Technological Singularity

Technological Singularity How can we assess the feasibility of a technological singularity? And how can we ethically decide our approach towards technological development in this context? By: Joachim Prehn Thomsen Course: Philosophy of Science & Technology Course Manager: Vasiliki Baka Table of contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................ 1 What is technology? ............................................................................................................................. 1 Technological Singularity & Ray Kurzweil......................................................................................... 2 Actor-network theory ........................................................................................................................... 4 Inscription......................................................................................................................................... 4 Translation ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Framing ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Technological Singularity – From an ANT perspective ...................................................................... 7 Ethics .................................................................................................................................................... 8 An ethical approach .......................................................................................................................... 9 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 10 References .......................................................................................................................................... 11 Internet sources............................................................................................................................... 11 Appendix ............................................................................................................................................ 12 Abstract There is a power in globally challenging events such as the climate crisis, scarcity of natural resources, overpopulation, or in this case technological singularity, that can make us question how we conduct our lives on this planet, and sometimes bring us to rethink our patterns of being and belonging in this world. In a time of rapidly increasing technological development, where information technology seemingly become more and more embedded in our daily lives, the abstract concept of technological singularity and the varying projections of its possible consequences has spawned a philosophical debate on how we can assess its feasibility, and not least how we can ethically decide our approach towards technological development in this context? The arguments of this paper are based on actor-network theory, claiming that both human and non-human actors are shaped by and shape each other in a network of enacted relations. Following these relations can uncover the network to show how inscribed, translated and framed actions mutually come to shape technological development. In this essay I will start by defining technology. Following I will use the argument of Ray Kurzweil as my point of departure by utilizing the actor-network approach to reveal the network of actors surrounding whom many consider to be the most prominent and influential proponent of technological singularity. This investigation will then enable me to discuss the feasibility of Kurzweil’s argument for a coming singularity, still from an actor-network perspective. Finally I will argue for an ethical approach to future technological development in this context. What is technology? In order to enable a discussion on the concept of technological singularity, I will first establish a foundation for talking about technology. How can we define technology? And what are the implications for settling on a definition of a term with so many perceptions towards its meaning and applicability? As one of the implications is the mere disagreement on the definition of the subject of discussion itself, I find it practical, for the purpose of this essay, to arrive at a definition in search of consensus and encompassing the multiplicity of definitions available. I therefore cast aside the narrower definitions, though easier comprehendible, such as technology perceived as hardware, or tools and machines (Dusek, 2006), and the opposite more socially constructed approach towards technology 1 as rules, where the focus is on technology essentially being manifested through systematically developed patterns of means and ends (Dusek, 2006). If then, we also dismiss the notion of technology as applied science, due to the disagreement in the definition of what constitutes science (Dusek 2006), then finally I arrive at a sort of middle ground where technology as systems can encompass all of the above, and be perceived as “[…] the application of scientific or other knowledge to practical tasks by ordered systems that involve people and organizations, productive skills, living things, and machines.” (Dusek, 2006: 35). Having established a definition to support my argument through the rest of this essay, it is important to reflect on the relevance that this choice of definition has to my personal ontological positioning, just as the definition held by the actors under investigation might just as well relate, consciously or unconsciously, to their view of the world, their being in it, and the materiality that constitute it. I will therefore attempt to identify an ontological foundation of the actors under my investigation when relevant. Technological Singularity & Ray Kurzweil To begin with, I will establish a short historical overview of how the term technological singularity, or the general meaning of technology’s ability to surpass human level intelligence, have developed over time, and how it is then brought into a contemporary context. From early 19th century reflections on a mathematical calculation machine as something that may, “[…] when brought to greater perfection, […] think of a plan to remedy all their own defects and then grind out ideas beyond the ken of mortal mind!” (Thornton, 1847: 281), through scientifically respected 20th century actors’ notions of an “[…] ultraintelligent machine […] defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever […]” (Good, 1965: 2-3), the first explicit articulation of the term was made popular by Vernor Vinge in the science fiction community as an analogy to the unaccountable nature of a black hole singularity, as presented in the scientific field of physics (Vinge, 1983). This development has led to many contemporary perspectives on the possibility of a coming technological singularity; many of them are conveniently illustrated as a table in the appendix of this essay to provide an overview of the diversity of contemporary positionings towards the concept (Magee & Devezas, 2011: 1372). 2 In this essay I will be focusing on Ray Kurzweil, who is by many considered the most influential proponent in the singularity discussion. But before we get to Kurzweil, I will include Gordon E. Moore on the scene as an initiator of an idea that inspired Kurzweil. Moore produced a model, based on empirical observations, which happened to succeed in predicting the future of technological evolution with arguably great precision. This model became known as Moore’s law and is based on his observation of the number of components in integrated circuits doubling every year since the invention of integrated circuits in 1958 until 1965 (Moore, 1965). The model introduces the idea of technology evolving at an exponential rate, and has become one of the main arguments to support the idea of technological singularity for my point of departure, Ray Kurzweil, who believes in the idea of accelerating change and thus defines technological singularity: “It's a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed. Although neither utopian nor dystopian, this epoch will transform the concepts that we rely on to give meaning to our lives, from our business models to the cycle of human life, including death itself.” (Kurzweil, 2005: 24). He argues that Moore’s law shows a natural development, not only in the semiconductor industry, but in all areas of technological development. He defines this as the law of accelerating returns, and has constructed a wide variety of models to support this argument, which shows the development in several areas of technology and at different scales of time (Kurzweil, 2001). An argument such as this, based on empirical induction of data, turned into a predictive model, enables me to identify similar traits to the ontological foundation of positivism (Beck Holm, 2013). However, Kurzweil is not a scientist, and on this basis his argument need not necessarily be grounded in a specific philosophy of science. Rather he is an inventor and an innovator, and in this functioning he might, deliberately or not, make use of different ontological perspectives as means to communicate his cause. And one might look upon the arguments of Ray Kurzweil as pawns in a game of innovation if we take a closer look at how he acts in a network of singularity related ventures, which leads me to the introduction of a suitable theoretical approach to investigate the network and actions of Ray Kurzweil, namely actor-network theory (ANT). 3 Actor-network theory A fundamental element of actor-network theory is the dismissal of distinction between human and non-human actors. Technology and humans are already shaped and continually co-shape each other, as non-humans and humans in actions and interactions; hence the term actors, being and becoming intertwined in what can be labelled a network (Faraj et. al., 2004). The advantage of applying this sort of neutrality to both human and non-human actors is the enabling of an analytical investigation of language neutrality into the connections between these interrelating actors as they constitute technological development (Faraj et. al., 2004). In order to describe a process of interactions in a network, in this case technological singularity, I will thus put into action an analytical framework from ANT that lets me investigate the values, beliefs, and other motivational aspects of implied actors, and how they are enacted, through the concept of inscription (Faraj et. al., 2004). I will then investigate how actors, as they become entangled in a network, are enrolled in a process of translation, where they negotiate their previously mentioned motivations in order to facilitate coherence in the network, crucial to a successful path towards the common goal of a coalition (Faraj et. al, 2004). Then for a network to be successful in realizing or maintaining its goals, a constant iteration of evaluating and tweaking of the end-product, vision or usage pattern is needed. This can be characterized as the framing of technology (Faraj et. al., 2004). I will apply this framework to a macro perspective investigation of technological singularity in the context of Ray Kurzweil as my point of departure, and my investigation will show that there is indeed a network to be revealed. Inscription If we take Moore’s law as a departure point for the creation of Kurzweil’s law of accelerating returns, we find that Moore himself never meant to create a model that could predict the future of technological development. He was appointed by his employer, Intel, to gather data and use them to try and predict what would happen in silicon components in the next 10 years (Moore, 2005: 1). In this way his model became inscribed with the ambitions of Intel to be able to measure the development in the industry so far, in order to set goals for the coming years. And as he points out himself, Moore’s law ended up becoming “[…] a self-fulfilling prophesy now, the industry road maps are based on that continued rate of improvement […] so essentially from being just a measure of what has happened, it’s become a driver of what is going to happen.“ (Moore, 2005: 2). 4 Having recognized the power of this model as an industry driver, and working towards becoming a successful inventor in the IT industry, Kurzweil becomes entangled with Moore’s law as he begins developing more models on the basis of technological development at an exponential rate. In time he has produced an array of predictive models to argue for a universal law of technological development to follow this exponential rate. Kurzweil openly admits that “The primary application of my technology forecasting is to time my own projects.” (Kurzweil, 2010: 66). So when Kurzweil acts as an inscriber of futuristic predictions into his models, books, businesses, TED talks, symposiums and his overall argument of technological singularity, he becomes successfully entangled with established actors within the technology industry already inscribed by Moore’s law, by successfully being able to predict future technological development to meet their economic agendas. He does this by an act of extrapolating the inscription of accelerating change to more and more technological fields, thus enabling himself to act as (in lack of a better word) a prophet of technological development. Translation This act of extrapolating an already successful model to encompass a wider range of actors, might not be a successful venture without the proper act of translation among the actors in the network as they become entangled. A closer look at the interrelations among the actors in our network under investigation reveals that Kurzweil has been skilled in translating his ideas and models in the forming of coalitions. An explicit and important relation seems to be a meeting with the established entrepreneur Peter Diamandis who, after reading a book by Kurzweil, took interest in his ideas and made contact with him. So now two actors with overlapping motives become entangled in an act of translation where these motives are negotiated and translated into a common set of drivers that in this case materializes through the introduction of a new actor in the form of the Singularity University. The new university is inscribed with the ideas of both actors in terms of Kurzweil’s law of accelerating returns as a foundation for the ontological positioning of the institution, and Diamandis’ organizational principles from his background as a founder of the International Space University (Singularity Universitya). As part of this alliance of interests (Faraj et. al. 2004) the two actors bring their hinterland into the coalition to form a stronger network of interrelated motives. Among others NASA, The X Prize Foundation, Cisco and Nokia are being entangled with Kurzweil and his hinterland of the Thiel Foundation, the Singularity Summit and the Singularity Institute, to name a few (Singularity Universityb). This entanglement of actors become a process of translation 5 as actors are inscribed into strategic positions as board members, chancellors, trustees etc. (Singularity Universityc & X Prize Foundationa). As a manifestation of the successful process of translation, we can even find established actors on transnational levels, such as the United Nations and the US Departments- of Energy and Transport becoming part of the macro level network now surrounding Kurzweil (X Prize Foundationb). This following of the actors shows us the constant “[…] dual process of translation and inscribing to affect or even hijack the technological development process […]” (Faraj et. al., 2004), in order to successfully reach the common interests of the coalition. Framing As a network now acquiring momentum on a global scale, our investigation reveals the efforts of the implied actors of framing their efforts in “[…] support of a certain vision or pattern of usage.” (Faraj et. al., 2004). This is where the concept under investigation, technological singularity, once again enters the front stage. So as I return my focus on Ray Kurzweil, I see how he continues the extrapolation of his law of accelerating returns by articulating and visualizing it, as an undeniable path towards a coming singularity, through TED speeches (Kurzweil, 2009), journals (Woollaston, 2013), online communities (Hill, 2013), and a feature in a documentary film, among other appearances in various forms of media. This can be seen as a way of framing his argument in support of his vision leading to a stabilization and strengthening of the now irreversible path of the networked coalition surrounding the argument (Faraj et. al., 2004). Moreover, and in contrast to many of his fellow singularitarians, he presents an utopian perspective on this coming singularity, which he argues will entail technological solutions to grand problems of our time: “[…] exponentially growing information technologies do have the scale to address the major challenges of humanity — in fact, they’re the only thing that does!” (Kurzweil, 2010: 63). The Singularity University, which is fully based on Kurzweil’s law of accelerating returns, partake in this framing of a vision by inscribing it in every participator, and moreover by orchestrating Global Impact Competitions (Singularity Universityd), where they through various scholarly partners around the world organize competitions to solve problems in local communities, with the prize of scholarships for attending the Singularity University, hereby spreading the vision of technological singularity to the participants, and in turn the participants frame the vision by the implementation of their projects in their local communities. 6 My use of actor-network theory to reveal how actors become entangled through enactments of inscription, translation and framing, shows that the central argument of Ray Kurzweil for a coming technological singularity, as an undeniable culmination of an evolutionary path of technological development, can be questioned. By unravelling the network of actors and actions we find instead a set of interrelations influencing on each other in a deliberate process of technological development. Whether this will consequently lead to a super human intelligence remains unanswered, but an actor-network approach would suggest that such an outcome cannot be reached by technology autonomously. But can it happen? And if so, how will it happen? Technological Singularity – From an ANT perspective In order to make an educated guess at the probability of the occurrence of a coming technological singularity, I will appropriately bring back the notion of thinking of technology as “[…] the application of scientific or other knowledge to practical tasks by ordered systems that involve people and organizations, productive skills, living things, and machines.” (Dusek, 2006: 35). If I then add the approach from actor-network theory of these human and non-human actors inscribing influence on each other in the constant creation and re-creation of a technological system, then I must conclude that we as a network of human and non-human actors, to paraphrase Kurzweil’s definition of technological singularity, already are irreversibly transforming human life, the concepts we rely on to give meaning to our lives, our business models, as well as the human life cycle. And we have been doing this all along. So if the culmination of this process is to end up with a non-human surpassing the level of intellect in any human, then we must ask where the inscription of such intellectual properties would come from? From an ANT perspective it seems improbable that a journey towards, through and past a point of singularity would not have human actors along as co-pilots. Interestingly, despite the seemingly positivist claim in the law of accelerating returns, the idea of how a coming technological singularity would manifest itself is more aligned with the actornetwork idea when Kurzweil expresses that “human level intelligence in machines is not going to displace us, compete with us, it’s not an invasion coming from Mars—these are tools we’re creating to basically expand ourselves, who we are.” (Kurzweil, 2010: 65). So if we, us, the human and nonhuman inhabitants of technology are to reach a point where, in Kurzweil’s words, “[…] There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine or between physical and virtual 7 reality.” (Kurzweil, 2005: 25), then the societal focus should perhaps be placed on the ethics of our co-existence with technology, rather than on the probability of a singularity, since the probability, it’s manifestation, and its consequences will be affected by our participation as actors in a network. Ethics Reflecting on and discussing global scale existential challenges such as technological singularity, the global climate crisis and overpopulation among others, brings about fundamental thoughts and feelings towards the essence of being and belonging in the world, and with it, a great deal of diversity in the perspectives towards such challenges. When we then approach these controversies from a perspective of us, as human kind, playing an active part in forming the consequences of dealing with these issues, I find it appropriate to turn to morals and ethics in order to enable a discussion on how to position ourselves in our actions. If one can imagine a possibility of future radical macro level societal changes in our dealings with technology, and ultimately perhaps even our merging with technology, and if one acknowledges our partaking in that process, then how can we bring our moral and ethical perspectives to the surface, and to use, in our networked actions towards a possible singularity? To answer this question, I will first settle on a definition of the concepts of morals and ethics. To explain the concept of morals, one can think of individuals living in overlapping cultural spheres in interaction with other individuals, and where inherent social rules of conducting yourself become important to sustain a comfortable or acceptable societal behavior. In other words it is “[…] the unwritten rules that regulate our coexistence with other people.” (Beck Holm, 2013: 204). But in the existential controversy put forward in this essay, where we are dealing with a process of future technological development, our diverse moral perceptions may rarely be experienced nor sufficiently aligned, if even articulated, through our actions of inscribing ourselves into our technology. This is why I argue for the importance of enabling a discussion of morality through the concept of ethics, which I will define as a concept that steps in “[…] when our inherent moral system is no longer applicable, and we are required to stop and consider how to act.” (Beck Holm, 2013: 204). So if we stop and consider how we should apply an ethical discussion on how to inscribe our process of technological development with moral values, I could reflect upon existing schools of thought in the field of ethical philosophy, from the utilitarian’s pursuit of happiness to Kant’s goal 8 of a universal moral law, in which the categorical imperative expect us to act as we expect of the world around us, or I could build upon Aristotle’s idea of living our lives in strive of wisdom and good character, where the sum of our lifetime actions is measured up against our virtues (Beck Holm, 2013). But due to this diversity of ethical positionings inherent in our global society, and due to the globality of the challenge being investigated in this essay, I will instead argue for an approach towards technological development that encompasses a diversity of ethical positionings through a socio-technical grounded principle requiring “[…] a reflective understanding of the relevant values and how these values function in the lives of people and possibly groups affected by the systems in question.” (Flanagan et. al., 2008: 324). In other words, an approach that brings the ethical debate into the process of technological development, hereby inscribing, or embodying, negotiated values of variable diversity into our technological systems. An ethical approach Flanagan et. al. presents such an approach in their article Embodying Values in Technology (2008). Here the authors present a method for deliberately facilitating a process of ethical inquiry as a supplement to established technological design methodologies, by combining ethical and philosophical theory with empirical value- interpretations and commitments as means to the ends of embodying relevant values in technologies (Flanagan et. al., 2008). The challenges for technology practitioners engaging in this approach are to responsibly incorporate diverse epistemological perspectives, often in contrast to their own, with a scarcity of methodologies available for successfully guiding this process (Flanagan et. al., 2008). One guiding approach is suggested in the article though, which can be interpreted as an analogous process to the ANT framework of inscription, translation and framing. It is based in what the authors label as three constitutive activities, namely (1) discovery, which is to collect predefined as well as emerging values, from both users and designers, that are relevant to the context of a technological development. (2) Secondly translation is the activity of embodying these values in the technologies through careful specifications of concrete terms of collected values. (3) Finally the activity of verification ensures that technological developments are assessed in their success of embodying the specified values (Flanagan et. al., 2008). Crucial to the success of this approach is a commitment to an iterative development cycle, as “[…] technology, a source of radical change in the social and material world, sometimes forces a reconsideration of value concepts.” (Flanagan et. al., 2008: 327), as well as a commitment on behalf of the technology developers to make the embodying of values into 9 requirements in the development process, on equal terms with the conventional functionality and efficiency based requirements (Flanagan et. al., 2008). It places a lot of responsibility on behalf of developers of technology, but at the same time it enables a more democratic approach towards technological development, where relevant actors become represented by facilitating conscious articulation and commitment to moral values to be embodied in technological systems. And in the context of technological singularity, by utilizing such an approach, we can ensure that our intertwined path of technological evolution is embodied with the common values we rely on to give our life meaning, regardless of whether, or how, we reach singularity. Conclusion In this essay I have argued for the use of actor-network theory to reveal how a macro level complex network of interrelating human and non-human actors, including Ray Kurzweil and his law of accelerating returns, have been successful through acts of inscription, translation and framing, in establishing a global network with an alliance of interests, where technological development is a product of these interrelated enactments. This process of investigation has enabled me to reflect on the feasibility of Kurzweil’s argument for a coming technological singularity. So on the basis of a definition of technology as a system, and technological development as a networked process of mutual influence between human and non-human actors, I must conclude that Kurzweil’s main argument of technology autonomously and undeniably reaching a point in time where it will surpass human level intelligence is inconceivable. Though it could be considered feasible to imagine humans and non-humans in a full merger, where we as a technological system would become indistinguishable from each other. But regardless of this speculative consequential discussion, the use of actor-network theory in the context of this essay has shown how we as human actors play an active role in process of technological development, and in turn how the inscribed properties of the technological systems we’re building are equally playing a role in how we perceive and act in the world. This is why I have concluded this paper with an argument for a methodological approach towards tackling the ethical issue of our enactment of technological development. By deliberately and democratically enabling values to be inscribed in our technologies, we can ensure that the technology we come to interact with share the values we rely on to give our lives meaning. And if one day the singularity should come upon us, no matter the consequences, at least our values will prevail. 10 References • • • • • • • • • • • • Dusek, V. (2006). What is technology? Defining or characterizing technology, in Philosophy of Technology: An Introduction. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, pp. 26-37 (chapter 2) Holm, A. B. (2013). Philosophy of Science – An Introduction for Future Knowledge Workers. Frederiksberg, DK. Samfundslitteratur. Magee, C. L. & Devezas, T. C. (2011). How many singularities are near and how will they disrupt human history? Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 28, pp. 1365-1378. Faraj, S., Kwon, D. & Watts, S. (2004). Contested artifact: technology sensemaking, actor networks, and the shaping of the Web browser, in Information Technology & People, Vol. 17 Iss: 2 pp. 186209. Flanagan, M., Howe, D. C. & Nissenbaum, H. (2008). Embodying values in technology – Theory and practice, in Hoven, J. v. D. & Weckert, J. (eds.) Information Technology and Moral Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 322-353. Kurzweil, R. (2010). Merging with the machines: Information technology, artificial intelligence, and the law of exponential growth. World Future Review, Vol. 2: pp. 61-66. Kurzweil, R. (2005). The Singularity is Near. Viking Penguin. Moore, G. E. (2005). Excerpts from a conversation with Gordon Moore: Moore’s Law. (Video transcript of interview with Gordon E. Moore, including written foreword by Moore): Intel Corporation. Vinge, V. (1983). Foreword, Omni Magazine, Vol. 5, no. 4: pp. 10. Thornton, R. (1847). The Age of Machinery. The Primitive Expounder, Vol. 4: pp. 281. Good, I. J. (1965). Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine. Advances in Computers, Vol. 6: pp. 2-3. Moore, G. E. (1965). ”Cramming More Components into Integrated Circuits”. Electronics, Vol. 38, no. 8: pp. 114-117. Internet sources - - Kurzweil, R., (2001) “The Law of Accelerating Returns”, http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-acceleratingreturns, [13.05.2014] Singularity Universitya (n.d.), “Founders”, http://singularityu.org/community/founders/, [13.05.2014] Singularity Universityb (n.d.), “Partners”, http://singularityu.org/community/partners/, [13.05.2014] Singularity Universityc (n.d.), “Board of Trustees”, http://singularityu.org/team/, [13.05.2014] Singularity Universityd (n.d.), “Global Impact Competitions”, http://gic.singularityu.org/, [13.05.2014] X Prize Foundationa (n.d.), “Board of Trustees”, http://www.xprize.org/about/board-of-trustees, [13.05.2014] X Prize Foundationb (n.d.), “Government Partners”, http://www.xprize.org/about/government-partners, [13.05.2014] Hill, D. J. (2013), “Exclusive interview: Ray Kurzweil discusses his first two months at Google”, http://singularityhub.com/2013/03/19/exclusive-interview-ray-kurzweil-discusses-his-first-two-months-atgoogle/, [13.05.2014] Kurzweil, R. (2009), “A university for the coming singularity”, http://www.ted.com/talks/ray_kurzweil_announces_singularity_university, [13.05.2014] Woollaston, V. (2013), “We'll be uploading our entire MINDS to computers by 2045 and our bodies will be replaced by machines within 90 years, Google expert claims”, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article2344398/Google-futurist-claims-uploading-entire-MINDS-computers-2045-bodies-replaced-machines-90years.html, [13.05.2014] 11 Appendix (Magee & Devezas, 2011: 1372) 12