Singularity

Technological Singularity ... can we avoid it?

Is the Technological Singularity already reality Here is the next article in the series of robots. Actually, we need to broaden it a bit. It is a lot more than robots. This one is looking at the ultimate destiny: The technological singularity.

There was a Singularity Summit in 2013 where they estimated that it is likely to be around 2050. But there is still a long way to go on some of these technologies.

I lean on Wikipedia for a lot of this info, so you may even look it up yourself.

Let us look at a few of these things. And it does just get more and more feasible.

The computer itself vs. human brain: We do believe tht the human brain is exceptional in terms of speed and raw computer power. The human brain operates at about 10 petaflops. There is limited bandwidth after all.

Definitions are wonderful. Let us try with this one: Imagine a computer system (it can be a super computer, a network, whatever really) which is so powerful that it can reprogram itself or design and programme other computers or robots without human intervention. Insofar as it might be very rapid, these reprogramming cycles might become an intelligence explosion where their intelligence will far supersede anything a human can even imagine.

The technological singularity is this point where the human mind cannot fathom it anymore and where it becomes totally unpredictable.

This is more than scary! Will the computers or the robots even need us anymore? What will they do?

Will they have a mind of their own? Is this it?

The fastest supercomputer right now is Tianhe-2 from China. It will operate at some 52 petaflops when fully operational and consist of 16,000 nodes.

It will be using Ivy Bridge and Xeon Phi co-processors. In total there will be some 3,120,000 cores.

Memory will be about some 1,4 TiB. So, yes.

Although bulky right now, the computer power is there. It has already surpassed the human brain.

The programming of it: Artificial Intelligence is the word. Is it possible to programme intelligence. If we can define it, we can programme it.

When we programme intelligence, we do not pro-

gramme how to do things. We programme autonomy. The robot must be able to be given a task and to figure out how to do it. It can be a simple task where it needs to find some tools and use them to unscrew a bolt to get to a power plug for recharging.

Easy for a human. Easy for a human of 20 years. Easy for a human of 10 years. Easy for a human of 1 year? You see the point. Easy for a robot of 1 year. Easy for a robot of 1 month. Easy for a robot of 5 minutes old?

A massive intelligence with access (internet!) to all knowledge can have a huge impact on humanity.

Swarm intelligence is the next big thing. Ok, we now have a set of robots which can do things on their own. But humans can act together and solve a task together. Each one contributing something. This is really swarm intelligence. Can robots do that?

What if a robot designs its own goals?

Autonomous robots are there. They are clumsy to begin with. But they learn. FAST! Sony’s toy Aibo can sense when it is time to recharge the battery and go find the plug itself. Robotic lawn mowers will detect the length of the grass and adjust the mowing cycle accordingly.

This leads into the Cognitive robotics. In essence: giving the robots the ability to perceive itself, its own capabilities and to do complex tasks in a complex world. This world may have conflicting goals or where the goals (or tasks) are against set parameters or ‘laws for robots’ (like not to harm a human). Now the robot must figure this out, just like humanity.

Bill Gates and Elon Musk had a few things to say about AI: A robot may have the ability to make high-quality decisions. High-quality is really an alignment between the action and the expected outcome. Expected by the designer that is.

But what if the expected outcome is a bit difficult to pin down? As most human expectations are? Now the robot will act outside of set parameters and these may not be aligned with what we as humans would like to see.

On top of, a robot may be very focused on solving the task, to the point where it overrides any other objective.

A human life is not a parameter maybe?

Well, yes. Sort of. Nearly. Bees and ants and bats have been analysed. There is now even a program-

ming language for swarm algorithms. So we will get there. Right now we have a set of drones to fly as a flock of drones and coordinate among themselves.

Next step is to have them do things. Not so difficult really.

Self-modifying code is the hard one. But there was a project called EURISKO. In essence a heuristic learning programme with a capability of adding new ideas, discovering new ways of doing things, etc.

It found new ways of creating creativity. But in the process it also discarded initial goals and self-defined new one’s it thought were more appropriate.

All by itself. It is called ‘goal mutation’. In essence, It self-modified itself very rapidly and went out of control.

Imagine a drone where the goal is to scan for hostile targets.

It might just self-modify its own code and like to ‘destroy’ all hostile targets.

And suddenly: what is a hostile

target? The designer? Because the designer would like to switch the thing off?

Basically, if the goals are poorly specified, we end up in big trouble. And can we even specify what we would like things to do? It is the genie in the lamp: we get what we ask for, not necessarily what we want.

Robots themselves: can they move like humans and like, look like us?

This is tough! First of all, there is a need for ‘eyes’.

And eyes have to be connected to the main computer – the brain – for determining all the tihngs a human brain just does. Then we have the hearing.

Then the simple motor applications – movements, touch and so on .

However, it does go fast. Nanotubes are the next thing. In essence: robotic muscle tissue. And far smarter than ours. Human biceps can be replaced by an 8 mm nanotube. So robots can some day run faster than us, jump higher, lift more things, and so on.

Facial expression can be done, speech recognition is easy. A lot of the disciplines are tough on their own and will take time, but they can be solved. It is engineering, not science really. …Into the future: Lego has a robotic aspect where kids can programme a robot. There are programming languages available. Open-Source is a reality

Thousands of children and young adults participate in the Botball program. It has been active since 1998 and features a robotics curriculum which focuses on designing, building and programming a pair of autonomous robots. Teams use a standardized kit of materials, document the process and then compete in a tournament in which the challenges change annually. All materials in the kits are exactly the same for every team around the world, so there is no unfair advantages. Botball teams are mostly based in the US with over 300 teams and local tournaments in more than a dozen regions.

In recent years it also holds an annual Global Conference on Educational Robotics (GCER), with an international tournament that attracts teams all over the country as well as from Austria, China, Uganda, Poland, Qatar, Kuwait, and Egypt.

Putting the pieces together: Robotics – as in movements and so on: Not there yet. but coming fast Computer power: Check Programming: Check Cognitive: not yet Swarm intelligence: not really there yet Self-modifying code: Check So the pieces are coming together, but the thing we need is: what do we want to do with it? And if we can’t figure it out, are we on the way to extinction?

in this environment now. Schools have robotics as extra-murals, Summer Robotics Camps in USA, Botball.

By the way: Botball? Here is a quote from Wikipedia: “Botball is an educational robotics program that focuses on engaging middle and high school aged students in team-oriented robotics competitions.

When will the robots figure out that they don’t need us as we are ‘irrational’?

And can we set laws for robots? And why should they adhere to them if we don’t adhere to our own laws? That is for next time.