philosophy – John Vincent

Life in the 22nd Century

It’s not an original thought but science, and its advancement, is like a venerable oak tree. Roots spread over a large area, are not seen, but are critical to the health of the whole tree. Branches expand as the tree grows. Branches divide, some branches fade and others gain ever more strength. A tree that lives as long as a civilisation, ever changing.

I put this view forward only to admit that there are flaws with this way of thinking. For a start, in the past, a branch of science may have been pursued in a pure manner. Accumulating ever more knowledge on a specific subject. Now, the branches of science have become far more intertwined. Complexity is a given.

This makes a futurologist job harder. It’s no good to dream along straight lines. To see progressive development as the most likely direction. In the past, there was mileage in projecting forward along a clear line of thinking. Take for example the opening up of the atomic world. Futurologist in the 1950s imagined a world of limitless energy. Inexhaustible sources of electrical power that would be cheep and available to all. For good or ill, the age of plenty didn’t happen. That doesn’t reduce the importance of fundamental discoveries. It cautions us in extrapolating from a simple beginning to a fantastic new world.

What will life in the 22nd Century be like? I can say with certainty that I will not see the year 3000. Well, that is unless the cryogenics of science fiction stories soon becomes reality.

One approach is to look back 75 years. Compare and contrast. Then look forward 75 years. That is factoring in an acceleration in discoveries and the exploitation. And as I’ve alluded above not being shy of growing complexity.

This is again an approach to be taken with a fair degree of caution. Back in the 1950s there was talk of electronic brains, as the computer emerged as a viable and useful machine. What was imagined then is now quite different. That use of the word “brain” isn’t common parlance. Instead, the advent of so-called artificial intelligence is becoming everyday language.

Another set of cautionary factors are trying to guess the branches of the tree that will decay and fall. What seems promising based on current technology only to be bypassed by discovery and innovation. Here I’m thinking that the building of massive power-hungry data farms may be a technological cul-de-sac. Vulnerable and hugely expensive physical infrastructure that’s out of date the minute it’s switched on.

Each of us has a brain that weighs a lot less than a room full of cabinets of conventional electronics. Nature manages vast amounts of data without a power station in tow.

In the year 3000, I maintain we will have a rich and rewarding intellectual life. It will be different in form, although the things that amuse and entertain us may not be so different. The themes of a Greek play are still likely to be echoed in the stories of the next millennia.

Artificial intelligence will be a junk yard term. The whole of the world of data communication and processing will be hidden under layers of obscuration. It’s possible that a form of agent will be overseeing the mechanisms for providing the services we demand. The great challenge for democracies will be how to ensure that agent works for the public good. Not so easy.

Determinism in Aviation Safety

The arrow of time. We fly from past, to live in the present and anticipate the future. Sir Isaac Newton would be proud of us. By unravelling laws, that where always there, the means to anticipate the future was illuminated.

In civil aviation, we have devised and grown a whole regulatory system that depends on learning from the past, doing calculations today and flying with a belief that we know what’s going to happen next. Flying is predicated on a reasonable degree of predictability. There’s clear logic in this way of thinking. Just imagine powering up a couple of massive jet engines and starting a take-off roll without being extremely confident that at a certain speed the laws of physics will do their part and the ground is left behind.

We don’t establish a reasonable degree of predictability by looking at a crystal ball or taking up alchemy. Yes, we do still depend on reasoned expert opinion in addition to doing calculations. The minute those expert opinions start to shift away from grounded reasoning and careful deliberation then danger is afoot. This is one of the arguments for treading carefully when political opinions start to come to the fore. The laws of physics are not established by a public opinion poll. Nevertheless, it’s equally polarising to say that there’s no political dimension in the aviation regulatory system.

Anyway, that’s not the subject that was on my mind. Conversations about Artificial Intelligence (AI) are more prolific than those about self-help books. Even the shelves of popular high street bookstores are starting to fill up. The non-fiction titles with AI, either as the main subject or as an adjunct are numerous. It’s the fashion to write something literate or purely speculative.

I’ve mentioned the word “determinism” before. It can be interpreted philosophically or in a more scientific and technical manner. Determinism is a belief in the inevitability of causation. That chain of cause and effect that is so familiar to anyone reading an aviation accident report.

Understanding what causes something to happen in a moment in time goes back to my initial subject of a reasonable degree of predictability. In aircraft certification, no matter how complex the system, when presented with a system safety assessment we expect a comprehensive and reasoned set of statement. Predictions about the “what ifs”. What if an aircraft part fails and what happens next? What happens in combination with other failures?

This is where AI is potentially problematic. All the reasoned arguments in the world go out of the window if a system, subject to the same conditions, behaves one way on a Monday and differently on a Friday. Not to mention the weekend. I could say, AI is remarkably human in that respect.

The subject that was on my mind is not the inner working of complex aircraft systems. Certification experts are on that one. It’s possible to put boundaries around the behaviour of some aircraft systems. What’s more fascinating is the evolution of AI interactions with us mere mortals.

Let’s say I have the responsibility for return to service of a transport aircraft that has been subject to maintenance. A pile of documentation will provide the evidence that the work conducted has been correctly completed. It conforms. Amongst that paperwork might be an output from an AI driven diagnostic system that flashes a green light to say everything is fine.

Now, playing with the “what ifs”. What if it’s not fine given that the conditions experienced were way outside the AI systems training and it does a creative hallucination. The person signing the release to service documentation would have no idea or facility to question the green light. But it’s their signature that matters in the process of return to service.

There is a point of concern.

POST: There’s a lot going on out there Enhancing aviation safety with artificial intelligence: A systematic literature review on recent advances, challenges and future perspectives – ScienceDirect

A Dark Legacy

Controversy is bubbling away like a broken pressure cooker suck on a high gas flame. I’m just writing about the words spoken in Parliament, yesterday. The case of the British “prince of darkness” is one for the textbooks. This man, who acquired the title “prince of darkness[1]” long ago, is Peter Mandelson. Now, formerly a Labour Party member, he’s slithered through political life, in the UK and Europe, dragging controversy everywhere he’s been.

Honestly, I don’t want to write about this politician. A casebook study of a follower of Niccolò Machiavelli’s brutal manual for would-be leaders. Being a “prince” in this century, and the last, seems to bring out the very worst in those who are given the title. It’s fine for fiction to be dotted with so called “evil genius” characters but in real life these are people best avoided.

At the heart of the recent News is not just a betrayal. It’s the habits and lives of powerful people acting in a way that assumes an immunity from any accountability. Evidence that greedy people collude behind closed doors to line their own pockets. That morals go out of the window.

I continue to believe that most politicians in the UK Parliament are motivated to make the world a better place. They go to Westminster to try to make a difference. To fulfil that adage to: “Try and leave this world a little better than you found it.”

I make this assertion not in a naive way. Afterall, I’ve stood for election more than a few times. Quite a lot, in fact. Over several decades. Sadly, never with any great amount of success. Often meeting people on the same journey. Most of those people I met are putting themselves forward to right some wrong or use their expertise for the public good and make a difference.

At the heart of the recent News is a moral vacuum too. This vulgar belief that ingratiating oneself with unethical wealthy individuals has no consequence. Instead of protecting the public interest and exposing corruption, a considerable number of influential men have chosen to either turn a blind eye or adopt disgraceful practices.

On first meeting, I admit that it’s not always possible to know of the evils that another person may have committed. What’s shocking now is the distinct lack of curiosity that seems to have been exhibited by many prominent people. That’s the generous (Christian) interpretation.

The exhibition of misogyny revealed in the information that has been released in the US is disgusting. It’s way beyond that simple expression. If we are to move forward as a society these behaviours must be eradicated. To leave this world a little better than we found it, change must not just be a word that’s sprinkled into public speeches. Behavioural change must materialise.

Yes, we all have a responsibility in this respect. No looking the other way or pretending that unacceptable behaviours are not happening. Call them out. Especially those with a public voice.

[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/prince-of-darkness/

Evolution of

Looking at the weird and wonderful picture of an unlikely lump of materials with wires hanging off, it’s easy to dismiss. A laboratory experiment that drew together theory and practice to produce a brand-new electrical device. Not something that occurred in nature. Even though its behaviour is of that of materials in nature.

Certainly, the implications of this experiment could not have been fully understood at the time. That said, progress to industrialise this new device was rapid. By the time of 1956, the “inventors” were awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics. In 1947, the transistor, was a fruitful combination of science and practical thinking in a laboratory where that was encouraged.

Bell Laboratories, given its history was a logical place for arguably the most important modern invention to be first put together. Arguing over “most important” there are several matters to consider. For one, how universal, how ubiquitous would this humble device become? Would it have a dramatic impact of everyday life for decades after its invention? Would it change every aspect of human organisation? Would its design, development and production become essential to the world? The simple answer – yes.

My first encounter with the germanium transistor was as a boy in the 1970s. Stripping them out of junked radios and record player amplifiers. Building simple circuits. PNP germanium junction transistors were tiny tin cans with three colour coded leads. With a soldering iron and a primitive breadboard there were plenty of designs in popular magazines to copy. Now, this is considered as vintage technology since germanium has long given way to silicon.

The clock, the radio, the bathroom scales, my shaver, my toothbrush, even in my bathroom every appliance contains circuits that are transistor based. It would be possible to live without some of these items, or at least substitute them with the mechanical versions, but that’s only for eccentrics, museums and heritage houses.

In 1947, the prototype transistor was on a bench being studied. It came along too late to play a part in the huge leap forward technology made during World War II. What became apparent is that the technology that had been developed using thermionic valves was convertible into a transistor-based versions. Size shrank and performance improved dramatically.

What’s my message? It’s another way of looking at so called artificial intelligence. Technology doesn’t come out of the blue. It doesn’t plot new pathways in the first years of its invention. It often takes things we already do and speeds them up or makes them cheaper or makes them more lethal.

We create another stepping stone upon which further developments can take place. So, maybe there is a South Sea Bubble about to burst. Much of the frantic investment that has taken place assumes that artificial intelligence is of itself a wonder. Let’s say it isn’t. The wonder is what it will allow us to do. Much of that side of the coin is a massive unknown. Much as the three who invented the solid-state transistor could not have envisaged tens of millions of them stuffed inside every computer chip on the planet.

Vintage germanium components are sough after by specialists. Apparently, audio amplifiers sound better to those who are sensitive to certain musical tones. Artificial intelligence has a proliferation of applications. A lot are gimmicks. Some are extremely serious.

POST: It’s often the boring stuff that can best be improved rapidly, note: One real reason AI isn’t delivering: Meatbags in manglement • The Register

Dynamics of Change

This theory of mine may have been voiced before. It’s a way of looking at the momentum behind progressiveness but with a reminder of the realities of the difficulties of change. Any progressive movement implies change. That change may not always be comfortable.

Ever looked at the teeth of a wood saw. There are a variety of geometries[1]. The overall purpose is the same regardless of the shape and size. Different materials too. A typical saw is unidirectional. Push in one direction to make a cut and withdraw to prepare for the next one.

Then look at our world of ever-increasing data. Piles of accumulated numbers. For the most part, as simple creatures, we plot “x” against “y” to get an image of how one parameter is related to another. In the real world, there’s a lot more axis and dimensions. More than a head full.

On one axis I could put that nebulous parameter “progress”. The horizontal axis, as it often is, that unidirectional human experience of time. So, “x” equals time, as the years clock by, and “y” equals a measure of human “progress”.

What do I plot on blank graph paper? Take the shadow of the saw tooth at an incline and arrange it so that it rises with time. Remember to get it the way round that suggest that the saw is being used. Depending upon the rate of the incline and the rake of the saw tooth, we go forward with time and then stop or reverse a small amount. However, the overall direction is always to climb. This is better drawn than written.

How does this illustrate the mythical quality of human progress? Being a fan of both disproportionate relationships and pareto[2], I accept that things move at different rates subject to different stimulus. Sometimes fast with only a tiny push. Sometimes slow even with a massive amount of force applied.

Take, for example, the technical progress that was made, driven by the necessities of war, in the 1940s. Aeroplanes went from relatively crude flying machines and esoteric racers to incredibly capable craft that came to dominate the skies.

Now, take social progress at improving housing conditions in our country, over the last couple of decades, and the speed of improvement has been remarkably disappointing, to say the least. Pathetic would be a better description.

Progress, or lack of it, has a vast number of different characteristics. However, the main one that either delights us or troubles us is speed. The speed by which things change for the better. Swiftness of advance, or setback after setback and even moments of reversal. Just like a saw tooth. Great strides are made. Then difficult periods and reversals occur. It’s predicable what I’m going to write next. The western world is in one of those moments of ambition but backsliding and sluggish progress. Negativity abounds.

Is perspicacity the right word to use for my theory.? It’s crude. On the upside there’s an underlying positivity described in my simple model. Don’t look to the setbacks and stupidities of the day, look to the longer run “progress” that is in prospect. And help make it happen.

[1] https://www.blackburntools.com/articles/saw-tooth-geometry/index.html

[2] https://betterexplained.com/articles/understanding-the-pareto-principle-the-8020-rule/

Civilization’s Edge

Civilizations rise and fall. That’s not new in the human experience of the last couple of thousand years. One of the causes of failure is an encounter with an entirely unexpected threat. When I say “unexpected” I mean unprepared for threat. Then finding that the defences that have been constructed fall simply and quickly because they didn’t anticipate that threat.

Another reason for failure is a perpetual human characteristic. Arrogance. Everyday imagining that the pinnacle of achievement is – now. Look how smart we are in the 21^st Century. Capable, Superman like, of leaping so far ahead of our forefathers.

I’m a child of the analogue age. I was born into the space age. What that brought us, by necessity, was the digital computer in all its myriads of forms. Yet, from day one, it’s no better that a mass of fast switches. Ones and noughts. Nothing more. Nothing less.

With miniaturisation and an understanding of how materials work a massive, global, interconnected digital system, called the INTERNET, has been constructed. It’s flexibility and utility are undeniable. Its extended human capabilities way beyond that of past generations.

Now, I can start a sentence with “however” or “but” or despite this fact. The whole enterprise is still an unfathomable, dynamic number of ones and noughts.

There’s a kind of vulnerability that is elemental. Whatever might be written about powerful Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems it’s fair to say that the “A” is entirely accurate but the “I” is a bit of a myth. Mimicking intelligence is more the order of the day. That does make people shudder because that mimicking is so fast and draws on a massive amount of information. Seemingly that surpasses human capabilities. It doesn’t.

I write not of the machines that we have today but of those to come. I’ll resist the mention of the number 42. What’s happening is an acceleration of developments. These highly versatile tools that are permeating every aspect of life are not frozen in time. They overhaul themselves on a regular basis. What comes next is indeed machines that make machines. Algorithms that write algorithms.

Humanity is unprepared for the emergence of an intelligence that genuinely fits that bill. The whole idea of sovereignty and human autonomy might go out of the window. The ability to exercise control over where we are going is lost.

There are a lot of wealthy folks who are of a libertarian frame of mind who don’t seem too concerned about this race to the point of loss of control. This could be an expression of arrogance or ignorance or both. It could be the ultimate expression of short-termism.

It’s going to require real effort to hang on to democratic systems where we all have a stake in the direction of travel of our society. Money buys influence. Now, that influence is adverse to the idea of trying to regulate or moderate the advance of technology.

Civilizations rise and fall. Are we racing towards a cliff edge? Put aside climate change for a moment. Stop me from any tendance to doom-monger. My thought is that a comfortable, stable, prosperous society needs regulator instruments that work to mitigate threats. Let’s not be persuaded to ignore that reality.

Wealth and Power

No history buff, need you be. That’s Yoda speak for saying that there are one or two matters that bubble to the surface through human history. Let’s shelve the fact that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. It’s a subject that a whole religion could be based upon.

I could encapsulate the phenomenon in the words: “Let them eat cake”. An example of a stratified society where those people that the top have completely lost sight of the lives lived by the majority. There’s a recognition that others exist but no great empathy or care.

That detachment can be exhibited in signs like gold plated panelling, crystal chandlers bedecking breathtaking halls and spare no expense expressions of power and wealth.

That’s one of my memories of my one visit to Russia. A port of call during a Baltic cruise itinerary. A trip that highlighted fascinating contrasts but shared histories. A good reminder of dramatic events. The Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg[1] is truly stunning. Lavish in every sense. A sign of the last century intense competition between major European powers.

To top a list, the Palace of Versailles[2] is the premier example of draw dropping magnificence. Naturally, these are global statements of power and wealth that are celebrated as part of our common heritage. They are, however, a lesson that history has posted for us to read.

What do both have in common?

Today, Kings and Queens are familiar with that lesson. Possibly apart from a small number who haven’t yet embraced modernity. If I must write it in the minimum number of words, it’s that distance that can grow between those who have great privilege and those who don’t. Then what happens when that becomes truly unstainable.

Revolution is bookmarked in any history book. These are moments, and their consequences are when a break point is reached. Although signs are there in hindsight predicting such events is a fraught with uncertainty. It’s usually thought that the price of destruction and devastation are a dam that keeps thoughts of revolution at bay. Change that happens, as if a dam breaks, are notoriously difficult to predict and cost. Not only that but such thoughts are rarely in the minds of any revolutionaries and their opponents.

Let me be clear. We are no where near a breakpoint in this moment. If I must write something, it’s more about the subtle signs that the direction of travel is not a positive one. Fine to dismiss my point of view as being that of a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. I get that.

It’s the consequences of the concentration of power and wealth that’s concerning. The rise of the global billionaires and their reach beyond national boundaries is of the age. Nation states are no longer the biggest players in the writing of the story of the future. This is not always entirely bad, some are altruistic, but growing economic inequality[3] is bad. Outcomes from situations where inequality exceeds certain limits, that’s not where anyone sane should go.

[1] https://www.historyhit.com/locations/the-winter-palace/

[2] https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/83/

[3] https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/global-social-challenges/2022/07/12/widening-of-the-wealth-gap-the-rise-of-billionaires/

Cooling Heated Debates

How do we cool the temperature of debate? Recent events show that there are people who would rather heat it up. Without historic analogies or dire polemics, it’s clear that heating up conflicts inevitable harms people and prolongs, and often intensifies, those conflicts.

I’d like to think that enjoying vigorous debate can be achieved but with the general ethical idea of “do no harm” in mind. Sure, there are a lot of disagreements and disagreeable ideas. None of that is new to the human condition.

Most of us, bar a few professors, have forgotten what people in medieval England were arguing about in the crowded public houses of that period. I’ll bet those arguments were just as intense as anything we can muster. My guess is that the subject would be how the people in the next town were not to be trusted. They will ripe you off given half a chance.

Religion gets drawn into the debates of our times. That’s even if, like me, most people are agnostic and don’t follow a particular creed. Even from that personal point of view we live in a society that has been touched by the broader ethics of a religious heritage.

With my Sunday school hat on here’s ways that our leaders might try to cool the ferment.

One move is to resist the temptation to be dogmatic. It’s absolutism that is aimed at shutting down debate that causes so much rancour. It’s a bad way of winning over others. Doesn’t matter who is being dictatorial, right or left, crushing debate is boring and counterproductive in the long term. Have an ideology but don’t force it down the throat of others.

Have in mind, throw the first stone but only if you have never screwed up or never done something stupid. Most of us can’t live by this dictum. It’s there in my Sunday school wisdom as a prompt. Have in the back of your mind the thought that hypocrisy is not a good look.

Resist relativism. It’s childish. What I means is to say that slagging off Mr X is fine, it’s OK, because they slagged off my people. This ding-dong is a school playground habit that lasts a lifetime. It’s a route to escalation and one that leads to injury or suffering.

This one probably was in the medieval world. When in a hole, try to stop digging. Yes, it takes a certain amount of self-awareness to see the metaphorical hole. Not everyone can master that awareness. If an argument is going nowhere, to the extent that the heat in the room is rising, leave, or try a different approach.

There are ways to stay our bad spirits. To slay those demons. Not so easy to use them in the social media environment were all the above is encouraged. Is social media unethical? Innately evil? No, not really, in my opinion. Behind each ill-considered post is a person. Well, not in every case but even bots are created by someone.

Just as we needed to learn to live with the printing press, so we need to learn to live with digital technology. What we haven’t leaned yet is how to use it promote well-being and stop it being a place for fear mongering and endless expletives.

Why ‘Artificial’ in AI May Be Misleading: A Deeper Look

On reflection it seems strange to me that the biggest commercial push in technology should be called Artificial Intelligence (AI). Universally, this term has seeped into the daily media as being the only form of shorthand for the coming transformation in our lives.

Generally, the word “artificial” isn’t associated with desirable qualities. If I say that it’s opposite is “natural” then there is a wide gulf between the two. It couldn’t be clearer. Place a plastic garden chair next to an antique wooden chair – case proven.

Imagine a marketing campaign for artificial cosmetics as opposed to natural cosmetics. Which one do you think would be the more successful? It’s honest to say that a product is artificial given that it’s manufactured but it’s much more appealing to talk about its natural roots.

A desire to elevate natural content has a historical context. It’s the industrial revolution that provided society with a rich wealth of choice. Trouble is that a legacy image of dark satanic mills[1] and grim-faces of exploited workers is written deep into our culture. The natural world was assaulted and abused by the unstoppable steam roller of the industrial revolution.

It’s reasonable to refer to a complex digital system as an artifact. Not in the way of an archaeological discovery. More like a popular game, chess, checkers or go, in that it’s extant and associated with a set of practices and rules.

Today, AI doesn’t exist in nature. It may be inspired by nature, in terms of analogies with the workings of our brains. Neural networks and memory. Interconnections of circuits and wires and their arrangements are a human creation.

Having written the above, it does make me think; what will happen in 1000 years? A long time for our social structures and organisation but no time at all for any inhabitants of the Earth. Will someone be writing academic tones on the natural history of computers? Humans will be looking at them, and their evolution wondering how and why they got to do what they do. Much as we might now study ravens, rats and rabbits.

Surely AI will evolve. A natural process. Current systems will inevitably have deficiencies and flaws that get corrected in future generations. Experimentation is a human domain. Give it several decades and machines will be doing it for themselves.

The word “artificial” has a big downside. Although I’m having a lot of difficulty in thinking of a better general word. In my long-term scenario, what’s coming is a new branch of evolution. We know, the complexity of human behaviour is largely conditioned by our environment. We adapt. What AI may become, continuity dependent, will likely follow a similar path.

Whenever I visit the Natural History Museum[2] in London I like to look in on our ancestors. Today, our species, Homo sapiens, is the only human living. We once lived amongst our other human ancestors. Homo is the Latin word for “human” and sapiens is derived from a Latin word meaning “wise”.

There’s a story for you. Will AI eventually become Machina sapiens?

[1] “Dark Satanic Mills” is a phrase from William Blake’s poem.

[2] https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/the-origin-of-our-species.html

Absolutely!

Daily writing prompt

List 10 things you know to be absolutely certain.

View all responses

For some obscure reason my mind goes immediately to René Magritte. A painter who knew how to play with reality and illusion. “This is not a pipe.” A painting is not a pipe, but rather an image of a pipe. So, why not say so.

I could say that there is nothing that we can be totally certain about. Afterall, some deep thinkers imagine that we live in a simulation where nothing is real. Personally, I don’t go with that theory. It’s absurd in the sense that the next question becomes – who made the simulation? And for them, could they not be part of a greater simulation? That would create a Russian doll set that would go on to infinity. And we all have a problem with infinity.

Let me go for 10 things that I think to be certain within the bounds of my limited knowledge.

My name. It gets used by those I met. Documents have it well recorded. My parents were consistent in using it. So, I’ll say that it certainly is John.
Earth. The existence of the planet where I live. The ground beneath my feet. The physical mass that generates enough gravity to keep me here.
Water. Now, I’m listing the four classical elements (Earth, water, air and fire). I depend on them every day. To walk, to drink, to breath, to keep warm in winter.
Air.
Fire.
Space. A generic name for the huge expanse beyond the Earth. Even with no personal experience of Space, I’m certain that it exists. Its precise nature is another matter.
Food. The existence of which sustains me. Without it I’d perish.
My senses. My five senses – sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch.
My size and shape. Measurements taken and recorded. Hight, weight and a proliferation of other dimensions. Not that they are static.
My emotions. Facts aside, so many likes and dislikes, engage, distract, motivate and repel with such consistency that their existence cannot be denied.

Having produced this fine list, I will now press the big red button marked do not press. Is there any reason why I shouldn’t engage the infinite improbability drive?