Futurism

I think Ray Kurzweil is a little...optimistic, if optimistic is the right word. "Crazy", maybe. It could very well be because I'm not nearly as immersed in the world of rapid technological change as he is, but a lot of his ideas just don't seem realistic. For example, he says, "Computers will disappear. Displays will be written directly onto our retinas by devices in our eyeglasses and contact lenses"...by 2009. Not even two years from now? I don't know if it's that I think we won't have the technology to do something like that by then, or that I think the computer industry has a large enough stake in preventing computers' disappearance, but I think computers are here to stay, at least for another decade or so. Maybe eyeglass devices will be in addition to computers. Really, who knows? I wasn't paying attention when the wireless headsets came out -- the really tiny Bluetooth ones -- but those probably seemed pretty out-of-this-world when they were first imagined.

As far as Bill Joy's theory that humans will make machines that are smarter than humans, and that will therefore be able to improve themselves to the point where humans will no longer be necessary, I think that is giving machines too much credit. Yes, machines can be "taught" to "think" and accomplish tasks by themselves, like Stanley the robot car, but everything Stanley did was a result of programming. He could not do things his creators had not programmed him to do; he could not think independently and come up with new ideas or better ways to do things. I think a key component of humanity is the ability, as a species, to think independently; not that every member of the species must be able to do so (I still think brain-dead people are human, even though they cannot think for themselves), but as a general rule, I believe this holds true (also with animals).

To sum up, I think both Kurzweil and Joy think too highly of machines.

I am very hopeful about the world I will live in for the next thirty years. Yes, we do have some fantastically complex and difficult issues that will need to be fixed, or at least dealt with: terrorism, war, nuclear threats, human rights abuses, pollution, apathy; but assuming we (as a human race) don't blow ourselves up or otherwise kill ourselves with weapons of mass destruction, I think we have a great opportunity to do good and improve people's lives for the better. If we do die off as a species, I am certain it will be because of something (or things) we bring on ourselves, not havoc wreaked by rogue machines we are smarter than we are.

I think the technological revolution in which we are living today is similar to past technological revolutions, just to a more extreme, rapidly-advancing degree. I do find myself longing for the days when people actually wrote letters, and often wish I didn't have to carry a cellphone around all the time -- it would be nice to really get away from everything for awhile, without everyone panicking because I didn't answer my cellphone for a whole hour -- and I'm only 23! What prevents me from believing in doomsday scenarios such as those advanced by Kurzweil and Joy (admittedly, Kurzweil doesn't think his is a doomsday scenario, but I consider it so) is the simple recognition of the fact that throughout history, people have feared technological advances, yet we as a human race are still thriving. It is somewhat similar to the fears over immigration: people are so convinced that illegal Mexican immigrants are going to be the death of this country and constitute an awful flood of humanity that must be stopped at all costs, but the Irish and Russian were also once considered a similarly foreign, unassimilable group, and they have integrated perfectly well into this melting pot we call America. I don't think things are ever as scary as the hysterical, fear-mongering-to-bring-in-higher-ratings media would have us believe. Cynical? I prefer to think of myself as possessing an untarnishable optimism about the state of humanity.

I am fascinated to see what the coming years bring, both in technology and otherwise, and just hope I will be able to keep up with all the latest advances!

Network Neutrality

The fundamental issue underlying the net neutrality debate is who gets to control the flow of information over the internet.

Google and Lawrence Lessig are two entities in favor of net neutrality. Proponents of net neutrality say it is important because it will keep the internet a neutral environment, so network providers will not be able to give content providers faster or slower service based on how much they pay or their subject matter. This will keep the internet on a level playing field, so the only thing that will determine whether a website will succeed is whether people like it and use it. If net neutrality is discontinued, network providers could greatly slow traffic to and from sites they deem less desirable, or those that are not their clients.

Comcast and AT&T are two entities that oppose net neutrality. Opponents of network neutrality say it impinges upon quality of service: packets of data all must be treated as equal, be they email, streaming video, or an online backgammon game. This means the network providers can make no guarantees as to timeliness of their service: for example, they cannot guarantee packets of streaming video data will all arrive quickly enough to ensure a smooth viewing experience. They believe this will stifle creativity and innovation because people will be less willing to invent applications that demand timely data arrival if they know network providers cannot guarantee this. Also, the infrastructure is quite dated, and it will be up to the network providers to replace it with faster, more technologically-advanced materials; these companies need some way to come up with the money to be able to pay for these improvements.

I am strongly in favor of network neutrality. I do not find the opponents of network neutrality's arguments to be convincing, in large part because a) they seem to already have more than enough money, and can surely afford to make upgrades to infrastructure; and b) it seems suspicious to me that it is the big companies who stand to gain financially that are against network neutrality, while it is the innovative websites and web-based companies (and a law professor from Stanford!) who support network neutrality. I know which side I'd rather be on! Also, I am a huge supporter of www.bmezine.com, a website which has been banned in a number of countries because many people find its content objectionable. I would be extremely perturbed if network neutrality were repealed and the network providers slowed down service to bmezine.com because they found its content objectionable. Content discrimination is not what made our country great! Innovation, and the ability of little guys to take an idea and make it accessible to the rest of the citizenry, even without buckets of money to begin with, is an integral part of our national heritage, and I believe this should be protected at all costs.

Artificial Intelligence

I do not think the Turing Test is a good test for determining whether someone (person or computer) is intelligent. Mimicry is not the same as intelligence; intelligence goes deeper than just being able to simulate a thinking being. I think intelligence must come from within the person (or animal, or computer), and not appear as a result of a program. For example, after Koko the gorilla was taught American Sign Language, she could then create her own phrases; a computer's phrases are the result of a program.

Many animals, such as dolphins and gorillas, are almost universally considered to be intelligent beings, yet they are not able to fool people into believing they are human; one drawback to the Turing Test is that it only measures intelligence in terms of human intelligence.

Another way to tell if a computer is intelligent would be if the computer spontaneously created dialogue, or spontaneously did something no one had programmed it to do. This would show that it could think on its own, which I believe is the true hallmark of intelligence.