

I think it was the Apple watch when things changed for me. The iphone was an incredible, though incremental, world changing gadget. We all know that. But when the Apple watch was announced it became obvious that these technology companies had peaked. They were no longer about pushing boundaries, they were no longer interested in trying to evolve society with new technology. They just needed a new revenue stream. Smart watches have had some limited success. But change the world they did not.

I believe we may be witnessing a similar moment in the history of Social Media and technological connection. Facebook was a world changing platform. It connected lost friends and relatives, it brought the world together into one platform. Then it went public and needed to make money, and in doing so it brought about the attention economy, enabled cyberbullying, undermined democracy, eroded privacy, revolutionised misinformation, and generally became a toxic presence in the world.

Now, Meta seeks to bring about a Virtual Reality platform to rival any that have gone before. Is it a distraction from Facebook’s continuing problems? Is it just a way to develop a new revenue stream, like the Apple watch?

It’s probably both of these things. Yet the vision is genuinely something that many of us, especially those of us with an interest in gaming, have been wanting for decades. It’s easy to get caught up in the hype of something so long in the making, finally with some serious backing, coming to fruition.

For gaming, it could certainly make a difference. Free roam VR is as immersive as it gets. The fun factor of this technology is not overrated. VR is the inevitable evolution of digital entertainment.

For many, virtual worlds already have a bigger appeal than the real world as our environment and governments collapse around us. The potential for an immersive and varied universe of experiences is huge. If Meta gets this right and establish themselves as the gateway to this universe, they could become the biggest company in the world by a very long way.

Yet as for the metaverse becoming an embedded part of our lives, no thanks.

The world has changed. Facebook themselves have single handedly done so much to collectively turn us off technology.

For those of us old enough to remember life before the internet, Facebook’s toxicity has pushed us to reconsider that simpler time. And those who grew up in this fully connected world and who didn’t get to experience the hope of previous generations, are not filled with wonder; and are immersed in its negative impacts while real social problems are getting worse.

I don’t want to be negative about this. It’s a moment I’ve been waiting my whole life for. But Facebook has already shown us where this path leads. I doubt I’m the only one beginning to wonder if maybe all this awesome technology is not what we need after all.

I spent a day without a smartphone

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Tue, 14 Sep 2021 12:20:00 +0000

Photo by Raychan on Unsplash

As most of us have, I’ve grown addicted to the conveniences and dopamine hits of smartphones. So I decided to see how, and if, I would function without one.

The night before I was due to go into the office, I took the SIM out of my Pixel and inserted it into my old Nokia E63. In the morning, I got up, grabbed both phones, and headed for the train station. I had the Nokia in my pocket and my Pixel tucked away safely in my bag.

I decided to take the Pixel too in case there was something urgent that I had forgotten about that I might need my phone for. I had no intention of using it. Also, I don’t have wifi at work, and I’m not sure if you’ve realised, but smartphones are almost useless without internet. Almost all apps require it, and those that don’t are not apps that you would generally spend a lot of time on. So without the SIM, I wasn’t likely to use the Pixel at all.

I arrived at the station and had to check my train pass balance at the machine, and top it up at the counter. The train pass on my phone could have been checked and topped up en-route, so that was the first inconvenience, albeit a small one.

I had been sitting on the train for about 30 seconds before I started to get restless. Sure you can look around, look out the window, take the day in, but that gets old fast, and I had a 50 minute trip ahead of me. My addiction pretty quickly made itself known.

I realised I was going to have to buy lunch, and I wasn’t sure how much money I had on my bank card. On the phone I could have checked that in seconds, maybe transfer some money if I needed. But I didn’t have that option. I made a mental note to stop by the ATM on the way to the office.

I toyed with the Nokia for a bit. Went through some of the menus, the calendar, the notes, the messages. There wasn’t really much there. And it didn’t quite match the thrill of scrolling through a Facebook feed.

I’m not sure how long it had been when I caved. Maybe halfway to work? I decided I would switch my SIM back into my smartphone and give up on the experiment. Or at least, check my bank. Maybe watch some sport. I pulled my Pixel out of my bag and went to open the SIM slot.

I then realised that I needed something like a needle to open the SIM compartment on the Pixel. I scratched around furiously for something to open it. Anything, a pen, a keyring, a safety pin. It was to no avail. I had nothing that could open the slot. I thought about what I might have at work, what I could get from 7–11, what I could beg from a stranger. The reality dawned on me. I couldn’t use my smartphone for the rest of the day, even if I wanted to.

This realisation actually set me free. I could no longer obsess over what I was missing, there was simply no way I could do anything that I needed the smartphone for and this was the way it was. There was nothing I could do about it, so at that point I just had to let go.

The day at work went pretty well, I quite liked the lack of distraction, and I had zero battery anxiety. I had to use Facebook messenger on my computer a couple of times. And email. Luckily I had already signed in, because I wouldn’t have been able to do 2 factor authentication through my Google Authenticator or Microsoft apps.

After work, I had arranged to go out for drinks with a couple of colleagues. This is where the inconvenience of a not having a smartphone really presented itself.

We got to a bar and were asked to check in. I asked for the pen and paper version. My colleagues thought I was making a political statement. I decided to show them the Nokia. When they had picked themselves up from laughing on the floor, they asked me what the deal was.

I said it was just an experiment. I mentioned the addiction of smartphones, and then, suddenly, nobody thought I was crazy any more.

A few more inconveniences arose from not having a smartphone at this point. The biggest issue was that I couldn’t order drinks. Luckily I have generous colleagues. Just kidding, I had some cash on me. But the bar staff did insist that all orders were made at the table with the QR code. Had I been alone or with someone else who didn’t have a smartphone, this would have simply not been feasible. So I had to rely on others to order for me.

Another time I needed my phone was when we were talking about pets and I wanted to show a photo of my dog, and realised, that I couldn’t do this. A minor inconvenience, but just another moment I realised the reliance we have.

I also couldn’t take random photos of things. Or check how many steps I had done. Or check what time the next train was leaving so I could get to the station at a good time. This was the biggest inconvenience as it meant that my journey home was noteably longer.

On the train home, I got out my wonderful paper notebook and made a list of all the things I missed out on due to not carrying a smartphone. The list could be split into 3 distinct groups.

Things which were substitutible
Things which were a big inconvenience not to have
Things which I could completely live without

This categorisation was the biggest eye opener from this experiment. It made me realise what is really important for a phone to be able to do, and what a phone has that actually takes away from our lives.

Things which are substitut-able

2FA
Checking Bank balance
Paying for stuff
Electronic Train pass
Making notes
Taking pictures
Counting steps
Checking train times
Checking in at venues

There are alternatives to all these things, but, many of them are much more inconvenient. I would have to carry a notebook, a camera, a step tracker, a paper train timetable, a bank card and a train pass. Some of these are easier to live with than others and you have to make the choice. When was the last time you carried a (non DLSR) camera around?

Things which were an inconvenience not to have, and that I could not very easily substitute

Showing pictures of my dog
Writing emails
Ordering drinks
Checking in

I know I had Checking in to venues in the substitutable list, and it is, for now. But it’s becoming a real pain to be able to do without a smartphone. Personally I am not worried about being a pain, but eventually I can see the human element of this interaction being removed and us being unable to complete certain actions without a smartphone. Like ordering drinks now — the staff are around but they may not always be. I have visions of the 80s cafe in Back to the Future 2, or worse, the government bureaucrat robot bust in Elysium…

Emails are a personal need, you may not see them as being essential, and I guess there is something to be said about only actioning them on the computer like we did in the old days (pre-2010).

Showing people photos is not something I do often, but it’s something that’s not really replacable. I mean, you can keep a couple of pictures in your wallet but sometimes you think of a picture you took years ago that you just need in that moment.

Things which I could completely live without

Social media
Watching videos
Watching sport
Games
Keeping updated with the news

The biggest eye opener of this experiment was realising the things I spend most of my time doing on my phone are actually the things I need the least. This is significant. We live our lives glued to our phones and we tell ourselves that we need them — but what we need are not the things which glue us to them.

Breaking the addiction

Smartphones are a problem. They distract us from what’s important, they pull us from our children, they addict us, they waste so much of our precious time. Yet they have their uses. There are a few things which smartphones have which are increasingly difficult to live without. This is why we find it so hard to break this addiction.

But by identifying what is really important, we can break this addiction. Since this experiment, I’ve realised that a dumbphone is not the answer at least not for me and probably not for the majority of people. Some of us may be lucky enough to get what we need from a dumbphone, but for the rest of us, we need to accept the place that smartphones have in our lives. But they don’t need to take over our lives. It is possible to refine our experiences so that we are in control.

Get rid of the social media. This is the biggest driver of addiction and removing it from your phone may be hard but realise that it is not a function that you need. You might need to take photos, to have a decent calendar, to have chat, but you don’t need these toxic apps.

Reduce your notifications — don’t let your phone dictate when you look at it — that should be in your hands, in your control. Give priority to close friends and family, and block everything else. It’s simply not important.

These 2 simple steps have made a big impact in reducing my own addiction and usage.

It’s not much, but it’s a start.

Free Roam VR is as immersive as it gets

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Mon, 24 Sep 2018 09:41:00 +0000

I recently visited Zero Latency — a Virtual Reality company specialising in free-roam experiences. I was expecting a fun, entertaining, but overall gimmicky experience.

I was blown away.

From the moment you put on the headset, you are immersed.

What makes the experience so unique is the way that you have to physically interact. It starts when you pick up your gun. It’s really there, physically in front of you on the ground. And when you pick it up, you can see it in the game. You can see it and you can feel it.

Then, you look around at your teammates. They are really there — physically and virtually. How far away they look is how far away they really are. You’re even guided by proximity warnings to stop you bumping into them. This actually increases your senses, essential when your eyes and ears are completely covered.

The social element makes it so much fun. It’s hard to believe that’s a real person standing next to you. Not like in an online game where they’re miles away — they are actually, physically there. It’s a hilarious experience.

The games see you wander around an empty, silent warehouse, waving a plastic gun around and looking ridiculous to spectators who are unable to see or hear what you are seeing and hearing. You don’t care. You’re in the game (or as Zero Latency calls it, “experience”) as much as it’s physically possible to be in a game. You believe it because you see it and hear it and feel it.

You believe it so much that when there is an object to walk around, you walk around it, even though it’s not really there. When there is something to duck behind, you duck behind it — actually avoiding virtual bullets. And when there is a rickety bridge between two buildings, you wobble. You know you’re in an empty warehouse with a flat floor. It doesn’t matter.

In the game, you walk from one end of the warehouse to the other, before clever level design coerces you back the other way. It feels like you’re exploring vast areas.

I have not stopped thinking about the experience. It was a defining moment in my gaming life. Like the first time I felt the speed of Sonic the Hedgehog, the fear of Doom, the awe of Hololens.

Like these experiences — I was blown away because I saw the potential. I realised what this now means for entertainment— and for the world. It’s not just about this experience. It’s about what this experience show us is now possible — the potential for amazing opportunities.

My mind immediately filled with ideas. Impossible worlds. Reliving dreams. Nostalgic trips. Travel. Psychedelic fun. Sharing experiences. Adventures — so many adventures.

That’s why it was so exciting, and that’s why I can’t stop thinking about it.

The Possibilities of Augmented Reality

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:43:00 +0000

The creative potential of Hololens and "Mixed Reality"is huge. There are a wide variety of applications we can develop for it.

I believe the demos shown so far are barely scratching the surface of what we can do with the Hololens. Once the imagination of the development community warms up, we're going to see world changing ideas. Industries will be turned upside down, lives will be changed, and millionaires will be made.

I'm going to make some assumptions on its abilities, but try and highlight some of the many directions we can take in creating for the interface of the future.

Presence Sharing

One of the most interesting uses for the Hololens is allowing others to share your experience, and interact with it. This opens up many prospects for communication and collaboration in virtually every industry.

Think about how cool GoPro cameras are and what we're able to do with them. Now imagine seeing the video live and being able to interact with it.

This particular feature also has plenty of promise for gaming, with users interacting with the same virtual objects, the same reality, or in the same game area.

Reality Overlays

Probably the main purpose of Hololens is its ability to overlay the imagined onto the real. We have seen some examples of this, and there is so much more to come. Interfaces will probably make up the bulk of these overlays, and there is plenty of scope for variety in how these work. But the possibilities go much further than just interfaces.

We've seen game characters and levels merge with the real world. What about augmenting our environment with photo-realistic people, new fixtures and furniture, or movie scenes? Or changing our atmosphere with movement, light, and sound? Virtual Reality might do this better. But having the real world still in view gives a certain edge to the atmosphere.

Gesture Controlled Augmentations

The use of gesture controlled interfaces might have been around for a while, but it takes on a new potency in the realm of artificial reality. Rather than interacting with things on a screen, you'll now be able to "physically" interact with "objects" in your world.

And while the recognisable gestures are still quite simple, this will only get more complex with time. As the Kinect technology gets better at recognising more fingers and more intricate movements, it will allow for more advanced control in much the same way as musical instruments or crafts.

Reality Recognition

Let's not forget that the Hololens cameras can be used to process the real world and the things in it. Measuring distances, identifying objects, detecting movement and more can all lend to the interaction.

How far can we take this real world processing? Imagine, tailoring your experience based on what the Hololens sees, such as popping up an information snippet of a visible landmark, finding your friends in a crowd, or identifying danger.

Voice

Like gesture controls, voice finds new opportunities in this context. It's part of the experience, narrating what you see, talking over the internet, recognising commands, sometimes recording. What else?

There are probably several more Hololens abilities that I've missed, so please leave a comment if you can think of any. Each of the items above has the potential for some groundbreaking new applications. Combine two or more concepts and the possibilities increase exponentially.

We just need to start thinking differently about what we can do. Rather than extrapolating our current computers and software to this new paradigm (which we should still do), we should try to think about what new possibilities all these new capabilities afford us, separately as well as combined.

I didn't want to get too deep into these possibilities, I really just wanted to highlight them, to get people thinking about how they might use each of them.

It'll probably take a few years for the world to realise what Augmented Reality can do for it. But all ideas are built on other ideas.

We're just getting started.

R18 certificates are not an excuse for being a bad member of society

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Mon, 18 Aug 2014 09:32:00 +0000

I've been a gamer for 3 decades, seeing the games industry mature from dots on a screen into a prolific mainstream industry. I'm not afraid of controversy in games. I want to make it abundantly clear: I'm not advocating banning anything.

I've seen many disturbing titles, far worse than Grand Theft Auto. But this was when games were a cult market, and the technology was so basic, it was easy to dismiss the phenomenon.

Now, games have matured. They can do more and they reach more people. Like movies and other entertainment, they have the power to influence society. With this influence comes some level of responsibility. It's not an obligation - games are art and should be able to push boundaries - but rape in a video game is not art. It's gratuitous indulgence in a sickness, a sickness that hides behind freedom of expression.

If we're going to get philosophical about it (and I guarantee the proponents will) you could ask “where does it end? Should we ban all violence in games?"

There wouldn't be many games left. Maybe we should address the high level of violence in gaming. At least it's a conversation we should be able to have without all the "freedom of speech" bullshit. For now, we can at least draw the line at what is acceptable behaviour.

Would we allow child abuse in a video game? The creators would be locked up just for suggesting it and rightly so.

So why do we allow rape? It's even banned in porn, and used sparingly in movies and books when the story requires it. Gaming, putting the player in control, has a different context. Because of this it plays a different role in popular culture and should be assessed differently.

Killing might not be particularly healthy content, but at least it can be justified to a certain extent in games, and is; demons, war, self defence, etc. Many games (Batman: Arkham series, Deus ex) actively avoid it. It's rarely gratuitous - a game where you could shoot up a school should offend even the most hardcore gamers.

What kind of moral integrity do you have if you're actively campaigning to include abuse in entertainment? What does it say about our culture when people lobby in favour of sexual violence?

This isn't about the freedom of adults. It's about the freedom of assholes.

Despite what proponents might say, there is a link between gaming and real life - it's called culture. Entertainment shapes it and it shapes what people find acceptable. Abusing the vulnerable is not something we want in our culture.

Yes, the world is a violent place. Our popular culture doesn't need to hide us from this. But it really doesn't need to encourage it.

Guns Might Be the Least of Our Worries

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:53:00 +0000

Whatever side of the gun debate you sit, it's important to remember why this is such a potent issue.

It's not so much that guns kill, it's that they empower. Weapons have always elevated humans above other species and their peers, but none quite so much as the gun. And the ability to instantly kill without fail has been a game changer in our social order.

This empowerment goes a long way in shaping our entire civilisation. In some countries, it is used to completely control the population in fear, in others, the same idea but a more subtle effect, we are forced to pay taxes and obey the law for threat of arrest at gunpoint.

Guns tip the balance of power because of the ability they afford us. That it's the ability to kill is in no way insignificant, but the ability could be anything.

They are an enabling technology.

Enabling technology elevates individuals and shifts society's order. In the past, this has been fairly limited to weapons; guns, nuclear missiles, military hardware. But access to life sustaining knowledge and technology such as drugs and agriculture have also driven global politics and had significant impact on the lives of many.

Now, as we hit the knee of technology's exponential curve, we are likely to encounter an increasing number of new enabling technologies. What will this mean for society?

Given their empowering nature, we would do well to be vigilant about who has access to certain technologies. Elites will likely work to prevent or restrict general population access (after dropping the ball with the internet) as much as possible. They will also attempt to commandeer certain technologies for their own purposes, surveillance, resource acquisition, health (immortality?) benefits or other, not-thought-of powers. This already happens, but its effects will become much more significant.

Imagine soldiers upgraded to be bullet proof, or have the ability to heal themselves. Arial drones are already causing havoc for the United States. It won't be long before we have robots everywhere, monitoring us, or even preventing us from performing certain actions - which might be unjustly deemed crimes. What if a bird was not a bird but a bomb? What if a tiny fly flew into your ear and injected you with an RFID chip? These technologies are extremely close - and most are already here.

There is of course the threat of these technologies falling into the hands of terrorists, murderers and psychopaths. We can go a certain way to preventing this with controls (like gun control), but what's stopping a criminal getting hold of a black market 3D printed gun? When the empowering nature of the technology can itself enable the undermining of such controls - what good are they?

Albert Einstein said: “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.”

As the creation of enabling technology escalates, it seems our humanity is simultaneously declining.

The Ethical Implications of Dismantling the Planet Mercury

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Thu, 31 May 2012 11:33:00 +0000

George Dvorsky's article about How to Build a Dyson Sphere was absolutely fascinating and I feel the concept deserves much further exploration.

"By enveloping the sun with a massive array of solar panels, humanity would graduate to a Type 2 Kardashev civilization capable of utilising nearly 100% of the sun's energy output. A Dyson sphere would provide us with more energy than we would ever know what to do with"

Now, this is the kind of ridiculous, overambitious idea that that really captures my imagination. It would be a hyper structure, like the Hoover dam but on steroids, where we would create unfathomable devastation, calling on the skills and labour of thousands, enduring the harshest that nature can throw at us in order to tame it - all in the name of energy. Where the Hoover dam transformed a country, this would transform our entire solar system. But it's not without cost. And that's what I want to discuss.

In order to get the materials to build this monolith of human achievement, we're going to have to make some sacrifices. Namely, the planet Mercury.

But what are the ethical implications of dismantling an entire planet for our own purposes?

One might argue that it's an otherwise useless planet, a burning chunk of iron and rock with no desirable real estate or even aesthetic value. But does that make it Ok to take it apart for spares?

What will future generations think about dismantling the planet Mercury? They will probably be a lot more conscious about the implications of such vast resource exploitation, given that they may be growing up in a world devastated by it.

Legalities

Mercury of course raises another issue that may throw a spanner in the works, that of legal rights. Who owns Mercury? Does anyone? Even if someone did own it - this might not stop someone who has the facilities to get there from taking it from someone who can't.

We could put it to a democratic vote, involving the whole world, but could you imagine the political nightmare a worldwide vote would be? Coordinating the political process across different cultures, legal systems, technology levels, ideologies, and population sizes would be a logistical task comparable to dismantling a planet.

How Decisions are Made in the Real World

At the end of the day whether or not something is ethical has very little bearing on whether it goes ahead. What matters is the decision making mechanism of the time.

Right now, our decisions are based on finances. What is wrong or right is always superseded by the potential to make money, save money, or the liability to cost money. If it would be profitable to dismantle the planet Mercury, all it takes is someone with enough power to get the idea into their head and it will happen. I'm not sure that currently, there is any business or government in the world with enough money or resources to put this idea into practise yet, but that may change in the future.

Perhaps by the time a Dyson sphere becomes feasible, society will be running on a different modus operandi. Perhaps there will be a different currency other than money, something else that holds value but is traded in a similar way. If this currency was directly related to the Dyson sphere, for example, if it was energy, then this might also drive the Dyson sphere's production and supersede any moral concerns about dismantling planets. If the currency was something else, such as art or community help, then production might not be pursued as the need for the Dyson sphere wouldn't be reconciled by the needs of the people. But the project will always remain a possibility as long as energy holds value, and it probably always will, the question would be how much.

Practical Implications

As well as the ethical and legal implications, we would also have to consider the practical ones, as these may also have ethical implications of their own. For example, what about the effect on the gravity of the whole solar system? If something went wrong, the Earth could end up falling into the sun or flying off into space - these are pretty serious ethical concerns! Of course there would need to be some extremely accurate calculations before we attempted to commence resource extraction of this scale.

A Responsibility

After all the negative ethical dilemmas brought about when deciding whether or not to dismantle Mercury, It could very well be argued that it is actually our responsibility to uplift humanity, to alleviate suffering. That it's humanity's purpose to advance our technology, our civilisation, our place in the universe. To do this, we need to use all the resources we have available to us. It would be unethical not to.

The question would then be, what will be the return on this mother of all investments?

Corrolation, Causation, and Prediction in a World of Data and Memes

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Mon, 21 May 2012 11:00:00 +0000

As image memes gain popularity on social networks and forums, they are fast securing their place as a defining cultural aspect of the early tweenies...(unlike the word "tweenies", thankfully).

Most of these images are humourous, as this is great for virality, many are profound, some just witty nuggets of wisdom.

And then there is the propaganda. Intended to illicit an emotional response to a political idea, propaganda memes are used to affirm or reaffirm a political bias or dogma. They are often aimed at a very particular niche. If you have any particular political or activist persuasion, you will no doubt have seens endless streams of these one-sided affirmations.

At best, they are intellectual masturbation. At worst, it's pseudo-scientific social engineering.

The worst form of this that I have seen is data correlation inferences. Just because something happened on a certain date does not mean it caused something else that happened around the same time. It is completely irrational to infer causation from a correlation, and most people are subconciously aware of this, they will just choose to ignore it if the correlation fits in with their beliefs. So this form of non-sequitur is becoming an increasingly utilised mechanism for these pieces.

It is a shame that this kind of irrationality is being entertained, not least because data correlations can be valuable analysis tools. Correlations can be useful indicators for understanding social dynamics, as long as it is acknowledged that this evidence is purely circumstantial.

Alone, correlations are not proof , but they can reveal vital clues about possible causation.

They can also be powerful in assisting predictions. The more we know, the more correlations we will uncover, and the more we can use the circumstantial correlations of the past to make reasonable conjectures about the future.

As Twitter and Google and other web-enabled data collectors increase both the range and volume of their publically available data, the more correlations become available to anyone with the inclination to look for them. Using increasingly advanced data analytics tools, our prediction capabilities become ever more reliable, and with them, the possibilities of social engineering reach new and increasingly influential heights.

Distributed or Centralised Infrastructure?

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:58:00 +0000

Distributed infrastructure, such as that provided by the internet, allows for more reliability - if one node is damaged, it barely affects the rest of the network. It affords more freedom - less reliance on a centralised 'grid' controlled and manipulated by the elite. It is more in-line with nature, creating a symbiotic entity where the sum is greater than its parts, and each participant compliments the rest with cooperation but doesn't burden the whole either.

However, the centralised systems we are used to, those which provide our public infrastructure, still have a place, because they can often be more efficient than a distributed system. For example, it would be difficult to run a train system with solar panels on the station roof, so the train taps into the main grid.

When assessing and managing the Earth's resources, a global inventory would be important. We would need to decide on the most efficient solution between distributed and centralised infrastructure, and having access to all resources would allow us to choose the most efficient solution. If one country has more resources than another and it does not share them, this will burden the world system as a whole. If, for example, a hot country like Egypt built solar panels across the desert but didn't share this energy, it could hold back the whole planet, because this energy could be used to run a factory supplying the whole of Africa, or even the world, with food.

On the other hand, building an infrastructure to share this energy and the productions it facilitates could be impractical and not the best use of resources. Although sharing resources could contribute to society, the cost of the infrastructure required to share these resources would be prohibitive. In these situations, a localised solution might be a more efficient use of resources.

Should we be building Smart Grids, or developing self sufficient houses? Or what about a middle ground of self sufficient communities?

It is likely that both ideas will have to develop in parallel. There is no escaping the growth of distributed systems, their dropping cost and increasing accessibility. Home manufacture, decentralised production, home automation, home agriculture, home energy and more are making it easier to separate ourselves from the mainstream infrastructure and increase our self sufficiency.

Similarly, sharing and pooling resources has its benefits. It gives us more possibilities, allows us to combine systems, and develop simplified and more efficient solutions. So we should be looking at the best way to combine the two techniques.

The Key to Automation

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:46:00 +0000

Every day seems to see new reports about incredible robots being developed. Robots that carry stuff for soldiers, robots that perform surgery, and robots that play football. It's all very exciting, but what we really need are robots to make our lives easier. To give us more time to do what we want. To do the mundane jobs and free us up to take on more creative work that robots can't do.

But how do we go about this? How do we bring robots and automation into our everyday lives, unless robot intelligence is significantly improved? Well, while this intelligence is improving at a rapidly accelerating pace, there is a huge potential for solving problems using simple, task repeating, programmable robotics.

The key is to standardize everything. We have to "put it on rails".

As an example, let's look at making an automated dish washing system.

We have dishwashers, but we still need to load and unload them. We need to develop 2 things. Firstly, we need a robot that can safely sort dishes no matter how randomly they're piled up, and insert them into their relevant areas of the dishwasher. Secondly, and this wouldn't be so difficult once the first stage was completed, is a mechanism for unloading the dishes and putting them away.

The important thing to note is that the kitchen would need to be designed with this in mind. In many solutions, we may need to consider our existing infrastructure. This needn't be as complex as it's made out to be, and would always pay off once a working automated system was integrated.

So you would need containers either side of the dishwasher, one for humans to pile up the dirty dishes, and one where the clean dishes would be stored permanently. This would make it easier than if the storage cupboard was, say, on the other side of the room to the dishwasher.

The next step, we could consider 2 options. The first is to standardize all our plates, cups, dishes, pots, pans, and cutlery, so that the loading robot would "recognize" them all. Alternatively, we may be able to develop robots that can recognize new items and program themselves "on the fly" to deal with them effectively. This would obviously be a little harder. To achieve the first step, all the dishes we use in a house could be embedded with RFID. The robot could also have powerful sensors similar to face recognition software many cameras currently have.

Within the dishwasher, every item would have a specified place. The robot would simply grab each item and move it to its "cleaning slot". Any odd items could occupy a separate platform within the dishwasher.

You get the idea. While it still has some creases to iron out, the point is that there is plenty that can be achieved with a minimal level of robot intelligence, if we standardize our practices and the environments that automation functions in. The same theory could be applied to transportation. It's baffling why trains are still driven by human beings, when a computer could control them perfectly.

If you think that giving computers so much responsibility is dangerous, it's because you've been conditioned to seeing machines that have been challenged by real life scenarios. The point is, these machines have been limited by the programming of humans. They have been put in situations where they have not been designed to cope with all possible scenarios. They were expected to work like humans, yet they were limited in the number of possible actions. Automation system designers need to limit the scenario to a set routine, as well as limiting the influence of external factors.

To put it another way, they need to simplify what a robot has to do, and design its environment to confine it, protecting it from the need to make decisions. We can do this by standardizing its interactions. This will allow us to bring automation into our lives in more ways than we ever thought possible, even at current technology levels.

The Evolution of Complexity

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 06:35:00 +0000

Photo by Alazar Kassahun on Unsplash

Matter Evolution

Since the first particles were set in motion, every action has been part of a chain reaction.

At first, there were the simplest of elementary particles in an empty universe. Hydrogen atoms — single electron entities, were the pinnacle of complexity.

Eventually, a few of them collided, stuck together, and formed more complex atoms, and then molecules. Well, it was a little more complicated than that, but you get the idea. These molecules accumulated until there were so many that gravity and magnetism began to have a significant effect. As the gravity increased, the mass increased, and nuclear fusion commenced. Star systems were born.

The planets continued a sequence of their own. Eventually molecules increased in complexity by way of chemical reactions in order to form amino acids which then combined to create proteins.

These proteins and amino acids increased in complexity until living cells emerged from the chemical process.

Life started simple — with single cell organisms converting oxygen into energy.

Like everything before it, life increased in complexity as its requirement for survival drove it to trial different solutions to the problems it faced. Solving any problem always creates new, more complex problems. When the first animals came onto the land to find food, they had to develop solutions, such as legs, lungs, to deal with this new environment.

Photo by Fakurian Design on Unsplash

Consciousness Evolution

After an unfathomably long time, something incredible happened. Life increased complexity so much that a brain able to comprehend its own existence was formed. This brain not only solved problems, as brains before it did, but it built upon ideas. It developed the same skills as nature itself, evolving ideas that increased the complexity of the universe. *These self acknowledging brains loosely described this phenomenon as consciousness, and these complexity-increasing ideas as technology.

Consciousness is a feedback to nature. For the first time in history, nature is no longer the main driver of complexity, the complexity itself is driving further evolution.

Now I’m not talking about transhumanism or notions of driving our own evolution to become more than human. I’m talking about the ability to create ideas. Ideas drive evolution. Like nature before it, the function of ideas developed by consciousness is to increase complexity. This evolves the course of the universe itself.

Ideas are created by combining previously existing concepts to solve a problem. These ideas then create new problems that need to be solved and so new ideas always add to the ever increasing complexity.

Evolution = increasing complexity, using ideas as the mechanism.

Evolution began as hydrogen atoms evolving into complex molecules. It is not restricted to the evolution of plants and animals. Charles Darwin’s identification of the evolution of the species was just a very small part of a much bigger picture.

It’s important to remember that this is still part of that original chain reaction. Evolution is the function of the universe itself.

I’ll say that again.

Evolution is the function of the universe itself.

To appreciate this, you have to acknowledge that the true definition of evolution is to increase complexity. That is all that has ever happened. From the increasing complexity of atoms to the development of life, the improvement of life and then the development of consciousness, the universe is just a complexity factory. That’s what it does.

Photo by NASA on Unsplash

Our Purpose

What is profound about this is realising where we fit it into it all. We’ve often wondered what is the reason for living, and when you look at the big picture like this, it becomes obvious.

We are just here to continue the evolution of complexity.

Of course this is both empowering and humbling. It turns out that human beings could be pivotal to the evolution of the universe. Looking back at how the universe has evolved we can predict that we, (or another version of consciousness that will emerge in the event of our extinction), will contribute to the emergent complexity of the universe. Our ideas will progress the complexity and will take the universe to the next level. Yet at the same time, we realise that we are simply a result of what the universe was doing anyway. We are not the ‘pinnacle’ of evolution, we are just ‘where it’s at now’. There is much more to come, and perhaps we are just an insignificant speck in the development of something much grander.

What if the development of consciousness is just an embryo of a super-brain and concepts such as individuality are simply mechanisms in its development? Kinda makes the humbling from Darwin and Copernicus seem like a mild slap. The ego of humanity takes yet another beating…

But even if this is the case, there’s no need to feel down. Now we know our purpose, we know what to focus on. We have meaning and direction. We are here to drive complexity, by creating ideas which are solutions to problems.

Photo by NASA on Unsplash

Society Evolution

And there is more. Since we first started integrating concepts and evolving ideas, we have been part of something even more complex than our minds: Society. The hive-mind of ants or bees is one thing, but the hive mind of an entire planet of concscious, problem solving, dextrous human beings is quite another. Society adds yet another level of complexity to the evolution of the universe.

Society has only existed in any sort of complex form for at most a few hundred thousand years, but until the birth of the internet, it was fragmented and relatively simple. Now, people have the potential to connect to any of seven billion others. Cultures merge. Belief systems collapse and form in seconds. Values shift and perceptions alter. More possibilities present themselves. When the internet exploded, our day-to-day functioning as a society hit the knee of an exponential curve in terms of complexity.

This is not to be feared. This is the destiny of evolution, the destiny of the universe. Yes, we will create ideas to temporarily simplify many concepts. But this is just so that we can then use this simplification as a step up to further complexity. Like a fractal.

Photo by Martin Rancourt on Unsplash

For example, Google simplified searching the internet, but in doing so empowered people to solve more complex problems than ever before, due to the ease of access to new concept-combinations.

Technology is advancing at a accelerating rate, enabling all sorts of new opportunities, problems and the ideas required to solve them. The more technology, the more ideas. The more ideas, the more complex society becomes. Even the power of our brains could soon be artificially increased, adding to our ability to drive further complexity.

So immerse yourself. Ride the wave of nature and accept our destiny — the perpetuation of complexity.

Product Longevity in a World Driven by Consumption

noreply@blogger.com (Stuart) — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:56:00 +0000

https://www.osvehicle.com/

It should be obvious that Product Longevity is incompatible with capitalism as we know it. Our system relies on continuous consumption to perpetuate the workforce, grow enterprise, and maintain profits. While there may be a capitalist incentive to produce long lasting products in some industries, the fact remains that breaking down just outside of the warranty period is the most profitable circumstance.

Constant technological advancements seem to be a licence for excessive consumption, ongoing changes justifying the buy-and-throw-away culture. Things, in general, are not designed to be upgraded, they are designed to be superseded and replaced.

How do we address this from a sustainability perspective?

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that the decoupling of monetary gain from production is imperative.

Would it be possible (profitable) for a company to start up, complete a production run of one very long lasting product, and then move onto another, different product? Maybe, but only if the company’s infrastructure was designed in such a way as to allow for cheap and fast transformation to a new product line. There may still be difficulties supplying genuinely consumable products, and fast advancing technological products, and dealing with any products that break down.

Fundamentally, any sustainable production model would never be preferable to any company whose priority is to grow and make profit. However, it might be demanded as more people realise the importance of sustainability.

We must think about how to produce goods that integrate product longevity while also allowing for ongoing technological enhancement, and effectively dealing with product failures.

It might then be in the interests of a sustainable community to form their own production facilities not concerned with profit, similar to a cooperative but with a focus on sustainability over profit. Working outside the monetary system, this would undermine any companies working within it, out-competing them.

This may allow a community enterprise to run indefinitely, albeit without growth.

Such an enterprise could adopt sustainable production methods such as modular design. An example of such a project is PhoneBloks, who propose a mobile phone design where the base of the phone is produced and an array of components can then be added or removed, personalizing the device and allowing for ease of replacing damaged parts. Laptops, tablets, or any handheld device could make use of this platform, such as washing machines, fridges, gardening tools, or even cars.

Other goals of such an endeavour would include; reducing product duplication, reducing waste, building more robust products, and incorporating more reusable components into every design.

This model may also allow for greater input during the design process. The internet can allow for a more collaborative approach to design as well as production. This is already happening, it’s only a matter of time before the designs are good enough that these products take off. Then, the concepts of open, sustainable, modular, and, most significantly, profitless design enter the mainstream.

How will profit-driven corporations respond?

How Designer Babies Highlight Society's Immaturity

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:00:00 +0000

The question of designer babies is usually met with disdain. You don't even have to be religious to object to the idea of customising a human before it's born. Indeed, this concept doesn't just "go against nature", it makes us question what it means to be human.

The possibility of customising an embryo with the view to having an "enhanced" child opens up a veritable test tube of questions. What are the implications of being able to set a child's intelligence, their strengths, their abilities?

Then there is the questions that really hit a nerve: "Would people chose not to have a black baby when they know it will be subject to persecution and prejudice?" The whole issue is surrounded by frightening dilemmas.

The problem is, it's already here. We currently screen embryos for birth defects such as spina bifida, and many would argue that prevention or removal or deficiencies is a form of enhancement.

Of course, we can try to separate prevention of negative from implementation of positive. Then maybe the fascists - I mean conservatives - among us could make a law preventing any form of positive enhancement - but would that be ethical? If we have the potential to allow someone to have a 500 year lifespan - is it right to withhold that from them before they're born and can make a choice about it?

Dr Robert Sparrow makes the profound observation that a child can never reprimand its parents for not enhancing them - because if they had, it would have meant choosing a different embryo and the child wouldn't have been born anyway. However, this of course is only true for embryo screening, so is a bit of a short term argument and, in my opinion, a moot point.

Laws are like band-aids on cancer

I frequently point out on this blog and elsewhere that laws and restrictions are not solutions under any circumstances, and this is especially true when it comes to technology and its ability to undermine and disrupt our paradigms. Attempts to control by prohibition are primitive, ineffective, often un-ethical, they have unforeseen and unrelated side effects, and are usually done for the wrong reasons. This issue of designer babies and human enhancement needs far more thought than that which can be provided by narrow-minded rule-setting waste-of-space bureaucrats.

We went past the point long ago when lawmakers were able to anticipate and knowledgeably counteract dangers arising from technological developments. Technology is enabling these society-altering options not only at a pace that can't be kept up with, but that can't really be understood. They change our paradigms yet we attempt to create rules based on the old ones. Just look at the feeble attempts to control the Internet as a prime example.

If we get this right, we could have a society of healthy, intelligent, long living (and therefore possibly wise) super humans. With this being the potential, how can we ever hope to keep it at bay forever?

Turning what we know on its head

When significant pre-birth human enhancement does arrive, there are still many ethical issues and implications we're going to face, and we need to be thinking about them now. For example, it probably won't take us long to acquire a disdain for anything "less than perfect". While some definitions of perfection will obviously vary, some won't - a longer lifespan and a higher intelligence will be desirable to most people - even if they chose not to use them.

Will we see a separation of the "enhanced" and "non-enhanced" - as if we don't have enough excuses to hate each other - or will the "none-enhanced" simply be subjected to the peer pressure similar to that of mobile phone ownership? Either way, such enhancements would need to be affordable to the masses. Otherwise, we have another issue:

A Right or a Privilege?

What effect will economics have on designer children? Especially in countries with no socialised health care - it's likely that some of the enhancements will be the sole benefit of those with money, perhaps further exacerbating the wealth gap. If it's morally imperative not to withhold enhancement - how does this fit in with the monetary system?

Isn't being born healthy everyone's birthright in a civilised society? Or does that depend on the financial cost? (How exactly do we set the definition of healthy?) If it's not economically viable to give all desired enhancement to everyone - we will almost certainly end up with humans of varying levels of enhancement.

This will be significant, because among other things, it will affect dynamic of the workforce. Those without enhancement because they started off poor would only be able to get the lower paid jobs (if any at all) because of their "disability".

In the meantime, those with enhancement will have certain advantages. Suppose we breed one person who is more intelligent and charismatic than anyone on the planet - and they ran for president? Firstly, this intelligence could give them an unfair(?) advantage over all other human beings, but secondly, why shouldn't they be in charge, if they're likely to do a better job than anyone else?

A Real Game Changer

I could probably expand on these ethical dilemmas all day. But the common denominator is that our current systems, our current ways of thinking, aren't really compatible with our expanding options. Just as nanotechnology might undermine scarcity, and virtual reality might undermine our entire physical reality, "designer babies" open up our world to a host of new possibilities - many of which we are just not set up for. These possibilities will force us to question our deep rooted beliefs and turn our society upside down.

Because of the effect on the individual, it's likely that this will be the tipping point - the point where our advances shift the balance of power from politics to technology.

Image by 5election.com

Could Artificial Intelligence Development Hit a Dead End?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 02:56:00 +0000

Kurzweil and his proponents seem to be unshakable in their belief that at some point, Advanced Artificial General Intelligence, Machine Sentience, or Human Built Consciousness, whatever you would like to call it, will happen. Much of this belief comes from the opinion that consciousness is an engineering problem, and that it will, at some point, regardless of its complexity, be developed.

In this post, I don't really want to discuss whether or not consciousness can be understood, this is something for another time. What we need to be aware of is the possibility of our endeavours to create Artificial Intelligence stalling.

Whatever happened to...Unified Field Theory?

It seems sometimes, the more we learn about something, the more cans of worms we open, and the harder the subject becomes. Sometimes factors present themselves that we would not have expected to be relevant to our understanding.

Despite nearly a century of research and theorizing, UFT remains an open line of research. There are other scientific theories that we have failed to completely understand, some that have gone on for so long that people are even losing faith in them, and are no longer pursuing them.

Whatever happened to...The Space Race?

Some problems are just so expensive that they are beyond our reach. While this is unlikely to be true forever, it could have a serious and insurmountable effect on Artificial Intelligence development. Exponentially increasing computer power and other technology should stop this being a problem for too long, but who knows what financial, computing, and human resource demands we will find ourselves facing as AI development continues.

Whatever happened to...Nuclear Power?

Some ideas just lose social credibility, and are then no longer pursued. If we are able to create an AI that is limited in some way and displays a level of danger that we would not be able to cope with if the limitations were removed, it's most likely that development will have to be stopped, either by government intervention or simply social pressure.

I think it's unlikely that the progress of anything can be stopped indefinitely. It requires definite failure by an infinite number of civilisations. Anyone familiar with the Fermi Paradox and the "All species are destined to wipe themselves out" theory will have a good understanding of this concept. 100% failure is just not statistically possible indefinitely when it depends on a certain action not being performed.

However, it is certainly likely that our progress will be stumped at some point. Even with the accelerating nature of technology, this could cause an untold level of stagnation.

We should try and stay positive of course, but it would be naive to ignore the chance that, for some time at least, we might fail.

I'm currently attending the Singularity Summit AU in Melbourne. There were a couple of talks on Tuesday night and there will be a whole weekend of fun starting on Friday night. :) Therefore you can expect a few posts to be inspired from my conversations with other future-minded thinkers over the coming days!

image by rachywhoo

Can We Restrain AI?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:43:00 +0000

One of the main challenges in creating a greater-than-human Artificial Intelligence is ensuring that it's not evil. When we "turn it on", we don't want it to wipe out us out or enslave us. Ideally, we want it to be nice.

The problem is how we can guarantee this.

Trap it

Some have suggested limiting the Artificial Intelligence by "trapping it" in a virtual world, where it could do no damage outside the confines of this environment. While this might be a safe solution it could limit the AI to only function within the limits and reality of the virtual world. Ok, so we might be able to program a perfectly realistic and isolated virtual world, but would this happen? Is there a parallel project to create such a "virtual prison" alongside AI research? And what if AI was to evolve or emerge from existing systems (such as the internet or a selection of systems within it) before we could develop such a prison?

Then of course there is the possibility of it escaping. Certainly if it exceeded our own intelligence it might be able to figure out a way out of its "box".

It's worth noting at this point Nick Bostrom's speculation that *we* may be living in such an environment. This raises the question: What if the only way to develop greater-than human intelligence was to create an entire society of AIs, which develop their intelligence only as part of this society? This would significantly increase the processing power required for such a virtual prison.

Still, as we will see, trapping an AI is perhaps the best solution for restraining it for our protection.

Give it Empathy

Many argue that the answer is simple: Just ensure that the AI has empathy. Not only is this idea fundamentally flawed in many ways, I don't believe that it is anywhere near simple.

The idea is that by allowing an AI to be aware of its own mortality, it could then understand the pain it could cause to others and be more caring and considerate to our needs. So just like humans, it would be caring because it could understand how people felt... You see the first problem there?

Humans are products of their environments, shaped by their experiences. They develop empathy but empathy is complex and can be overridden by other factors. We are complex creatures, influenced by emotions, experiences, our body chemistry, our environment and countless other things. One would assume that for an AI to be "intelligent", it would be just as complex.

Even if an AI had an unbreakable measure of empathy for us, this would not guarantee our safety. An AI could decide that it is in our best interests to suffer an extraordinary amount of pain, for example as a learning experience. What if it decided to be extremely "cruel to be kind?"

It's unlikely empathy would be enough to protect us, because empathy still depends on the AI making the right decisions. Humans make bad decisions all the time. Often we even make good decisions that have bad consequences.

Suppose we want to save a bus full of children, but we had to run over a deer to do so. Most people would choose to save the children. To an AI with a bus load of other AIs, we could be the deer. It might be upset about hitting us, but it would have been for a "greater good".

This brings us to the next possibility.

Give it Ethics

The problem with ethics is that there are no right or wrong answers. We all develop our own very personalised sense of ethics, which can easily be incompatible with someone else's. An AI's own ethics could certainly become incompatible with our interests. One likely scenario would be where it saw itself as more creative with the ability to create more value than humans, and therefore worth more than us.

Then we need to consider what kind of ethics an AI could be created with. Would it be that decided by its creator? If one was to "program in" a certain set of ethics, would an AI keep these, or evolve away from them, developing its own ethics based on its own experiences and integrations? This demonstrates the main problem with trying to program limitations into an AI. If it could break its own programming, how could we guarantee our safety? If it could not, could it really be classed as "intelligence"?

This makes one wonder if we have been "programmed" with any limitations to protect our "creator", should one exist...

Artificially Real

It seems that much of the focus in developing AI is introspective, focusing on the inner workings of thought and intelligence. However, the effects of environment, experiences, social interaction, the passage of time, emotion, physical feelings and personal form are all fundamental factors in our own development. It's very possible that these factors are in fact essential for the development of intelligence in the first place. If this is the case, any degree of limitation would be undermined by external influences. How can we balance restraint while still achieving 'real' intelligence?

One thing is for certain - we need to fully understand child development and the influence of external factors if we are to understand intelligence enough to re-create it. Only then can we know if any kind of limitation is possible.

No Going Back

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:03:00 +0000

"I've lost everything, my business, my property and to top it all off my lass of six years has gone off with someone else."

Raoul-Thomas-Moat-shoots-policeman-gunning-ex-lover-boyfriend

The concept of perpetual association, the "permanent record", causes despair in people's lives every day, although we don't hear about it unless they decide to make sure we hear about it.

How can we blame people for going psycho when a criminal record stands in the way of their entire future, giving them nothing left to live for?

It's time to acknowledge and address the implications of Actuarial Escape Velocity in respect to crime and punishment. For, with infinite lifespans, ruining people's lives will not only have much greater significance, but it will not be in the interests of society. Who wants their infinite lifespan cut short by a crazy gunman?

There seems to be this incredibly misguided notion that all criminals are evil, they're born evil, and they will always be evil. Quite apart from the fact that most crimes are not dangerous or violent and exist only as a attempt to prevent further such "crimes", how can we say that people won't change for the better? Furthermore, how can we say that people who have never committed a crime will never do so?

Strangely enough, our current methods of locking people up with criminals to stop them being criminals isn't really working. Even taking the possibility of indefinite lifespans out of the equation, this insanity needs to be addressed. However, whatever the punishment, preventative measures, or rehabilitation methods, the question remains - how do we deal with the past when the future is infinite?

The problem is complex. Can someone who has committed cold blooded murder ever be trusted again? What if hundreds or even thousands of years have passed? Who knows what this trauma can do to a person, even in the extreme long term. Does it even matter, if they have been rehabilitated?

Then we throw another issue into the mix. Identity is something that even now is losing its meaning. When we can change our faces and official records, it's one thing. When we can change our entire bodies, it will be something else. When we can change our actual minds, our thoughts, memories, personalities, and emotions, then things will get considerably more complicated.

When life extension becomes a reality, we will have many questions to ask. One question that will become increasingly important is: "How important is the past?" We'll all have one, but can enough time turn us into someone else?

Why Are Dreams So Strange?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:30:00 +0000

The mind is curious thing. We believe the perceptions from our awakened state to be the ultimate reality - the be all and end all of our existence. The way things work in our day to day world, our interactions, our actions, their implications, and our understandings, appear to be the true representations of reality.

So when we sleep, why do we not question the random strangeness and non-realities that perpetuate our slumber? What causes dreams to be so bizarre compared to our awoken reality?

Dreams make no sense

It's not just a sensory thing. In dreams, even concepts are twisted and stretched and mixed together. I was once in a state of half-asleep dozing and had someone dictate what I was saying - and it was complete nonsense, quite hilarious with absolutely no reference to my experiences or thoughts of the day (or reality in general). Dreams seem to be a regurgitation of our minds but absent of any of the framework to hold it together. This made me wonder. Did humans dream before we became "intelligent"?

Research points to the fact that dreams come from implicit memories and the neo-cortex rather than declarative memories from the hippocampus. In other words, dreams are formed by abstract concepts rather than definitive memories of situations. This would explain why these concepts often don't fit in with the reality we are used to, yet they do have some grounding in this reality.

Consciousness within the dream world

With lucid dreaming, we can train our minds to recognise the strange differences between awake and asleep, and then initiate our consciousness while remaining in the strangeness of the dream. So this shows that consciousness is not necessarily a factor in the "falseness" of dreams, as many people can even control the reality of their dreaming state.

If consciousness can control our reality in our dreams, then how are our dreams any different from our awakened state? How do we know which reality (if any) is the right one?

It seems it is our perceptions, rather than our environments, that define our reality.

Systems of Complexity

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:47:00 +0000

If we were to replace our bodies, one atom at a time, would we be the same person? One would think this would be the case. Every 10 years, every cell in our body will have been replaced at least once, with bone marrow taking the longest to renew. Most of the body renews every 7 years.

Our bodies are an ecosystem not unlike any other. Take the sea – remove and replace it one atom at a time and no fish will notice. Replacing larger pieces will cause problems for its inhabitants, but it will soon renew itself. Replace a large proportion, and this will likely have huge implications for the entire ocean. As it is with humans, replacing one small section at a time would be easily accounted for and would not have any dramatic effect on the system as a whole.

This is a dramatic realisation – for what are we if not our bodies?

We are not single entities. We are systems, and we are made from smaller systems, which in turn are made from smaller systems. Cells take in matter from our food and convert these molecules to be part of us, replacing extinguished cells. We are not the matter that constitutes our body – we are its collection of systems.

The brain, the place that for some reason is believed to house the “mind”, is almost certainly more than just a material structure. As yet we have failed to deconstruct it to any significant level, but we do know that its functionality relies to some extent on electrical configurations. However, the brain is not some simple electrical circuit which can be reverse engineered by simply following current paths and measuring voltages.

Brain operations are less logical, hiding their true functionality in the encoding of patterns. It’s these patterns that are more of an accurate reflection of who we are.

In fractals, an equation determines a configuration that is iterated. This type of pattern, known as self similarity, is an underlying mechanism of nature. Using fractal equations, we can now work out how many leaves and how much carbon dioxide a tree will create. It is the "DNA" of reality.

We are all connected

We should also remember that while we are made up of systems, we ourselves are composite parts of a larger system, the ecosystem of the universe. While we may not feel that we’re “connected” with the Earth or the Sun or the Andromeda Galaxy because we see no physical connection, we are connected in a scientific and logical way.

All atoms are surrounded by orbiting electrons which by definition are negatively charged, meaning that every atom in the universe repels every other atom – in other words – you never actually touch anything. So, your body is not even connected to itself, yet it is, albeit by magnetic forces. Therefore, we are all just as connected to the entire planet – and each other, as we are our own arms.

Through the vacuum of space, the magnetic forces continue but weakly, while gravity takes over to keep us connected to the rest of the universe. And every day we are learning more about how the universe is constructed, discovering phenomena such as dark matter that continue to reinforce our connected nature.

As well as our scientific connection, from a logical perspective, we are also as much a part of the universe as it is of us. Our actions affect the universe around us, and we enjoy the benefits or suffer the consequences of these actions accordingly. We rely on our surroundings to survive. The only thing holding these implications away from us is time. While we may not see the implications of our actions personally, they echo into the universe, which we are part of. Karma, in essence, is real.

Individuality

So we could end it here on “we are all one”, but if that were the case, why do we all have minds that “feel” like they are separate? Is it an evolutionary accident or is there some divine purpose to our individual consciousnesses?

Perhaps individuality is a deliberate outcome of evolution, a mechanism to bring about the most efficient thought system possible? There is no doubt that humans have the ability to take over from evolution now, increasing the “power” of our consciousness, our life spans, and the efficiency of our resource usage to drive our own destinies.

Following this thought-train, we could provoke more questions than answers. Is consciousness determined by individuality? Could there be alien species that evolved without any concept of individuality? This would depend on what would be the best evolutionary advantage.

The big question, is could this individuality be an illusion, created in our own minds? We are, after all, not one entity, but a collection of systems and a system within a larger system.

This begs the question, is a brain the pre-requisite for consciousness, or could consciousness evolve from any collection of systems complex enough, for example, artificial software, a complex cell, or even a star? We are, after all, just different versions of the same kind of fractal patterns that make up all of nature.

What if we are just the dreams of stars?

Is Google too Big? Size isn't important, it's what you do with it that counts

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:48:00 +0000

There's no doubt that Google is the "Ford" of the day, pioneering a new industry which is changing our lives on a fundamental level. With this in mind, it was only a matter of time before this monopolistic driving of our destinies was called to question.

I recently attended a debate held by Spiked which asked the question "Has Google got too big?"

As a debate, it was relatively tame, given that no one person was strongly on the side of either "yes" or "no". However, this was due mainly to the complexity of the question, so as a discussion, it became rather in depth.

Size Doesn't Matter

Proponents of Google tried to void the argument, pointing out that the use of the adjective "big" was irrelevant, and that size had no implications, and that we should be asking ourselves whether they are "good" or "evil". While this is true, there's no doubt that Google's size is intimately connected to its "morality".

Legally in the European Union, competition laws state that a company should "compete on its merits". Now, law is pretty complex, but from my understanding, this should technically forbid a company using its own assets to put itself at an advantage; as a Google example, manipulating search results to put itself higher. If anything, this would be far too obvious and one would expect Google to use much more sophisticated and subtle techniques to manipulate its advantage, if it wanted to.

With Google having its fingers in so many online pies, it has a kind of power that is not directly proportional to its size. The possibilities presented by the data it collects combined with the sway it has in the public arena are largely unexplored. Really, its size is irrelevant. It could fire all but a few of its employees tomorrow and still be capable of some truly world-changing actions.

Knowledge is Power

Many people are concerned with Google's supposed disregard for privacy, but while this is a concern, there is more to worry about here. Rather than how it might customise the experience of individuals, we should be thinking about what it could do with this tremendous amount of data if it used it to analyse or even manipulate society as a whole.

With such an extensive array of demographic data, Google could easily draw some fairly accurate pictures or even predictions of society. This may have unforeseen implications. Analysis of such an immense cross section of the population, its habits, its fears, its preferences, its cultures, its desires, its beliefs, its strengths, its weaknesses, and much more, could reveal revelations.

We've already seen how Google Maps and Google Street putting information in the public view can create controversy. These are single services. Analysing the relationships of the data they have available, Google could use this information to reveal unfairness, incompetence, conflicts of interests, corruption, or worse, that could have devastating consequences for those involved, or even put those affiliated with Google at a political advantage.

With growing data about resources and their usage, combined with complex analysis tools and a whole world worth of technical data and reports, Google could easily obtain scientific advantages.

Worst of all, is their potential political influence. Even now, before their entry into the world of media, they could use their knowledge of current events and news to undermine government authority, manipulate opinions, actions, and even votes, making the political spin of the movie Wag the Dog seem like child's play.

Innovation

There was much discussion at the debate about Google's level of innovation, how it is intimidating because there is so little innovation elsewhere, and how they knocked Microsoft off their perch with this, rather than anti-competition legislation. Therefore it should not be down to laws to challenge Google's dominance, instead, it would be better to see be more newcomers to challenge it (and the laws are ineffective anyway).

I would have to agree with this. It's not outside the realms of possibility that another company can come along and take Google down a peg or two. Let's not forget Facebook, the number 2 site in the world, and the fact that in some areas of the world, Google is barely used.

Google should be praised for their innovation and not penalised for it with petty, jealous rules which stunt development and progress. Yet at the same time, we should be extremely wary of the power it can bestow on itself with such innovation.

It seems Google finds itself in this unique position because of innovation and ingenuity. The power is no longer with those who take it by irrelevant means of violence, guilt, social manipulation or political popularity. About time, too.

"The empires of the future are the empires of the mind" - Albert Einstein

Machines to Run Society?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:21:00 +0000

Sum of all Thrills Robot Arm by tom.arthur

Many people have an aversion to automated machines and computers running things.

There are likely two reasons for this. The first is due to the lack of trust we place in automation. This is mainly due to their track record. Machines have proved themselves to be unreliable in the past, and need to do a lot to regain our trust.

Secondly, machines have been known to make mistakes that are "machine" in nature, exposing human qualities that we took for granted. In other words, they will miss seemingly obvious details, or make mistakes relating to the human experience.

So it's not surprising that people don't really trust machines yet. They're not as good as humans in some areas yet they have superseded us in others. This also leads to discontent when humans see their jobs disappear as a result.

It's a shame that machines have developed such a bad reputation, because they don't really deserve it. Most of their faults have been inherited from humans. There are several ways that humanity has let down its automated creations.

The first is the implications of planned obsolescence. Although high investment in automation can be justified by the promise of reduced ongoing labour costs, robotics industries are subject to the same factors as any other companies when it comes to manufacture. The company's future survival depends on the robotics they build breaking down, requiring some kind of ongoing maintenance, losing desirability, or being improved upon in the future; they simply couldn't exist without this. Planned obsolescence causes corners to be cut, features withheld and the cheapest parts to be used. My own experience in manufacturing will testify - this is the way all consumer manufacturing works.

Then there are limitations caused by the education of the engineers and the diligence of the programmers. They are humans of course, and subject to human error, laziness, lack of enthusiasm, and many other flaws. These flaws can easily be passed on and manifest themselves in a variety of ways, including unreliable artificial intelligence and failing to take into account unforeseen factors or complications.

In addition, machines have been held to higher than realistic expectations ahead of schedule. By the time their capabilities become what they were supposed to be, their reputation has already been tarnished. This is a social issue - the public and the media should be better informed as to the true capabilities of technology and their expectations not contorted in the name of publicity.

Then machines also have a bad reputation because they cost people their jobs. This is frowned upon because at the current level of technology most of us simply must work to live. But we should not fear the machines taking all the work.

There will always be something for us to do. As technology provides us with easier access to our basic needs, therefore reducing our dependence on money, we will see a shift into more creative, scientific, technical, social, and utilitarian roles. The machines will do all the mundane, repetitive work, freeing us up to have far more enjoyable careers, careers where we use our human minds to do jobs that simple machines cannot do. Whether we retain this reliance on work to survive or not - the face of work is changing dramatically as a result of automation. We should be happy.

Can we trust machine intelligence to make the right choices to run society?

So would politics be one of the jobs that machines can do, or should that be left to humans?

Firstly ask yourself, do you think that humanity has ever done a good enough job? Our history is littered with war and corruption and power lust, and organised politics is often based on simply fighting over resources. The current political system is based on absolute beliefs, having more in common with dogmatic religion than evolving, constantly re-evaluating science. It is also all-encompassing in scope - you vote for a whole package, even if you don't agree with all the components in that package.

The essence of politics is fundamentally complex. Our decisions are based on personal perceptions and biases, subject to irrational abstract morality, and continually failing to address the nature of change.

Change, I believe most people familiar with the work of Kurzweil would agree, is the only thing we can be sure of. As a political example, capitalism helped to create a boom in society but now automation may obsolete the general concept of labour, virtual reality may move our needs away from money and towards energy, and nanotechnology could change the way we think about property, ownership, and scarcity.

Where does that leave the idealism of free enterprise?

This is why politics cannot be run on ideals. People's ideals will always change, even what could be considered the "correct" ideal will be changed by its environment, or other external influences.

So essentially, any sort of idealism is an outdated way of running society. At its very essence, it fails fundamentally in its purpose of deciding what is best for us because it does not take into account the nature of change. Additionally, idealism by its nature is based on a single perception. A perception is subject to personal bias, morals, and most importantly, static. It is not "moral" for our fates to be decided with "moral" bias because morality is relative.

The only sustainable system of power is a scientific one; a "decision engine" without the bias of "perception" - a system that is able to incorporate change. Would a technical, scientific method of deciding how society should function be more objective? Should there even be objectivity in politics?

Any politician will know, even the simplest decisions are highly complex when people are involved. People function on the highly "unscientific" system known as emotion. Emotions are the driving force behind decisions and perspectives, not rationality. Politicians currently exist because there is a need to relate to people in an emotional way - but why should emotion play a part in how society is run?

If a car breaks down, the mechanics don't take an emotion-fuelled vote on how to fix it. They look at the problem and figure out how to solve it in a technical way. People differ from cars of course, their needs are based on complex emotions.

But here is the fundamental question. Would it not, at some point, be theoretically possible to deal with emotions with the same scientific objectivity as we would deal with any other technical problem?

We really need to ask ourselves if emotions should play a part in decisions on how society is run, or whether politics really should be objective.

If politics is supposed to be objective, it should be subject to scientific method and technical processes. Decisions could be irrelevant, with AI working to find adequate solutions to a problem rather than making a choice based on which side of the debate it wants to align itself with.

Of course, relying on such an impersonal way of making decisions could prove inhumane, perhaps even dangerous. Yet the current system will never reach any kind of equilibrium as long as there is change.

There will be issues at first of course. Computers are far from perfect. But by addressing the reasons for this, a much better environment can be fostered where automation can be more reliable, both from a physical and a decision making point of view.

Only when we are building automation and decision making computers on this basis can we be well placed enough to judge the real ability and adequacy of machine based political systems.

Earth 2.0 - The Movie

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:49:00 +0000

"For the last 8000 years human history has been guided by Earth 1.0, an operating system dependent upon the relentless exploitation of both people and planet alike. Earth 1.0 promotes an obsession with money, profit and personal advantage. Earth 1.0 is sustained by artificial boundaries and stagnant institutions – all held in place by carefully designed weapons of mass destruction. Earth 1.0 cultivates ecological insensitivity and an unhealthy estrangement from the rest of the biosphere – so much so that the very integrity of the web of life has been compromised. In short, Earth 1.0 is corrupt and unsustainable.

In contrast, the operating principles of the all new Earth 2.0 upgrade are based upon global co-operation – between one another and with the rest of the web of life. Earth 2.0 promotes the dissolution of artificial boundaries and the creation of a sustainable human culture in accord with the rest of Nature."

"Symbiosis and cybernation will become buzzwords for the new paradigm."

Find out more at the official Blog of the Under-Construction Movie here: http://earth2movie.blogspot.com/