by Ray Kurzweil
The jobs created have also been on a higher level. Indeed, much of the additional employment has been in the area of providing the more intense education that today’s jobs require. For example, we now spend ten times as much (in constant dollars) on a per capita basis for public school education as we did a century ago. In 1870 only 2 percent of American adults had a high-school diploma, whereas the figure is over 80 percent today. There were only 52,000 college students in 1870; there are 15 million today.
The process of automation that began in England two hundred years ago—and continues today at an ever accelerating pace (as per the Law of Accelerating Returns)—eliminates jobs at the bottom of the skill ladder and creates new ones at the top of the skill ladder. Hence increasing investment in education. But what happens when the skill ladder extends beyond the abilities of the bulk of the human population, and ultimately beyond the ability of any human, educational innovations notwithstanding?
The answer we can predict from the Law of Accelerating Returns is that the ladder will nonetheless continue to reach ever higher, implying that humans will need to become more capable by other means. Education can only accomplish so much. The only way for the species to keep pace will be for humans to gain greater competence from the computational technology we have created, that is, for the species to merge with its technology.
Not everyone will find this prospect appealing, so the Luddite issue will broaden in the twenty-first century from an anxiety about human livelihoods to one concerning the essential nature of human beings. However, the Luddite movement is not likely to fare any better in the next century than it has in the past two. It suffers from the lack of a viable alternative agenda.
Ted Kaczynski, whom I quote above from his so-called “Unabomber Manifesto,” entitled Industrial Society and Its Future, advocates a simple return to nature. 22 Kaczynski is not talking about a contemplative visit to a nineteenth-century Walden Pond, but about the species dropping all of its technology and reverting to a simpler time. Although he makes a compelling case for the dangers and damages that have accompanied industrialization, his proposed vision is neither compelling nor feasible. After all, there is too little nature left to return to, and there are too many human beings. For better or worse, we’re stuck with technology.
YOUR CYBERNETIC POET WRITES SOME INTERESTING LINES ...
I’d be interested in your selections.
WELL, LOOKING AT THE FIRST FEW POEMS IN YOUR COLLECTION:
Sashay down the page ...
through the lioness / nestled in my soul ...
forming jewels from the falling snow...
the juice of eternity, / the spirit of my lips ...
BUT THE POEMS DON’T ALWAYS FULLY TRACK, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
Yes, readers tolerate a little more discontinuity in verse than in prose. The fundamental problem is the inability of contemporary cybernetic artists to master the levels of context that human artists are capable of. It’s not a permanent limitation, of course. Ultimately, we’ll be the ones having difficulty keeping up with the depth of context that computer intelligence is capable of—
WITHOUT SOME ASSIST—
From computer extensions to our intelligence, yes, exactly.
In the meantime, the Cybernetic Poet is good at being an inspirational assistant. While its poems don’t always make it all the way through, it does have some real strength at finding unique turns of phrase. So the program has a mode called The Poet’s Assistant. The human user writes a poem in a word-processing window. The Poet’s Assistant watches her write and fills the rest of the screen with suggestions, such as, “Here’s how Robert Frost would finish that line,” or, “Here’s a set of rhymes and/or alliterations that Keats used with that word,” or, “Here’s how Emily Dickinson would finish that poem,” and so on. If provided with the human author’s own poems, it can even suggest how the user herself would finish a line or poem. Everytime you write another word, you get dozens of ideas. Not all of them make sense, but it’s a good solution for writer’s block. And you’re welcome to steal its ideas.
NOW WITH REGARD TO COHEN’S PICTURES ...
You mean Aaron’s pictures ...
OH, I GUESS I’M NOT SENSITIVE TO AARON’S FEELINGS—
Since it doesn’t have any—
NOT YET, RIGHT? BUT WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY WAS THAT AARON’S PICTURES DO SEEM TO MAINTAIN THEIR CONTEXT. THE WHOLE THING KIND OF WORKS FOR ME.
Yes, Cohen’s Aaron is probably the best example of a cybernetic visual artist today, and certainly one of the primary examples of computers in the arts. Cohen has programmed thousands of rules on all aspects of drawing and painting, from the artistic nature of painted people, plants, and objects to composition and color choice.
Keep in mind that Aaron does not seek to emulate other artists. It has its own set of styles, so it is feasible for its knowledge base to be relatively complete within its visual domain. Of course, human artists, even brilliant ones, also have a boundary to their domain. Aaron is quite respectable in the diversity of its art.
OKAY, JUST TO SWITCH TO SOMEONE MUCH LESS RESPECTABLE, YOU QUOTED TED KACZYNSKI TALKING ABOUT HOW THE HUMAN RACE MIGHT DRIFT INTO DEPENDENCE ON MACHINES, AND THEN WE’LL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO ACCEPT ALL MACHINE DECISIONS. BASED ON WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF ALL THE COMPUTERS STOPPING, AREN’T WE ALREADY THERE?
We are certainly there with regard to the dependence, not yet with regard to the level of machine intelligence.
THAT QUOTE WAS SURPRISINGLY—
Coherent?
YES, THAT WAS THE WORD I WAS LOOKING FOR.
Kaczynski’s whole manifesto is rather well written, not at all what you would expect given the popular portrait of him as a madman. As political science professor James Q. Wilson of the University of California wrote, “The language is clear, precise and calm. The argument is subtle and carefully developed, lacking anything even faintly resembling the wild claims or irrational speculation that a lunatic might produce.” And he has gathered quite a following among anarchists and antitechnologists on the Internet—
WHICH IS THE ULTIMATE IN TECHNOLOGY.
Yes, that irony has not been lost.
BUT WHY QUOTE KACZYNSKI? I MEAN, ...
Well, his manifesto is as persuasive an exposition on the psychological alienation, social dislocation, environmental injury, and other injuries and perils of the technological age as any other ...
THAT’S NOT MY POINT. I DOUBT THAT THE LUDDITES ARE HAPPY HAVING HIM AS A SYMBOL OF THEIR IDEAS. YOU’RE SORT OF DISCREDITING THEIR MOVEMENT BY USING HIM AS THEIR SPOKESPERSON.
Okay, that’s a legitimate objection. I suppose I could defend my extensive quote as providing an important example of a relevant phenomenon, which is violent Ludditism. The movement started with violence, and the challenge to the human race posed by machines is fundamental enough that a violent reaction during this coming century is a strong possibility.
BUT YOUR USE OF THE QUOTATION SEEMED LIKE MORE THAN JUST AN EXAMPLE OF SOME FRINGE PHENOMENON.
Well, I was surprised how much of Kaczynski’s manifesto I agreed with.
SUCH AS ...
Oh, so now you’re interested.
IT WAS KIND OF INTRIGUING, AND APROPOS TO THE OTHER THINGS YOU’VE BEEN TELLING ME.
Yes, I thought so. Kacyznski describes the benefits of technology, as well as its costs and dangers. He then makes this point:
A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in which all parts are dependent on one another. You can’t get rid of the “bad” parts of technology and retain only the “good” parts. Take modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science, and other fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech equipment that can be made available only by a technologically progressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can’t have much progress in medicine
without the whole technological system and everything that goes with it.
So far, so good. He then makes the basic judgment that the “bad parts” outweigh the “good parts.” Not that this is a crazy position, either, but nonetheless, this is where we part company Now it is not my view that the advance of technology is automatically beneficial. It is conceivable that humanity will ultimately regret its technological path. Although the risks are quite real, my fundamental belief is that the potential gains are worth the risk. But this is a belief; it’s not a position I can easily demonstrate.
I’D BE INTERESTED IN YOUR VIEW OF THE GAINS.
The material gains are obvious: economic advancement, the shaping of material resources to meet age-old needs, the extension of our life spans, improvements in health, and so on. However, that’s not actually my primary point.
I see the opportunity to expand our minds, to extend our learning, and to advance our ability to create and understand knowledge as an essential spiritual quest. Feigenbaum and McCorduck talk about this as an “audacious, some would say reckless, embarkation onto sacred ground.”
SO WE RISK THE SURVIVAL OF THE HUMAN RACE FOR THIS SPIRITUAL QUEST?
Yeah, basically.
I’M NOT SURPRISED THAT THE LUDDITES TAKE PAUSE.
Of course, keep in mind that it’s the material, not the spiritual gains, that are seducing society down this path.
I’M STILL NOT COMFORTABLE WITH KACZYNSKI AS A SPOKESPERSON. HE IS A CONFESSED MURDERER, YOU KNOW.
Certainly, I’m glad he’s behind bars, and his tactics deserve condemnation and punishment. Unfortunately, terrorism is effective, and that’s why it survives.
I DON’T SEE IT THAT WAY. TERRORISM JUST UNDERMINES THE POSITIONS BEING PUBLICIZED. PEOPLE THEN SEE THE TERRORIST’S PROPOSITIONS AS CRAZY, OR AT LEAST MISGUIDED.
That’s one reaction. But remember the society of mind. We have more than one reaction to terrorism.
One contingent in our heads says “those actions were evil and crazy, so the terrorist’s thesis must also be evil and crazy”
But another contingent in our heads takes the view that “those actions were extreme, so he must have very strong feelings about this. Maybe there’s something to it. Perhaps a more moderate version of his views are legitimate.”
SOUNDS LIKE THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HITLER’S “BIG LIE.”
There’s a similarity. In Hitler’s case, both the tactics and the views were extreme. In the case of modern terrorists, the tactics are extreme; the views may or may not be. In Kaczynski’s case, many aspects of his argument are reasonable. Of course, he does end up in an extreme place.
YEAH, A PRIMITIVE CABIN IN MONTANA.
That’s where the manifesto ends up, too—we should all return to nature.
I DON’T THINK PEOPLE FOUND KACZYNSKI’S NOTION OF NATURE VERY APPEALING, AT LEAST NOT JUDGING BY PICTURES OF HIS CABIN.
And, as I said, there’s not enough nature to go around anymore.
THANKS TO TECHNOLOGY.
And the population boom—
ALSO FACILITATED BY TECHNOLOGY.
So we’ve passed the point of no return. It’s already too late to go the nature route.
SO WHAT COURSE DO YOU RECOMMEND?
I would say that we shouldn’t view the advance of technology as just an impersonal, inexorable force.
I THOUGHT YOU SAID THE ACCELERATING ADVANCE OF TECHNOLOGY—AND COMPUTATION—WAS INEXORABLE; REMEMBER, THE LAW OF ACCELERATING RETURNS?
Uh, yes, the advance is inexorable all right, we’re not going to stop technology But we do have some choices. We have the opportunity to shape technology, and to channel its direction. I’ve tried to do that in my own work. We can step through the forest carefully
WE’D BETTER GET BUSY, SOUNDS LIKE THERE ARE A LOT OF SLIPPERY SLOPES OUT THERE WAITING FOR US.
PART THREE
TO FACE THE FUTURE
CHAPTER NINE
2009
Ever since I could remember, I’d wished I’d been lucky enough to be alive at a
great time—when something big was going on, like a crucifixion. And suddenly
I realized I was.
—Ben Shahn
As we say in the computer business, “shift happens.”
—Tim Romero
It is said that people overestimate what can be accomplished in the short term, and underestimate the changes that will occur in the long term. With the pace of change continuing to accelerate, we can consider even the first decade in the twenty-first century to constitute a long-term view. With that in mind, let us consider the beginning of the next century.
The Computer Itself
It is now 2009. Individuals primarily use portable computers, which have become dramatically lighter and thinner than the notebook computers of ten years earlier. Personal computers are available in a wide range of sizes and shapes, and are commonly embedded in clothing and jewelry such as wristwatches, rings, earrings, and other body ornaments. Computers with a high-resolution visual interface range from rings and pins and credit cards up to the size of a thin book.
People typically have at least a dozen computers on and around their bodies, which are networked using “body LANs” (local area networks).1 These computers provide communication facilities similar to cellular phones, pagers, and web surfers, monitor body functions, provide automated identity (to conduct financial transactions and allow entry into secure areas), provide directions for navigation, and a variety of other services.
For the most part, these truly personal computers have no moving parts. Memory is completely electronic, and most portable computers do not have keyboards.
Rotating memories (that is, computer memories that use a rotating platten, such as hard drives, CD-ROMs, and DVDs) are on their way out, although rotating magnetic memories are still used in “server” computers where large amounts of information are stored. Most users have servers in their homes and offices where they keep large stores of digital “objects,” including their software, databases, documents, music, movies, and virtual-reality environments (although these are still at an early stage). There are services to keep one’s digital objects in central repositories, but most people prefer to keep their private information under their own physical control.
Cables are disappearing.2 Communication between components, such as pointing devices, microphones, displays, printers, and the occasional keyboard, uses short-distance wireless technology.
Computers routinely include wireless technology to plug into the ever-present worldwide network, providing reliable, instantly available, very-high-bandwidth communication. Digital objects such as books, music albums, movies, and software are rapidly distributed as data files through the wireless network, and typically do not have a physical object associated with them.
The majority of text is created using continuous speech recognition (CSR) dictation software, but keyboards are still used. CSR is very accurate, far more so than the human transcriptionists who were used up until a few years ago.
Also ubiquitous are language user interfaces (LUIs), which combine CSR and natural language understanding. For routine matters, such as simple business transactions and information inquiries, LUIs are quite responsive and precise. They tend to be narrowly focused, however, on specific types of tasks. LUIs are frequently combined with animated personalities. Interacting with an animated personality to conduct a purchase or make a reservation is like talking to a person using videoconferencing; except that the person is simulated.
Computer displays have all the display qualities of paper—high resolution, high contrast, large viewing angle, and no flicker. Books, magazines, and newspapers are now routinely read on displays that are the size of, well, small books.