The implication of this exponential growth in computing capacity has already irreversibly changed our lives. It will continue to do so even more rapidly as growing computing power continues to open new realms of technological feasibility only imagined to date.

Just what the implications of such vast computing power are is the source of great speculation. However, a few people have dared to document not only their thoughts but their serious analysis of where the resulting technological progression will take us in the next century.

When in Silicon Valley recently, I had the privilege of attending a symposium at Stanford University that asked the question: Will Spiritual Robots Replace Humanity by 2100? This symposium drew together nine aficionados on the subject of the substance, direction and implications of technological development.

The symposium was as much a debate as it was a presentation of ideas. Far from esoteric predictions familiar to most through science fiction, the participants presented their arguments drawing on the concrete areas of research each were involved in. For example at the beginning of the Human Genome Project, it was anticipated that it would take around twenty-seven years to reverse engineer human genetic code, or DNA. Now the project is anticipated to be complete in 2002.

MIPS

The point Kurzweil makes relates to the reverse engineering of the human brain with the aim being achieving a state of consciousness within a machine. Hence the name of the symposium. Kurzweil argues that with concurrent technological progression in brain scanning and programming of neural networks that it will be possible to achieve such a state of consciousness within a machine. He predicts that with Moore’s law holding true, this will occur easily within the next century.

For the first time it seems there is acceptance of the theory that achieving a state of human consciousness within a machine is at least possible. A spiritual robot, no less. The argument is more about whether it is probable and if so when this development is likely to occur. One significant creative inspiration of such a concept was William Gibson’s Neuromancer. In this 1984 novel, Gibson coined the term cyberspace and described a spiritual machine.

Much of the discussion at the symposium centred on the computing power now and in the future relative to the brain capacity of living creatures. For example, using MIPS (million instructions per second) as the measurement of computing power, Moravec nominated a lizard’s brain to be around three thousand MIPS. This was heavily contended by others on the panel, with the capabilities of the lizard, for example terrain navigation and insect catching, compared to a rosd travelling robot. Moravec’s qualifications relating to the programmed functionality of the robot, saying it could be programmed to do more diverse tasks, served to highlight the difference in capability between such a robot and a lizard even though both has, at least theoretically, three thousand MIPS of computational power.

John Holland eloquently described his view of the difference between human consciousness and the concept of consciousness in a machine. In a neural network of computers are organised to replicate the interconnectedness of the brain. There is already the capacity to replicate sections of brain functionality for example the artificial retina, so if more and more aspects of functionality can be added to the neural network, an incredibly intelligent machine that displays capabilities of humans can be built. The more MIPS contained in such a machine, the greater the functionality and the greater human functionality can be replicated.

Holland described the way the brain operates differently. He describes the functionality human beings as being on part of the brains function. He referred tot he different parts of the brain responsible for specific features of human functionality. He also described that within this neural activity associated specifically with functionality, there was a extraordinary large amount on neural activity, electrical impulses to be specific, that appeared to be a random swirl. This electrical activity that could not be attributed to functionality constitutes the presence of human consciousness.

The random-ness of this part of the brains activity did not occur in isolation tot he functionality aspects either, rather it was interconnected, ensuring complexity that would be make any task of reverse engineering overwhelming. Although this ‘random swirl’ had no MIPS attributed to it, it is safe to assume that the closest definition could only be articulated in quantum terms.

MITES

Nanotechnology is the technology of all things tiny. Think of little machines made of molecules. A nanometres is a millimetre to the power of minus nine. The seminal creative work is a novel by Neal Stephenson titled The Diamond Age which describes a world where molecular machines (nanomites) self replicate and evolve in Darwinian fashion, dictating the human condition. The symposium touched on the implications of nanotechnology in the context of a ‘threats and opportunities’ analysis. As far as the socio-political implications of such technologies are concerned, their military application rose immediately to the surface.

Are molecular machines likely to be an offensive weapon or a defensive strategy? The answer to this question clearly stood out as an indicator of whether or not it met the moral standards of a democracy, hence if it was a worthy area of scientific endeavour. For example, if certain uses of nanotechnology were deemed an offensive weapon, what were the moral justifications for continuing development?

This opens up several aspects of the debate about the degree to which nation states are still capable determining technological direction. With continuing rapid technological progression and evolution of the global economy changing relationships between nation states, the depth to which major economies drive technology must now being questioned.

Reductions in public research and the growth of multinational corporations has ensured that many developments are taking place outside of the scrutiny of a government, in many cases by companies bigger than many nation state economies.

Smaller countries are left with little opportunity to compete in a time where economic growth is linked with the commercialisation of new technologies.

The need for these nation states to establish or maintain a presence in the global economy has led to dramatic restructuring of education systems and industry policy in order to capture the benefits of commercialising technologies for the global market place. Whilst in these circumstances the chances of inhibiting research based on moral or ethical trepidation would be greater than with companies operating globally the ability to initiate any process of relinquishment of certain paths of research appear remote.

In the midst of this debate, Bill Joy, Chief Scientist from SUN Microsystems, expressed his thoughts about the socio-political implications of the rapid pace of technological progression. While concerns of this nature have always been expressed in political forums, Joy’s aggressive entrée into the public debate has been noticed primarily because he has broken ranks of the scientific community rather than having anything new to say.

Joy expresses fear and trepidation about the direction of technological developments, in particular, he is concerned that widespread knowledge about weapons that can be used for crimes against humanity or weapons of war will place humanity at risk.

Joy has chosen to personalise his fears and expresses them by giving them form: he describes the ‘threat’ as the ‘socio-paths in our midst’. He talks of how we bear the risk of having evil-doers in living in our communities whose perpetrations against society can no longer, as a result of technology, be confined to acts of physical violence. Rather the availability of knowledge on how to inflict harm upon all of humanity is now available to all, good and evil.

However, having also expressed his lack of confidence in the democratic institutions to place appropriate checks and balances on such research, Joy’s single offering as to how to stop ‘undesirable’ research is for scientists individually to ‘relinquish’ certain pathways of their endeavour.

By taking this position, by implication, Joy has determined that both political and corporate governance is incapable of making decisions relating to the moral and ethical wisdom of proceeding down particular pathways of research. There is some evidence of this, with the use of the bomb in Hiroshima and other wartime atrocities perpetrated through technologies developed initially as tools of passive defence but then used as offensive weapons.

A recent study by Deloitte Touche shows that the highest motivation for companies is profitability, again reinforcing the argument that moral or ethical issues are unlikely to halt research that could return many times over the initial investment of a company. Consistent figures demonstrating that it is companies and countries that invest a greater proportion of their revenues into research, development and commercialisation experience higher growth constitutes further evidence. Why would boards or governments stop research, development and commercialisation, be it public or private, if in effect that would put brakes on economic growth and the jobs that come with it?

The answer is that they wouldn’t put the brakes on - voluntarily. The politics of science has an extraordinary history of manipulation and controversy. Historically, scientists have pitted themselves against the religious and political establishment in search of the ‘truth’. History shows that it is easier to inspire political opposition to scientific progress than it is to initiate support. This is unless it is for military use, the details of which the civilian body politic would be kept ignorant. Political opposition can be inspired by many things, but perhaps none so effective as plain of fear-mongering. Using fear is commonly known as ‘wedge’ politics. This campaign style, made famous by the US Republican Party during the late Reagan years seeks to create enough concern amongst pockets of voters that the issue being manipulated is a vote-changer. The gun lobby have mastered it, convincing gun owners that they will be personally at risk if they lose the right to possess their weapons.

Hence, Joy has started his crusade using the age-old political tactic of fear. Conjuring up images of the lone psychopath with immense technological prowess, Joy speaks of the countless, anonymous ‘Dr Strangelove’s among the scientific community. Let’s face it, there are plenty of examples. Even scientists with credibility like Oppenheimer, inventor of the atomic bomb, has become a target because he insisted till the last his right to explore the boundaries of science.

Fear of a threat is a powerful motivator and political parties are merciless in engaging in tactics that could lead to vote changing behaviour. Is this the case even if the arguments could contribute to the reversal of the democratising effects of technology and deny the opportunity for ubiquitous information, for a knowledge society? The risk I believe, is real. It is a dangerous, retrospective platform to be standing upon. One which is built of ignorance and disinterest in the future of society.

So what options are left? Bill Joy’s secondary crusade is to call scientists of the world to heel. This carries more responsibility that the first and is as much in recognition of the current frenzy to innovate and commercialise as it is acknowledgment of the overall futility of convincing the corporate and political powers that be to order a stop. Bill Joy is the co-founder and chief scientist for one of the most significant technology companies of the information age. He gets to call the shots. How many scientists have the capacity to determine for themselves, their company or their institution their research agenda? The answer is: not many.

The sorcerers of the 21^st century are the scientists and technologists – resplendent in their new-found wealth and the power that comes with it. The rulers of the new economy are those who harness the sorcerers and turn their ideas and capabilities into money.

So what is the answer? How do we ensure that we don’t self destruct as a race because we are so clever? Bill Joy seems genuinely frightened. He is acting out of genuine concern and personal morality. We have an obligation to listen and discern the message of substance in his plea.

Cognitive science and author of ‘Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies’

Primary Speakers

Ray Kurzweil

Inventor of the reading machine for the blind and author of ‘The Age of Spiritual Machines,

Hans Moravec

Pioneer of robot research and author of ‘Robot: Mere machine to Transcendent Mind’

Bill Joy

Co-founder and Chief Scientist at SUN Microsystems

Panel