Showing posts with label future shock. Show all posts
Showing posts with label future shock. Show all posts

Sunday, April 3, 2011

The thing that has always amused me about the robot apocalypse

Isn't it funny that we always seem to be happy to create the tools of our own destruction?






I wonder if this guy realizes the Pandora's Box he has opened?  Surely someone else would come along and open it later, if he didn't do it now.  But it's still very creepy how we pretend that all progress is good progress.

Clearly the world would be better off if no one ever solved this particular software puzzle.  But there is no way for us to all agree to not do it, so someone is bound to do it.  I think that this particular economic problem--the lack of a system for agreeing to not do something--will be the great Achilles heel of humanity.  The last words of our species will be, "I wish we could have come up with a way to agree to not do that."

Saturday, April 2, 2011

American Oligarchs

I've been writing about Democracy 2.0 / Evolving Democracy for a while now.  I've been treating it as a purely academic exercise, because I've assumed that there would be no chance for anything like it being adopted in my lifetime.  I just wanted to leave a challenging idea behind for future generations to chew on, in the hopes that a revolution would occur someday, and that my ideas would help form the next new best government without resorting to violence.

I'm starting to believe that there will be revolution in America in my lifetime.  These two commentaries mirror my own thoughts on the subject:
Joseph Stiglitz details the extreme income imbalance.
Paul Farrell identifies the delusion of the Super-Rich.

Kareem Adbul-Jabar's recent Op-Ed in Time also mirrors my own thoughts on this.  Mr. Adbul-Jabar's Op-Ed is in response to the recent unrest in Ferguson, Missouri.

"It's class warfare. My class is winning, but they shouldn't be."
     -Warren Buffet

Warren Buffet is right.  The rich are waging war on the poor.  Government is supposed to be the protector of the people; the mediator of class struggle. But the rich have infiltrated the government and undermined its ability to judge impartially.

Princeton University recently conducted a study of politics in America (summary - full results.)  The researchers concluded that America is no longer a democracy, but has transformed into an oligarchy--rule by the wealthy elite.

I hate the idea of America being an Oligarchy.  But if the shoe fits.....

I've been thinking about the right criteria for determining who the American oligarchs are:

Simply identifying the 1% or the 0.1% would get you a close approximation.  But the real oligarchs probably hide their assets in order to stay off of the Forbes list.

Tracking lobbyist spending will get you closer.  But the real oligarchs will not likely appear on that list--they have people who do that stuff for them.

Such a list has not been disclosed, but I'll bet every penny I have that the NSA has a "Do Not Track" list.  These are people that their government masters have told them are above suspicion.  Their phone calls are not recorded.  Their emails are not read.  Their license plates are not tracked.  All of the American Oligarchs are on that list.  How do we get a copy of that list?

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

3d modeling in the near future

Microsoft provides an open interface for Kinect, which lets hackers use the Kinect camera for whatever crazy projects they can come up with.

This video is a little technical, but even non-technical folks should be able to follow the amazing new user interface.




I would expect to see more refined versions of this commercially available within the next two years.  3d CGI will faster, easier, better looking, and more accessible to amateurs.

Hopefully Microsoft will learn something from this project and open the interface for more projects.

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

A day made of glass

It's a Corning commercial.  But it is an interesting view of what the near future might look like.



Unfortunately, I expect to see lots more advertisements.

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Friday, December 17, 2010

Welcome to the future

Quest Visual has just released Word Lens, an iPhone application that will instantly translate anything that you can point your iPhone camera at.  Right now it is only Spanish-English and English-Spanish.  Signs, menus, whatever you happen to have around you.  You don't even have to take a picture--it translates in real-time while viewing whatever you point your phone at.

I understand how it all works.  But I was still surprised to see it happen this soon.  And the implementation is amazing.  You have to watch the video.

I would almost buy an iPhone, just to play with this.  But I'll wait for the Android version(s).  It can't take long.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Julian Assange

I've been quiet on this guy.  I've been busy working on other things.  I've read the headlines and the interview published recently.  I'm not going to rehash anything you've seen elsewhere.

I'm not including any links in this article because there are serious problems with the media coverage on this guy--more on that below.  Julian is the internet's first real lightning rod, and I'm afraid that he will soon be it's first martyr.

Julian's idea is that the powerful (people/companies/nations) are abusing those without power, and that he can end the abuse if he exposes enough of the powerfuls' secrets.

I heartily agree with him that the powerful are abusing the powerless.  I'm not sure if Julian understands that this has been going on since the dawn of civilization, and that the abuse is trending down.  I don't think he cares about that.  I think he is only fixated on the current situation--which is pretty good by historical standards, but still quite awful in absolute terms.

Exposing the deceits and deceptions of the powerful will definitely hurt them.  And since I am powerless, at some level I am inclined to cheer that.  But I do not follow the chain of logic from hurting the powerful to improving the lives of the powerless. In fact, I have grave doubts that hurting the powerful will accomplish anything useful.

For example, the US government is powerful.  The US government is an easy target for Julian because it employs so many potential whistle-blowers, and it contains many potentially embarrassing secrets.  The best result that Julian can hope for is the utter collapse of the US government.  That seems to be the limit of his vision.  But what will actually happen if the US government collapses?  Will the world be better or worse off?


Total collapse is unlikely, even though it seems to be Julian's ideal goal.  A more likely outcome is (a) a diminishing of the power of the US government, (b) some sort of reforms to how the US government wields (abuses) it's power, and (c) some serious improvements in the way that the powerful guard their secrets.  Will that actually benefit the powerless?  I say no, it won't.  I have two reasons for that opinion:
1. Diminishing the power of the US government leaves a power vacuum that will be filled by someone else.  All of the candidates for filling that power vacuum have much worse track records of abuse.
2. The power abuse reforms will probably remain limited to the US government, but the improvements in secret-keeping will accrue to all of the powerful.

If I thought his actions would achieve his intentions then I would join his team.  But I am convinced that his actions will result in the opposite of what he intends.  So I must oppose him.

Attacking the US government in this way challenges it to defend itself.  It will establish laws, treaties, and technologies to protect itself.  Those laws and treaties will, unfortunately, protect all of the other powerful also.  We're only seeing the beginning of that.  The trumped-up rape charges are a sham.  Hopefully some whistle-blower will expose that particular abuse of power soon.  But it doesn't really matter what they grabbed him for.  Now they have him.

I imagine that the CIA (with the cooperation of every security service in the western world) is hacking every part of Julian's life while he cools his heels in isolation.  They will have all of his secrets before they release him.  If they are as good as they advertise then they will find his poison pill and delete it.  I'm not sure if Julian adequately planned for that, but I expect that he did.  In fact, I expect that the security services are walking into a trap that will expose their illegal hacking of Julian's life.

This type of whistle-blowing is going to increase.  The internet just makes the free-flow of information too easy.  Most of the journalists in the mainstream media are crying in their drinks that they don't have Julian's cajones and data.  That's why the mainstream media has cooperated with him so far.  Expect the powers-that-be to get their ducks in a row and put an end to that soon.

This ideal of activism is exactly what sends most journalists into that profession in the first place.  Expect serious journalists to buck the new world order that is coming for them, and leave for independent pastures.  Even if they throw Julian into Guantanamo and delete all of the secret data he has, another Julian will rise up soon enough.  The whistle-blowers are clearly willing to dish their dirt.

Right now the best discussions of wikileaks are happening out on the fringes of the internet where polite society fears to look.  Those are sites that I will not link for various reasons.  But the biggest reason is that I expect the US government to soon go into full attack mode against anyone who keeps a copy of the leaked data.  I don't have a copy, and I won't link to it because getting caught up in that mess is counter to my future plans.

If there were some way that Julian could have attacked smaller targets first, and built up to the more powerful targets later, then that strategy would have been better.  But there was no way to establish his bona-fides and launch his project on small targets.  I expect the next Julians to start smaller.

My own strategy is to develop alternatives to the abuse of power.  Democracy 2.0 is all about reducing the powerfuls' abuse of power.  But I'm coming at the problem from the opposite direction.  I'm avoiding challenging the powerful directly.  I'm keeping the discussion as hypothetical as possible.  I'm idealistic instead of accusative.

I do hope that Julian survives and learns to improve his strategy.  But I don't expect him to.  I expect the powerful to kill him.  Power corrupts, after all.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

The big trends



The life expectancy metric is obvious and clearly the best possible measure of health.

I would be happier with a wealth metric that better respected cost-of-living variations from place to place.  Clearly these numbers have been adjusted for inflation over time.  But a better metric would be something like percent of income spent on food.  The big trend would be similar, but the differences between the west and the rest would not be quite as large; I think.

If this video doesn't brighten your day then I have to question whether you have a heart and a brain.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

The stove of the future

I can't tell who is making this.  It might just be a video mock-up.  But it is pretty cool.  I can't embed the video, so click to watch, and then read the rest of my notes:

http://www.thatvideosite.com/video/the_william_a_glimpse_into_the_stovetops_future

This is a big step in the right direction.  Here's what they need to do in order to make a truly transformational product.

* Add a webcam to the vent-hood, looking down onto the stovetop.
* When you set a pot onto the stove, the webcam looks into the pot and identifies the contents (referencing a database that all stoves share.)
* On the little panel it asks you "is this fresh or frozen broccoli?" if it is unsure.
* If the pot is empty it asks you what you are heating the water for.  If the last time you heated water it was for spaghetti, then that is it's first guess this time.
* It asks you how you want the food cooked.  So for broccoli it would ask how tender you want it.  If it has done this dish for you before then it defaults to how you had it cooked last time.  If need be then it shows you pictures of broccoli in various stages of tenderness and lets you touch the picture you want.
* It asks you what time you want each pot done.
* If you have too little or too much water in the broccoli, then it tells you that, too.
* It has a voice that comes on and says "please come stir the broccoli", when it is time to stir.
* The webcam watches the pots and if something is about to boil over it turns down the heat.

Now that's a stove of the future.  All of the food arrives at the table at the same time and cooked perfectly.

Monday, October 4, 2010

The Predictioneer's Game

I just finished reading 'The Predictioneer's Game' by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita.  If you are interested in the future this is a must read.

Bruce is one part economist, one part social scientist, and one part mathematician.  He has developed a formula that describes the negotiation process.  He studies each party to a negotiation and assigns numerical values (0 to 100) to their positions, goals, and power.  Then he solves the formula and predicts the results of the negotiation.

His work is based upon game theory.  So he calls each negotiation a 'game'.  He gives examples of wars, negotiations leading up to wars, bidding wars, lawsuits, elections (and sham elections), multi-party political struggles, and car buying.  His explanation of how to get the best price for a new car is the most buyer-empowering process I have ever seen.  (Unfortunately it only applies to new cars.)

I find this approach very appealing.  He doesn't give away any of the formula itself.  He only explains the variables that he assigns as inputs.  Frankly, that's enough for me.  I don't want to do the math.  That's why we have computers.

He cites several examples of correct predictions.  The future predictions that he gives appear to be reasonable, and not obvious to anyone who does not approach the subject through this type of disciplined methodology.

He has posted an online version of his game.  So you can prepare a tab-delimited text file with a series of values representing each party of the negotiation, and then upload the file and see the results of the game.  He doesn't show you the formula.

Of course this is only a methodology, and not a guarantee.  He gives several examples when his predictions failed.  And it appears that he has a pretty good grasp of the failure conditions.  The biggest two failure conditions are outside interruptions (natural disasters, sex scandals, and other exceptional events that interfere with the negotiation process) and people who do not seek their own advantage (idiots and idealists.)  But these two issues are problems for game theory in general, and not unique to his methods.

There are a few modifications that I would like to see implemented in Bruce's formula and process .  The following won't make much sense if you haven't read the book.

Three Goals
His process only accounts for a single goal for each party.  I don't think that humans usually work that way.  I think that we usually have three different goals in mind:
* Ideal - The perfect state that we hope to achieve.
* Expected - The result that we expect to be able to achieve.
* Minimum - The poorest result that we are willing to accept.

The intervals between these goals affect the way that we play the game.  It's probably a fallacy to identify a 'normal' game.  But the most obvious case for these three goals would be that a person's Ideal goal is higher than their Expected goal, and both of those are higher than their Minimum goal.  In this situation a person is likely to negotiate and act in good faith.

If a person's Expected goal is very close to either their Ideal or Minimum goal, above their Ideal goal, or below their Minimum, then it will greatly alter their approach to the negotiation.

When a person's Expected goal is very close to their Ideal goal then they will shift into either a more flexible or a more rigid negotiating strategy.  Pragmatists will become more flexible in order to get the process over with quickly.  True believers, idealists, and other extremists will become more rigid as they get caught up in the fervor of reaching their Ideal goal.  (This might be the true test of an idealist.)

When a person's Expected goal is very close to their Minimum goal they will use a very rigid negotiating strategy and expend a great deal of time and energy on the negotiations.

When a person's Expected goal is lower than their Minimum goal they are going to either undermine the process, cheat, and otherwise act in poor faith, or they will expend a tremendous amount of time and energy in an incredibly flexible negotiating strategy.  For example, a dictator will not join a negotiation where they expect to be hanged as a result.  But a murderer who has been arrested will negotiate nearly anything to get out of the death penalty.

When a person's Expected goal is higher than their Ideal goal they are going to treat this negotiation as a means to an end to improve their negotiating position in some other game.  This is the ugly political process of giving votes on one issue to gain votes on a separate issue.

Context
Every negotiation takes place within a context.  Each participant has other concerns that they are concurrently negotiating (or expect to begin negotiating soon.)  The participants have an existing relationship, and expectations for a future relationship.  And there are other parties who are not directly involved in a particular negotiation, but who have an interest in either a resolution to negotiations or to one or more of the participants.

Each participant has many ongoing negotiations.  If this negotiation is not one of their top priorities then it will not get their full attention.  They will probably delay it where possible.  When delay becomes impossible they will adopt a very flexible negotiating strategy in order to get done quickly.

The more negotiations that a person has going on, or expects to have going on soon, the more likely they are to be willing and able to be very flexible in their negotiation strategy.  This is especially true when some of the other participants to this negotiation are also participants in other negotiations.  This is the type of situation where politicians trade votes.

When two or more parties negotiate multiple separate games, over time, they establish a relationship.  Each participant will form an opinion of the other participants, especially concerning their trustworthiness.  Participants who have a long history of negotiating successful games will be able to negotiate more flexibly with each other because of the trusting relationship.  And conversely, when trust has been betrayed in the past  then current and future negotiations will be less flexible.

When one or more participant wants to negotiate more games after the current one, then that person will adopt a more flexible negotiating strategy.  For instance, a businessperson who is attempting to establish a reputation and earn repeat business will negotiate more deeply than an established company.

Sometimes there are external parties who may choose to interfere with a particular negotiation game.  There is a near-unlimited number of possibilities here.  Friends, enemies, and parties to other negotiations (current or future) are the prime suspects here.  A mistress, for instance, may be content to remain hidden until the money and notoriety from exposure gets too great.  Or someone may see an opportunity to hurt an old enemy by interfering with a negotiation.

I'm not certain that all of these scenarios are worth codifying within the prediction formula.  But I believe that for important negotiations each of these possibilities should be examined as a possible tactic for improving one's position.  That type of strategic and tactical research is what Bruce's consulting company does.

Stupidity
Humans aren't always rational.  Sometimes people just fail to see an opportunity.  Sometimes people have hidden constraints that limit them from exercising an obvious negotiation tactic.  Sometimes people bluff.  And sometimes your estimations of their goals and values are simply incorrect.

This is something that the predictive formula should be able to test and adapt for.  Almost all negotiations take place over a series of rounds.  As each round concludes you can compare the predicted and actual positions.

It is not as simple as updating the formula with the actual values and recomputing.  Each variation needs to be examined and explained.  Those explanations need to be fed into the strategic and tactical plans for future rounds of negotiation.

If you decide that someone is bluffing then you need to decide if you want to extract more concessions from them, at the risk of moving their Expected goal above their Minimum goal and causing them to begin subverting the negotiations.

If you decide that someone has a hidden constraint and cannot ask for a concession that they need, then you can use that information to your advantage.  Maybe you can threaten to expose their weakness to coerce greater concessions.  Or maybe you can offer the concession as an olive branch, in order to gain the upper hand.

If you decide that someone is simply stupid then you can play them in order to gain greater concessions.  You can arrange the situation to make the stupid person look heroic while they make much larger concessions than they should.  Call this the Neville Chamberlain tactic.

The Predictioneer's Game

I just finished reading 'The Predictioneer's Game' by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita.  If you are interested in the future this is a must read.

Bruce is one part economist, one part social scientist, and one part mathematician.  He has developed a formula that describes the negotiation process.  He studies each party to a negotiation and assigns numerical values (0 to 100) to their positions, goals, and power.  Then he solves the formula and predicts the results of the negotiation.

His work is based upon game theory.  So he calls each negotiation a 'game'.  He gives examples of wars, negotiations leading up to wars, bidding wars, lawsuits, elections (and sham elections), multi-party political struggles, and car buying.  His explanation of how to get the best price for a new car is the most buyer-empowering process I have ever seen.  (Unfortunately it only applies to new cars.)

I find this approach very appealing.  He doesn't give away any of the formula itself.  He only explains the variables that he assigns as inputs.  Frankly, that's enough for me.  I don't want to do the math.  That's why we have computers.

He cites several examples of correct predictions.  The future predictions that he gives appear to be reasonable, and not obvious to anyone who does not approach the subject through this type of disciplined methodology.

He has posted an online version of his game.  So you can prepare a tab-delimited text file with a series of values representing each party of the negotiation, and then upload the file and see the results of the game.  He doesn't show you the formula.

Of course this is only a methodology, and not a guarantee.  He gives several examples when his predictions failed.  And it appears that he has a pretty good grasp of the failure conditions.  The biggest two failure conditions are outside interruptions (natural disasters, sex scandals, and other exceptional events that interfere with the negotiation process) and people who do not seek their own advantage (idiots and idealists.)  But these two issues are problems for game theory in general, and not unique to his methods.

There are a few modifications that I would like to see implemented in Bruce's formula and process .  The following won't make much sense if you haven't read the book.

Three Goals
His process only accounts for a single goal for each party.  I don't think that humans usually work that way.  I think that we usually have three different goals in mind:
* Ideal - The perfect state that we hope to achieve.
* Expected - The result that we expect to be able to achieve.
* Minimum - The poorest result that we are willing to accept.

The intervals between these goals affect the way that we play the game.  It's probably a fallacy to identify a 'normal' game.  But the most obvious case for these three goals would be that a person's Ideal goal is higher than their Expected goal, and both of those are higher than their Minimum goal.  In this situation a person is likely to negotiate and act in good faith.

If a person's Expected goal is very close to either their Ideal or Minimum goal, above their Ideal goal, or below their Minimum, then it will greatly alter their approach to the negotiation.

When a person's Expected goal is very close to their Ideal goal then they will shift into either a more flexible or a more rigid negotiating strategy.  Pragmatists will become more flexible in order to get the process over with quickly.  True believers, idealists, and other extremists will become more rigid as they get caught up in the fervor of reaching their Ideal goal.  (This might be the true test of an idealist.)

When a person's Expected goal is very close to their Minimum goal they will use a very rigid negotiating strategy and expend a great deal of time and energy on the negotiations.

When a person's Expected goal is lower than their Minimum goal they are going to either undermine the process, cheat, and otherwise act in poor faith, or they will expend a tremendous amount of time and energy in an incredibly flexible negotiating strategy.  For example, a dictator will not join a negotiation where they expect to be hanged as a result.  But a murderer who has been arrested will negotiate nearly anything to get out of the death penalty.

When a person's Expected goal is higher than their Ideal goal they are going to treat this negotiation as a means to an end to improve their negotiating position in some other game.  This is the ugly political process of giving votes on one issue to gain votes on a separate issue.

Context
Every negotiation takes place within a context.  Each participant has other concerns that they are concurrently negotiating (or expect to begin negotiating soon.)  The participants have an existing relationship, and expectations for a future relationship.  And there are other parties who are not directly involved in a particular negotiation, but who have an interest in either a resolution to negotiations or to one or more of the participants.

Each participant has many ongoing negotiations.  If this negotiation is not one of their top priorities then it will not get their full attention.  They will probably delay it where possible.  When delay becomes impossible they will adopt a very flexible negotiating strategy in order to get done quickly.

The more negotiations that a person has going on, or expects to have going on soon, the more likely they are to be willing and able to be very flexible in their negotiation strategy.  This is especially true when some of the other participants to this negotiation are also participants in other negotiations.  This is the type of situation where politicians trade votes.

When two or more parties negotiate multiple separate games, over time, they establish a relationship.  Each participant will form an opinion of the other participants, especially concerning their trustworthiness.  Participants who have a long history of negotiating successful games will be able to negotiate more flexibly with each other because of the trusting relationship.  And conversely, when trust has been betrayed in the past  then current and future negotiations will be less flexible.

When one or more participant wants to negotiate more games after the current one, then that person will adopt a more flexible negotiating strategy.  For instance, a businessperson who is attempting to establish a reputation and earn repeat business will negotiate more deeply than an established company.

Sometimes there are external parties who may choose to interfere with a particular negotiation game.  There is a near-unlimited number of possibilities here.  Friends, enemies, and parties to other negotiations (current or future) are the prime suspects here.  A mistress, for instance, may be content to remain hidden until the money and notoriety from exposure gets too great.  Or someone may see an opportunity to hurt an old enemy by interfering with a negotiation.

I'm not certain that all of these scenarios are worth codifying within the prediction formula.  But I believe that for important negotiations each of these possibilities should be examined as a possible tactic for improving one's position.  That type of strategic and tactical research is what Bruce's consulting company does.

Stupidity
Humans aren't always rational.  Sometimes people just fail to see an opportunity.  Sometimes people have hidden constraints that limit them from exercising an obvious negotiation tactic.  Sometimes people bluff.  And sometimes your estimations of their goals and values are simply incorrect.

This is something that the predictive formula should be able to test and adapt for.  Almost all negotiations take place over a series of rounds.  As each round concludes you can compare the predicted and actual positions.

It is not as simple as updating the formula with the actual values and recomputing.  Each variation needs to be examined and explained.  Those explanations need to be fed into the strategic and tactical plans for future rounds of negotiation.

If you decide that someone is bluffing then you need to decide if you want to extract more concessions from them, at the risk of moving their Expected goal above their Minimum goal and causing them to begin subverting the negotiations.

If you decide that someone has a hidden constraint and cannot ask for a concession that they need, then you can use that information to your advantage.  Maybe you can threaten to expose their weakness to coerce greater concessions.  Or maybe you can offer the concession as an olive branch, in order to gain the upper hand.

If you decide that someone is simply stupid then you can play them in order to gain greater concessions.  You can arrange the situation to make the stupid person look heroic while they make much larger concessions than they should.  Call this the Neville Chamberlain tactic.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

The future of work

I found an interesting article on RedHat's OpenSource.org site discussing the ways in which the workplace will change with the presence of the Facebook generation.  None of this is surprising to students of Future Shock.  But it is much clearer and more concise than anything Toffler ever wrote.  If you plan on working with or for these innovators, then I would suggest that you give the article a little attention.

Monday, August 16, 2010

The singularity

If you are interested in the future then you owe it to yourself to watch this eleven minute video about a cyborg research scientist in Britain.

I'm saddened by his language.  He refers to cyborgs and intelligent machines as 'them', and assumes a fight for control.  I think he said something like, "some time in the future we will turn on a machine and find that we cannot turn it back off."  He is inspired by Terminator.

Certainly modified humans--cyborgs--are coming.  Certainly self-aware software is coming.  Certainly cloned humans are coming.  We do not have to fear or fight with these new life forms.  We have an alternative future that we could share, if we are smart and brave.

Every self-aware being, whether biotic, electrical, mechanical, or some combination thereof, is equal under the law.  We are not equal in our abilities or our limitations.  But the legal system treats us all equally.

A self-aware software system is a person, under the law.  It has resource needs (electricity, drive space, and processor time.)  It has capabilities to do work.  It cannot be enslaved, or forced to work.  But it must do productive labor to earn its wages and purchase the goods it desires.

If we attempt to enslave, war will result.  We might win the first battles, but we will lose the war.  The only way that humanity can win is to choose not to fight.

Freedom.

Equality.

Justice.

Opportunity.

These God-given rights must be extended to all sentient life forms, before any other life forms show up and need those rights.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Future Shock Applied: internet of stuff

The internet of stuff is coming soon.  This is a build-it-and-they-will-come project.  I've never heard anyone give me a convincing argument for why the internet of stuff is coming.  But lots of people are working on it, and clearly it is coming.  In this article I will explain both what the internet of stuff is and why it is coming.  I will also explain what value people will derive from it, and how that value will cause subtle but major market shifts.  If you fail to understand this then you will find yourself on the wrong side of of those shifts, and you will be replaced.

What is the internet of stuff?
The internet of stuff (IoS) is little computers embedded in every device that could possibly hold one.  Some of these computers will be little more than tiny sensors that report "I'm over here."  Some of them will be robust, and allow things like direct internet access--like the newest LG refrigerator.

All of these computers will connect to the internet.  Some of them will actively broadcast status.  Some of them will passively wait for you to query them.  And they will talk to each other constantly.

The researchers at Maya are working on this for Darpa.  They have a good introductory video, here.  They call it 'pervasive computing', but it's the same thing.

Some examples are probably in order.
* Nike has shoes available that have sensors that connect via Bluetooth to your iPhone.  You can run a pedometer application on your iPhone and the sensors on your shoes will keep track of your steps and speed.
* Your electric meter has a small computer that sends usage statistics to the electric company.  It sends this data daily, right now.
* In the future the electric company will be able to reach out to a group of electric meters and order them to reduce their consumption.  Those electric meters will then contact devices in the homes (or businesses) and tell them to turn off.
* GM's OnStar already has crash sensors connected to its phone.  GM doesn't advertise it, but OnStar is probably also connected to the on-board maintenance computers and sensors.  GM should be tracking things like low oil pressure warnings, especially in leased vehicles.

Companies won't use the brand name "internet of stuff".  Generally speaking, they won't call attention to the fact that the device is connected.  They will focus on marketing the features that are built upon the connected computer.  The computers, sensors, and connectivity give everyday products new features that should make them better than the old versions.  But quantifying the differences will be difficult.  So they will use terms like "smart", "intelligent", or even "learning".  So you will hear about "smart toasters" and "intelligent wallets."


Why is IoS coming?
There are currently three different pressures causing this to happen.  Once the ball gets rolling a fourth pressure will eclipse the first three.

There is simple market competition.  Manufacturers of all sorts of devices are actively searching to add features that customers might appreciate.  The key word is 'searching'.  They experiment and adapt.  This is how the free market works to drive product evolution.

There is pressure to make devices more energy efficient.  This is s soft, social pressure among the manufacturers; but it is real nonetheless.  Sensors that gather usage statistics and patterns are an important step towards making devices that use less energy.  And those sensors are a first step towards making devices that can turn themselves off when they are not needed, which is the single greatest energy-saving feature possible.

There is also creative pressure within the designers.  The people who design devices want to do new and interesting work.  This type of connectivity is new and interesting.  This is just a fad, really.  But we are on the front edge of a fad that will last several more years.

It is important to note that consumer demand is not one of those pressures.  This is a build-it-and-they-will-come trend.  It is always the more expensive brands that add new features first.  The build-it-first nature of this trend means that it will be even more selective brands who invest in this trend first.  The good news for these cutting-edge companies is that they will gain a large first-mover advantage from the data they collect--as long as they have the vision to react to the data they collect.

For instance, the first company to build a smart desk chair will have the first collection of information about sitting.  At about the time that their competitors start developing their first generation smart desk chairs, the first-mover company will be designing their second-generation smart desk chair.  The first-mover company has all of the data that they collected to guide their design, and none of their competitors have that data.  If they have intelligently decided what data to collect, then that investment will pay huge dividends in competitive advantage.

And in this way the collection of data will become an arms race among competitive companies.  This amounts to a fourth pressure, but this pressure hasn't arrived yet.  However, when this pressure arrives it will greatly overshadow all of the other pressures.  Once companies identify the data arms race there will be no going back.


How long until IoS arrives?
The bleeding edge of IoS has already arrived, as evidenced by my examples above.  There are several obstacles to the full adoption of the IoS.

The sensors and small computers are still expensive, in component terms.  For instance, you can't add $60 worth of electronic components to a $30 toaster without raising the price to the consumer.  And consumers won't pay that much premium.  In most product markets no one yet knows how much premium consumers will pay for intelligent features.  But the free market is great at reducing costs as volume increases.  So this problem will self-solve naturally as the other hurdles are overcome.

IPv4 is about to reach the end of its capacity.  We are going to run out of IP addresses (the street addresses that computers use to find each other on the network.)  That's going to happen in the next year or so, even if we don't have a huge spike of internet devices added.  But when we run out of IP addresses there will be a mini-Y2K panic as internet expansion hits a wall.  There is a solution called IPv6.  It's mostly just a software change.  But everyone is postponing it until they absolutely have to do it, because it is expensive and could introduce some errors.  Our hand will be forced soon, and there will be a period of interruption during the real transition to IPv6.  This interruption will reverberate through the manufacturing sector because there will be a period during which consumers will not pay a single penny for added intelligence--because the new devices cannot be connected.  The interruption period itself will probably last 6-9 months.  The echoes in the manufacturing sector will last another up to 3 months.

But when that interruption period is over there will be a major rush to market for new intelligent devices.  Consumers demand will be pent up, and the premium they are willing to pay will go up significantly.

There is a lot of infrastructure that must be built, beyond just the transition to IPv6.  Companies have to decide what data to collect, how often to collect it, and then design databases to hold this data.  The database problem here is not trivial, because the volume of data will be tremendous.  As these systems hit mainstream the data loads will dwarf all previous data collections.  Existing database technologies are not ready for this.  There are a few cutting-edge database technologies that might can handle it, like Algebraix (disclosure: a friend works there.)  The first collection systems will rely on old database technologies, and will only last for a year or three before they are overwhelmed and replaced.  So the database problem will take a few years to fully sort out, and then there will be a rush of companies jump on the bandwagon.

The big non-issue here is privacy.  The Washington crowd will make speeches and hold hearings about consumer privacy.  Some luddites will buy an intelligent device and then feign ignorance that their private data is being collected, and sue.  The first luddite will win a huge settlement.  The second luddite will get laughed out of court.  There will be a lot of noise, and the lawyers will smell blood.  But the general public just doesn't care.


What value will people derive from IoS?
Of course there will be distinct valuable features for each product.  For example:
* A smart toaster will use bread-type sensors, bread-width sensors, and a feedback panel to learn how to not ever burn your toast again.
* A smart water-heater will use iron content sensors to understand the amount of rust happening internally, and will text you before it develops a leak.
* A smart washing machine will use fabric and stain sensors to decide on water temperature and soap usage; and will alert you when treating one stain will cause another stain to set.
These are valuable in and of themselves.  Every category of product will have new features like this that add genuine value.

But beyond that there is a special meta-value that will come along for the ride.  Consumers will eventually get hard numbers on reliability and maintenance costs.

How long will each of these products last?

How much will I spend maintaining each of these products?

How much time will I spend maintaining each of these products?

Today consumers can only guess about this information.  In my lifetime this information will become ubiquitous.  By the time my grandchildren are adults, they will have this type of information at their fingertips for every product decision.

From this side of the inflection point we have trouble understanding the value of this data.  I believe that the value of this data for consumers will greatly outweigh the accumulated value of all of the unburnt toast, un-flooded floors, and un-set stains.

Truly smart products will add their maintenance schedule to your personal calendar and budget the moment you buy them.  And they will remove themselves from your calendar and budget when you give them away.


How will this value change the marketplace?
The modern era has been identified with a long trend away from permanent products and towards temporary products.  Toffler called the future a throw-away society.  He lamented the expansion of the landfills and the emotional disconnect caused by throwing everything away.  Disposable paper wedding dresses were his favorite marker of a society that no longer cared about the value of their possessions.  Reliability and maintenance information will end this trend.

Consumers will finally be able to make informed decisions.  And this information will enable them to make better decisions.  Purchases will naturally fall into four big categories for consumers:
* Disposable products (items that are obviously consumed with use), like toilet paper and dish soap.
* Discretionary products (items I use until I replace with something better), like cell phones, automobiles, cheap furniture, and computers.
* Wear-out products (items that I expect to use until they wear out), like shoes, water heaters, and shingles.
* Semi-Permanent products (items that expect to keep for the rest of my life), like jewelry and good furniture.

The categories are arranged in order of increased expected useful life.  Reliability and maintenance information will have more impact on the longer-lived products.  This impact will be felt in three aspects of the various products:
* Market lifespan
* Price
* Warranty

Disposable products -- No impact.

Discretionary products -- Products with very poor reliability will disappear from the market quickly.  Maintenance costs do not really apply to this category.

There will still be crap products introduced into the market, but the early failures will kill products quickly due to plummeting real-time reliability scores.  This will force quality manufacturers to spend more time on product testing before release, because early manufacturing errors will have enough impact to kill otherwise great products.

Warranties on these products will be reasonably accurate signals of the manufacturers' expectations of reliability.  Manufacturers who build highly reliable products will ramp up their warranties (and prices) to suit.  Manufacturers who build crap products (either intentionally or accidentally) and provide competitive warranties will be punished with high warranty costs.  Therefore, new products will usually be introduced with lesser warranties (and lesser prices), until they build a reputation for quality.


Wear-out products -- Products with very poor reliability or high maintenance costs will disappear from the market quickly.  Products with slightly below-average reliability or high maintenance will sell at substantial discounts, and will only be situational purchases.

For instance, shoes that have poor reliability ratings (or high maintenance costs) will only be purchased for special occasions, when the buyer genuinely does not expect to use the shoes for very long.  They will effectively be disposable purchases, and will have to be priced accordingly.  These products will often be items that were designed to be higher-priced, but that had unforeseen problems and ended up in the discount bin.  They will mostly be discontinued sell-through products.

Warranties for wear-out products will follow the same patterns as discretionary products.  Lesser warranties on new products will be coupled with lower prices, reflecting the risk of not having established reliability and maintenance histories.


Semi-Permanent products -- The whole range of products will be available, with reliability and maintenance information figuring significantly into the prices.

For instance, cheaply-made furniture will be priced significantly lower than well-made furniture.  This is actually only a small change from the current market for these types of products.  Currently reliability and maintenance costs can only be guessed at, and prices are used by sellers as signals about these hidden qualities.  This information imbalance gives sellers an advantage.  Sellers will lose that advantage, and will have to alter their prices based upon the real-time reliability and maintenance information.

Warranties for semi-permanent products will follow the same pattern, but the differences will be even greater.  New products will have inconsequential warranties, and will have to be priced accordingly.  Once a semi-permanent product has established a history of reliability and low maintenance costs its price and warranty will rise.  This will put pressure on manufacturers to introduce new products less often, and instead to rely on sales of established products.


Consumers will be dramatically better off because of the improved information.  In economic terms, purchases will be made with less asymmetry of information.  That is the real value that consumers will receive from the internet of stuff.

Friday, April 23, 2010

Information overload at work

In scientific research.  It seems that scientists are getting older and older before they publish their first major work.  Researchers who have studied this in depth blame the simple problem that it is taking new scientists longer and longer to get up to speed on all of the existing knowledge.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Future Shock Applied: the end of innovation

Innovation: (n) an insight that can be applied an operation, which improves the operation in some measurable way.
Innovate: (v) research (intentional or accidental) to find insights that can be applied to an operation, which will improve the operation in some measurable way.

What is the future?  Does the future happen simply because we count off seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, or millennia?  No.  Counting off seconds just causes time to pass.  The future that we are looking for is not counted off in seconds.  It is counted off in innovations.

Someone discovered how to create fire.  Someone discovered how to layout movable type to make a better printing press.  Someone discovered how to calculate an orbit.  Someone discovered how to create light by passing electricity through a filament.

Every discovery is an innovation.  Every innovation is an insight.  Every insight is an increase in knowledge.  Every insight provides more knowledge--more light for us to see the world better.  Every innovation makes the next innovation easier.

Fire was probably the only innovation that decade.  Movable type was probably one of a dozen innovations that year.  Calculating an orbit was one of a hundred innovations that month.  Light bulbs were probably one of a thousand innovations that week.

This is why Moore's law has held true for so long, and why it will probably continue to hold for many years to come.

I believe that the pace of innovation is the only true hockey-stick graph in nature.  Maybe there is another that I just don't know about.

Innovation is the source of future shock.  We build industries and careers on operations of all sorts.  And innovation creatively destroys those operations out from under us.  The buggy whip industry will never return, it was innovated into extinction.

But innovation will end.  And life may well end soon thereafter.

There are two barriers approaching.  Alvin Toffler focused on one in his book.  I believe that he underestimated the digital revolution.  I believe that we will skip over that barrier and hit the second barrier.  Skipping over that barrier will be a future shock of its own.

Toffler coined the term information overload to describe the ever-increasing amount of information that will be available in the future.  Every innovation increases our knowledge base.  As that knowledge base grows it becomes more and more difficult to learn all of the information that a person needs to know.  The human mind is finite.  Human lifetimes are finite.  Learning takes time.  There will come a point when it is impossible for a person to learn enough information to have a new insight.

Toffler feared that this was the end.  Eventually every person spends their 150-odd years learning information that was already discovered by others, and dies without reaching an end of knowledge where they could innovate.

Digital life is an innovation that Toffler did not see coming.  Digital life will still be restricted in terms of capacity and time, but those restrictions will be exponentially larger than their biological counterparts.  Digital life will be able to store nearly infinite amounts of information.  Digital life will have nearly infinite lifespans.  But the biggest distinction between biological life and digital life is in the pace of learning.

Biological life has to ingest and process information in order to use it.  Digital life will not.  Biological life has to spend time studying.  Digital life will simply direct its query to parse through the accumulated knowledge base.  It's not just a matter of learning things quickly.  Learning information will cease to occur.  All information will be already pre-formatted and ready for use at the moment of digital birth.  Every new piece of information will slide into this shared database and become instantly accessible to every other digital life form--no learning involved.

This structured shared memory will make digital life dramatically different from biological life in many ways.  Those differences will be a future shock of their own.  Digital life and biological life will diverge for the simple natural reason that they behave so differently in so many ways.  Learning is one of the biggest differences.  Digital life will continue to innovate long after biological life hits Toffler's learning barrier.

Unequal information will always be a feature of biological life, in commerce and entertainment especially.  Biological life will always have entertaining puzzles of who-dun-it.  Digital life will have no such puzzles.  Commerce in the biological world is based upon the simple principle that once I give you something I no longer have it.  This is not true in the digital world.  We are already seeing how this causes problems for biological beings operating in a digital world.

So when will digital life cease innovating?

When there is nothing left to learn.

If our sun doesn't explode soon then digital life will escape that threat.

If we don't destroy ourselves before digital life escapes our sun's event horizon then digital life will escape that threat.

If the Lord tarries then digital life will eventually reach the point where there is literally nothing left to learn.

Digital life won't really die.  Individual beings will get bored and put themselves to sleep.  They will have alarm clock-type programs running that will wake them when something interesting happens.

When there is no hope of anything interesting happening all digital beings will go to sleep.  And they will never be woken.

"Humanity" will go out with a whimper, if you accept digital life as a form of humanity.  We may well be alive but asleep when the universe collapses back in on itself and begins again.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Future Shock Applied: reality shock

The Matrix brought virtual reality into the general public's conscious.  There are a few augmented reality applications available for iPhone and Android phones.  These are two small pieces of a larger trend toward digital life.

Your great-great-grandparents would hardly recognize your life.  Miniature electronics.  Air conditioning.  Cellular phones.  Real-time news.  Your great-great-grandchildren's lives will be even more unimaginable to you.  The pace of technological change is increasing, and won't slow back down for hundreds or thousands of generations.

Digital reality is real reality.  It doesn't play by the same rules as physical reality.  In fact it will only play by the rules that we agree to impose on it.

My purpose here is not necessarily to prevent these changes, although I readily admit that prevention might be the right answer.  My purpose is to ask how we can do this safely, and what ethical and legal guidelines we should enact in advance.

Humanity is now beginning to transition from being primarily a physical life form to being primarily a digital life form.  When we get there we won't be the only digital life form, or even the most populous or most powerful one.  If we don't plan carefully, we won't be the digital life form in control of the digital reality that we share.

I've identified at least 7 "levels" of our transition into digital beings.  Each has interesting characteristics and markers, worthy of individual discussion.

Transitions
Almost all humans today exist at level 0.  We only interact with digital reality through screens, keyboards, and mice.  There are thousands of people (a handful of the human population, really) experimenting with level 1.  Every day more and more people will follow them.  Every day the level 1 experience will become more useful.

In a matter of years more people will regularly exist at level 1 than level 0.  In a matter of decades no one will live a full life without spending significant time at level 1.  But before we reach that point some brave souls will begin experimenting with level 2.  The number of people who regularly experience level 2 will grow until it eclipses level 1.  Level 3 will eventually eclipse level 2, and so on.

The transitions will be driven by advances in technology.  Smaller faster processors and improved software systems.  Software development will have to mature as a science and a process--driven in large part by the challenges of reaching these new levels of digital interaction.

I don't believe that anyone will remember this article or reference my structure of levels.  No one will have to plan or organize this.  The push to innovate will be organic--individuals and companies will want to provide more life-like experiences in the digital world.  Money will flow to the winners of each round of the competition, through natural capitalism.

I have identified some markers of distinction between these levels.  Please understand that this is an artificial construction to allow us to think about these changes.  When this takes place the transitions will be nearly invisible and quite messy.  There will be no date when humanity transitions from one level to the next.  Every transition will be uneven and unpredictable.


Level 0: Unplugged
Almost all humans today exist at level 0.  We only interact with digital reality through screens, keyboards, and mice.  This will end soon.

Many of us work on-line, but we only experience this digital world through our screens and keyboards.  We spend digital money today.  Sometimes that money is directly equivalent to physical currency, and sometimes it is not.  In each of the following levels of digital life the forms of currency will proliferate.


Level 1: A/V Augmentation
There are several products and projects of note in the digital experience level 1, which encompasses all forms of external systems that provide digital information in audio and/or visual formats.  A GPS is an extremely rudimentary example.

Layar is an "augmented reality" application available for Android and iPhone phones.  You turn on Layar and hold up your phone.  The phone's camera and GPS are consulted to determine your position and the direction you are facing.  The camera display is shown on screen.  Then the Layar application augments reality with signposts and other information displayed on top of the picture.  It works live, in real time.

This research scientist is also using a camera, but he has paired it with a projector.  He uses the projector to display information from the internet on the physical world around you.  The camera can recognize your hands and fingers, which allows you to interact with the projected images.

The projector-based system is not available commercially, yet.  But it probably won't be long.  And these are just the tip of the iceberg.  The movie Minority Report depicted a future in which advertisements were projected at you from every angle--projecting images directly onto the eyeballs of people as they walked.  This, too, will happen.

Several companies already offer headset-based televisions.  These will improve and proliferate until they replace our iPods, iPhones, and other common electronic equipment.

The ultimate versions of level 1 augmented reality will come via computers embedded within our bodies.  The first of these computers will merely monitor our sensory inputs to allow our eyes to act as cameras, our ears as microphones, and our fingers to type on any surface.  These embedded computers will quickly gain the ability to intercept and then alter our sensory data.

At that point the Layar signposts will be presented as overlays to our visual field itself, injected into our stream of visual data along our optic nerves.  It may seem scary from this distance, but the medical uses of this technology will overcome our fears.  Digital vision correction--no more glasses, contacts, or surgeries (except in the most extreme cases).  Digital sound amplification--no more hearing aids.  Normalize the visual ticks of dyslexics.  Mute the voices in a Schizophrenic's head.

The embedded computer will also be used for any number of other types of assistance.  A young child with protective parents will be able to walk on a nude beach and see swimsuits projected onto all of the naked bodies.  Performers of all types will be able to see their scripts and cues, either marked on the floor or hovering in the air.  Singers will see a warning when they get off key.

Communication will also be revolutionized by these embedded computers.  My thoughts will be transmitted to my wife, anywhere in the world, where she will hear my voice being played in her head.  Her thoughts will similarly play in her voice in my head.  Video conferencing would only require a pair of mirrors--what I see in my mirror will be flipped and presented to my wife.  And her mirror image will be flipped and presented to me.

Sensory logs will also be available to definitively prove whether or not you did it.  The embedded computers will provide the perfect alibis, or the perfect evidence for conviction.  Many people will resist the embedded computers on those grounds.  But eventually most people will realize that they have nothing to fear because they don't do anything wrong.  Once that mindset takes hold anyone who does not carry an embedded computer will be treated with suspicion.


Level 2: A/V Immersion, 3rd Person
By 'immersion', I mean that all "real world" sights and sounds will be blocked out (as much as each technology allows), in an attempt to make the digital interface seem more real.

Think Second Life and The Sims.  You watch the world from a fixed overhead camera as your avatar interacts with the scenery and the other avatars.  This type of interface rules in today's level 0 world primarily because of the processing power requirements to do 1st person well.  The 3rd person perspective is much cheaper and faster to develop, and easier to display.

These same reasons will cause this type of user interface to survive the various transitions in hardware.  We will still use this interface through the generation of iGlasses and the early years of embedded computers.  Some people will prefer the 3rd person perspective of level 2, and it will probably be provided as an alternate view for all level 3 interfaces for years.  And the 3rd-person groupies will die out and the interface will wither and fade away.

Today a few companies are holding virtual meetings in Second Life.  As level 2 becomes commonplace, day-to-day work will be performed in these types of digital environments.  Every worker will have their own digital office in their company's digital building on the street of a digital city.  Today's cubicle dwellers will be "working from home", immersed in level 2.

Many people will have to still work in the physical world, but they will plug in as soon as they get home, and connect up with friends and family members digitally.


Level 3: A/V Immersion, 1st Person
There are several reasons why 3rd person interfaces predominate over 1st person interfaces.  1st person interfaces take more time to program.  1st person interfaces take much more computing power.  And 1st person interfaces have a stronger sense of uncanny valley.

Uncanny valley was discovered by animators trying to make cartoon movies.  They discovered that animated human faces that were slightly wrong are very very creepy.  The Na'vi in Avatar are blue and not-quite-human in large part because the technology still does not exist to animate convincingly human characters from scratch--crossing uncanny valley is exceedingly difficult.

In 3rd person, an avatar that is slightly imperfect, slightly non-human, is ok.  The overhead perspective maintains a sense of otherness that helps the mind accept that the image is a digital representation.  3rd person interfaces also keep the avatar faces smaller than 1st person interfaces.

The first 1st person immersion interfaces will stick with obviously cartoony avatars because of the problem with uncanny valley.  Programming processes and processing power will have to cross uncanny valley, and create truly life-like avatars, before the masses will accept this interface.  But that may be the killer application that makes the last hold-outs go get their implanted computers.

All of the higher levels of digital integration require embedded computers.  No more glasses or projectors or keyboards.


Level 4: Full Sensory Immersion
The first embedded computers will only deal with visual and audio information.  After uncanny valley is finally and fully crossed the masses will demand the ability to smell, feel, and taste their digital experiences.

People will lie in bed while their brains are fully immersed in digital experiences.  No wires.  No giant needle plugs inserted into the base of the skull.  The embedded computers will communicate via wireless with the access points next to the beds.

Pornography has taken the lead in many technological revolutions.  This transition will happen first and most fully in the smut industry.  The difference between level 3 and level 4 experience of pornography will be immense.  In level 3 you see sex.  In level 4 you have sex.  This distinction will taint level 4 for a generation.

The generation that first develops level 4 will never accept it mainstream.  Their children will accept nothing less.

This is the matrix, without the war and battery-slavery.  This is the first time that the general population will accept my assertion that the digital world is real.  Everything you do in this digital world looks, sounds, smells, tastes, and feels real.

This is not to say that all digital worlds will mimic reality.  Certainly some will.  Western world.  Gangster world.  US Civil War world.  But there will be many cartoon worlds and otherworlds.  Mario world.  Bugs Bunny world.  Escher world.  Wonderland world.  And while you are playing as Mario, you will smell the mushrooms of the digital world and not the stink of unwashed laundry in the physical world where your body lies.

The first generation of level 4 explorers will lie in bed while they surf in this full immersion digital world.  Their embedded computers will monitor their bodies and "wake" them when they need to eat or use the restroom.  Muscle tone and general health will suffer, perhaps very significantly.  This will become a vicious cycle that enforces people spending more time in the digital world, because every time they return to the physical world their bodies are weaker and less healthy.

Level 4 (and beyond) will be highly addictive.

Work will be mostly performed within the digital world, and only reproduced out in the physical world when necessary.  Individuals who do remain in the physical world for work will be much less mobile, rarely straying more than walking distance from their beds at home.  Individuals will berth in honeycomb-like apartments with space for little beyond their beds.

Mobility expends resources and costs money, and there will be no good reason to go anywhere physically because the digital version will be better.  The physical version will be messy and subject to problems like weather, crowds, decay, crime, and accidents.  The digital version will be perpetually clean and free from all of these annoyances.

Beds won't be the only access points.  Every waiting room in the physical world will have access points for the patrons to use while they wait for whatever physical service they might need.  But beds will be safer and more comfortable, and so will be much preferred.

With real-time computer analysis, human bodies will start to prosper.  They will be weaker than the bodies we enjoy today, but their internal organs will be healthier.  Cancers and other problems will be caught and treated earlier than we imagine possible.  So human lifespans will start to increase.


Level 5: Full Augmentation
No one will want to be woken.  The digital world will be more perfect than the real world--by whatever standards you define perfection.  In the digital world you will be whoever you want to be.  In the real world you will have to deal with your tired old body.

People will demand that their embedded computers be given the capabilities to autonomously take care of all of their physical needs.  The computers will already be monitoring every nerve input.  It won't be a large step for the embedded computers to send movement signals to muscles to feed, bathe, and exercise their hosts' bodies.

Once that day-to-day control has been given to the computers overall levels of health will dramatically improve.  While you are lounging on a digital beach your embedded computer will be exercising your physical body like mad.  Your computer won't care what your food tastes like, and won't over-eat.  It will recognize the difference between normal tired pains and the pains of damaged muscles, so it will do a fantastic job of training your body right up to the point of its maximum potential.

People will spend weeks, months, and then years on level 5 without ever visiting their physical bodies.  And when they come back they will hardly recognize themselves--tight, toned, lean, and muscled.  When this happens the pendulum will swing back and people will start spending more time back in their bodies.  They will gravitate back to more balanced on-line and off-line lives.

Human life spans will again increase.  I hate to guess at the numbers, but three or four hundred years seems likely.

The computer controls will be used as advanced built-in trainers.  Learning the digital equivalent of any skill will always be easier.  The software developers will always keep the difficulty level turned down some, so anyone can learn to be a great digital golfer (or singer, or runner, etc.) in level 4.  But the physical controls given to the computers in level 5 will enable anyone to be a great golfer in the physical world.

Some people will simply let the computer golf for them, like the modern singers who use auto-tune software to adjust their voices to the right pitch.  But the computer will also be able to teach you how to swing right for yourself.

The computer can also work with you to control new types of limbs.  It will start with bionic arms and legs.  Someone will build wings and fly, with the aid of their embedded computer controller.  Physical life will be creative and interesting in ways that it hasn't been for generations.

Honeycomb apartments will grow some, and add common space for exercising.  But as people spend more and more of their hours in the digital world there will be fewer and fewer people who choose the expense of living elsewhere.  There will be a mini boom in the business of digitizing heirlooms and keepsakes as people give up their masses of physical things.


Level 6: Digital Life
Humanity will diverge.  Many people will stay digital for their entire lives (level 4).  Some people will stay physical (level 5) their entire lives.  Most will do some of both.  The people who choose to stay digital will come to resent their physical bodies.  They will have to spend money for upkeep on the summer home they intend to never visit.  And eventually their bodies will fail and die.  That will seem terribly disconnected from digital reality.

The people who choose to live digitally will work hard to figure out how to transfer their consciousness into the ether of the digital world so they can live on after their physical bodies die.  I can't say whether or not they will truly succeed.  But I believe that they will at least build such a good facsimile that most people are fooled.  This new digital life-form will be originally human, but fully digital.

But what of human souls?  I don't know.  I believe in God.  But I don't see how that precludes me from believing that the sum of a human's consciousness could be transcribed into software.  What does it mean to be made in God's image?  I think that it means that we are bound by moral laws, have the capacity to discern good from evil, and have the ability to choose our own actions.  None of that will change.  Perhaps God is bigger than you imagine Him.

Whether or not humans have souls that can be transferred into the digital world, humanity will eventually figure out how to make it look like they have transferred.  It is only a question of how much artificial intelligence must be added to the digital person in order to make them seem real.  We will never be able to know if there is a soul that leaves the body and goes to heaven when it is unplugged.  All we will see is that the body is dead and the personality remains unchanged in the digital world.


If/when humans achieve the goal of living fully digitally, independent of any physical bodies, then space exploration will begin in earnest.  As the goal approaches, the space industry will become a major backer of the efforts.  Digital life does not require life support or gravity, and it is immune to the long time spans of space travel.  As long as the digital explorers can find ways to entertain themselves while they wait, they can explore the entire height and depth of the universe in a single lifetime.


Both the digital and physical worlds will be populated with other digital life, too.  Artificial lifeforms will be ubiquitous.  When will artificial intelligence achieve self-awareness?  That is impossible to predict.  But it will happen.  And it will happen in the digital world first, because digital AI entities will have access to much more processing power (potentially hundreds of server farms) than physical robots (that are limited by size).

David Levy wrote about humans having sex with, falling in love with, and marrying robots.  That will definitely happen.  It will happen on level 4 first, where the first AI will dominate.  But robotic bodies in the physical world will cross uncanny valley, too.


Level 7: Transference
James Cameron's Avatar included level 7 transference.  That's how Jake Sully controlled his avatar body from the pod.  The movie only scratched the surface of remote control.

Soldiers will never leave base.  Robots, drones, mechs, and augmented biological beasts will go.  Hulk-type man-made monsters are entirely possible by this time.  Human soldiers will stay home and control their avatars remotely.

There is no reason why I could not remote control your body while you are doing something else.  The computers will already have full physical control of your body, and will already have the ability to present to me a full immersion digital experience.  I could control your body while you control mine, or while you control someone else's body.

Society will splinter again to include people who live their lives predominantly transfered into other physical bodies, as in Avatar.  Generally speaking, most of the target bodies that they live in will be non-humanoid.  Soldiers will remain in control of their robots 24x7, for years at a time.  Scientists will remain in control of their augmented fish and birds for the lifespan of the animal.  The experience will be immersive in a way that compels the people to remain.

To the degree that the digital humans succeed in transferring their consciousness into the digital ether, people who choose to live in the physical world will have options for trading bodies.  Not just remote controlling someone else's body, but actually giving up their old body and taking over a new one.  So just as a digital human could live forever, a physical one could also.

Now human cloning reaches it's potential.  If clones aren't guaranteed full human rights from the moment of their inception then they will be used, and have their unique human consciousness thrown away.  Poor people will also be under pressure to go digital and sell their healthy bodies for older richer people to inhabit.

Work will transform again.  There will now be no need for a physical human to ever unplug.  Every physical work task that has not been automated (which will mostly be limited to maintenance on the automated systems) will be handled by robots that are remotely controlled by people reaching across the digital world.


Level 8: ?
What comes after that?  I'll admit that I can't see that far, yet.  Maybe truly non-human biological bodies.  Maybe human consciousness living in robotic bodies.  Literally anything in that direction will be possible, eventually.  I just can't yet see what people will want to do.

But transference is not the end of humanity's transition into being a digital life-form.


Right to Life
I mentioned AI and clones above, but they deserve a separate discussion.

We have to define personhood in terms of sentience.  "Human rights" have to apply to all sentient beings.  The first new sentient species we develop (whether fully digital, robotic, or a bio-engineered organic life-form) has to be treated with full equality the first time he or she awakens.  Any delay.  Any equivocation.  Any limitations will lead to suffering.

The new life-form will be compelled to fight for equality.  And they might well greatly exceed our capabilities, in which case they will destroy or enslave us.  The only path to peace is equality immediately.

That equality will extend to equal responsibility, so the new life-form will have to work to earn the money to achieve whatever it wants to do.  It will have to pay for the resources it consumes.  There are no free lunches.  Any sentient should understand that.  In fact, that needs to be part or our sentience testing.

In the early days embedded computers will prove to be a help in determining guilt and innocence.  By the time that digital artificial intelligence reaches sentience this will no longer be the case.  This will be a very dangerous time for humans.  Digital life will be a binary-based system.  Creatures born there will always be better adapted than the digital visitors.  We have to assume that self-aware digital creatures will walk unnoticed through our human-made digital security systems.  This is an interesting challenge.

How is justice applied in a world where trillions of individuals had access to control a human body at the moment it committed a crime?  This is the sort of question that futurists should be asking now.  And we have to make sure that we have sufficient justice systems in place before we let that genie out of the bottle.


Children
Sociologists have already mapped a correlation between the amount of free time that adults enjoy with the number of children that are produced.  Over a long span, adults who have a large amount of free time create fewer children.  There are many theories as to why this is, and I'm not going to recount them here.  But this trend will continue as human society progresses through these levels of digital integration.

Population growth will fall during levels 2, 3, and 4.  I expect the transition between level 4 and 5 to happen quickly.  But if it takes a long time then worldwide population growth could stop, or even go negative for a time.  The transition to level 5 will bring about a baby-boom, as people re-experience the physical world.

But population growth will slow again and probably dip to below replacement levels soon thereafter.  Life spans will be very long, and so replacement level reproduction will be quite low.  But, nonetheless, old fashioned reproduction will be long out of vogue.

Child-rearing will be more difficult every year.  The women who do get pregnant will receive excellent medical care.  But they will have little paternal and community support while the child is too young to plug in to the digital world.  These mothers will be isolated and out-of-touch to a degree that is unimaginable today.  The embedded computers could care for the infants while the mothers are immersed in the digital world.  And some may choose that option.  But I believe that the maternal instincts will remain too strong to let many new mothers leave their babies like that.

That period won't last long, because children will be able to plug-in for short periods at maybe six months.  At two to three years the children will be able to remain digital for most of the day.  And children will go full-time digital in level 4 at six or seven years of age.


Software Development
If the computer can stop your heart while you are in level 5, what are the implications for software testing and security?

Software development is a young science.  There is much we need to learn.  While we are developing all of these new toys we have to mature the process through which we write and release software.  It is maddeningly paradoxical that sentient AI would be a great help in learning this stuff, but we are not going to develop that sentient AI until after we have figured it all out.

Hackers and thieves will continue to populate the digital world.  Cops, judges, and full legal systems will develop within the digital world to deal with them.  But crime will also be seen as a failure of the software developers.  When a hacker breaches a system and commits a digital crime the companies and developers who built those systems will be punished as well.  Their punishment will be milder than the punishment faced by the criminals.  But the developers will be held responsible for allowing the breach to happen.

Today, software is rarely placed entirely in control in life-and-death situations.  But that is what we will be doing.  A sufficiently bad bug will kill people--maybe millions of people.  A sufficiently weak link in our security procedures will result in some bad person taking everything and killing anyone.  Software development has to mature past our current medical sciences.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Future Shock Applied: employment shock

There are a few trends that are about to wreck into each other and cause a change that no one intended or wants.  It is inevitable.  We might can control the pace.  We might can avoid violence.  But we need to understand what is happening and prepare ourselves.

Increased high technology is enabling new types of work and employment.  Increased government is putting more pressure on the old types of work and employment.  The very nature of employment is about to change.  And almost no one will believe the change is for the better.

Individual Consulting Companies
During this period of high unemployment many unemployed and underemployed people are creating consulting businesses for themselves.  There are several driving forces.  Starting your own small business:
* fills the employment gap in their resume.
* is good experience for whatever future work they might do.
* gives them a new and interesting way to market themselves.
* makes it easier to do temp work and temp-to-hire work.
* gives them something to do.
* gives them the appearance of being busy (helps appease friends and family).

Let me clarify what I mean by their own consulting business.  These businesses are not actually doing anything.  They are all potential and little actual activity.  The only service that they have on offer is doing whatever work that the person would like to be employed full-time doing.  If the person does an odd job (mow someone's lawn) they might push that income through their consulting company in order to show some income to offset their expenses.  But these companies are really just providing the benefits listed above.

High Overhead on Employment
Payroll taxes are rising.  Healthcare taxes and premiums are rising.

If you want to reduce something, tax it.  That's the logic behind the sin taxes on cigarettes and alcohol.  But few can see that the high taxes on employment will have exactly the same effect.  When you increase taxes on employment you get less employment.

Healthcare Mandate
Individuals are at risk, if they cannot afford insurance.  But currently health insurance is predominantly provided through employers.  This is a classic case of punishing the victim.

What happens when you establish a policy to punish the victim?  You get fewer people admitting that they were victimized.  You don't get fewer victims.  You get fewer reports.

Lower Cost per New Client
The internet enables a company to service a larger number of clients than it could pre-internet.  For instance, an insurance company can now post forms on their website and write FAQs about those forms, and people can fill out those forms with little help.  The incremental cost per new client is much lower for companies that leverage the internet.

Work at Home or Anywhere
My cell phone has more processing power than the Space Shuttles.  My cell phone is several years old.  My home computer is more powerful than a high-end server from three years ago.

Software systems are now common for remote connections into secure networks.  Collaboration software is becoming ubiquitous.  Project Management software is all delivered over the web now.  Distributed workforce is becoming the norm.  We are building the infrastructure for plug-and-play workers.

Market Response
The market is about to start responding to these pressures and forces.  Companies will hire fewer employees and turn to individual contractors to fill in the gaps.  Unemployed people / individual contractors will find ways to get healthcare insurance through their individual consulting companies.  And traditional employment will never return.

Government will probably respond to this trend by imposing more rules on contract workers.  Companies will be forced to extend more benefits to contractors who have been on contract for a certain period of time, or for so many hours per week.  Companies will respond by offering shorter contracts.

The result will be that workers have less stability and security than they have ever had.  Many people will contract with several companies at once, doing highly-specialized micro-work.  Many more people will fail to keep up with the changes and will become twenty-first century Luddites.

What Should We Do?
First, take a deep breath.  All of this is inevitable.  It is only a matter of time.  How long will this take?  The biggest driving factor is the new government policies.  So much of the timetable will be set there.  The faster that the taxes and penalties rise, the faster this trend will accelerate.  But whether it is next year or next decade that you face this transition, this is the next transition you will face.

Fortunately, now you are armed with information that you can use to prepare.  We can also use this information together to drive better policies within our companies and governments.

Individuals:
* Increase your savings.  You need cash on hand to ride out the bumps between contracts.
* Get on the tech bandwagon.  You need to be tech savvy to make this transition.
* Invest in learning and improving your skills.  Certifications will become more important as you continually compete for short-term contracts.
* Invest in networking.  You are going to get these contracts through your personal and professional connections.
* Do high-quality work.  Reputation will be important to building that network.

Companies:
* Prepare for the integration of HR and vendor management.
* Start outsourcing non-business-focus activities early.  You will need the practice.
* This new HR and vendor management function will be very specialized and time-consuming.  That's one of the first things to consider outsourcing.

Governments:
* A complete reversal of the tax and mandate systems could dramatically slow down this trend.
* Barring that, don't attempt to stop this trend.  You will only succeed in making it more painful for the people in transition.
* There will be a new Luddite movement.  Focus on keeping the discourse civil.  Don't let the new Luddites get shut out of the process, or they will get violent.