optimistontour.com
  • Archives
  • April1st

    "It's all to play for" - with Chris Anderson at TED

    With Chris Anderson at TED

    I’ve spent the last year being assailed by new ideas and ways of seeing the world at an unprecedented (for me) rate. The coming revolution in personal genomics, the project to create artificial life, the Transhumanists’ journey to ‘transcend our biology’, robots that get mood swings, machines that demonstrate curiosity, a post-scarcity world promised by atomically precise manufacture, holidays in space and our continued entanglement with the world’s biggest machine (the Internet). All of these are to one degree and another coming down the line, as long as the Maldives (and the rest of us) can stay above water, using our technologies and ingenuity to remove carbon-dioxide from our atmosphere (while simultaneously ushering in an energy revolution). I’ve met scientists, philosophers, gone diving with a president and invented a cocktail on the way. Now as I approach the end of my journey I’m looking for people who can help me make sense of it, to somehow pull all these strands together into a coherent view.

    In his book Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology Eric Drexler approaches the future by asking three questions – what is possible? what is achievable? and what is desirable? The question of what is possible seems easy to answer. As we learn to control the very atoms of matter, the mechanisms of biology and the power of computation there is, in fact, very little that we can’t do, in a physical (and indeed virtual sense). Solutions to climate change? Already developed. An end to the energy crisis? No sweat, sign on the line. Holiday in space? Why not, join our frequent flyer progamme. World peace even? Seems only reasonable.

    But when we ask what is achievable, well that’s a different story. Because what we achieve will largely be determined by what we collectively decide is desirable. As George Church told me all those months ago at Harvard Medical School as we discussed personal genomics, “The only thing that puts this kind of medicine far away is really will, right? The question is, how motivated are we?” Do we, as a planet, have the will to take the bounty on offer while mitigating the risks? To get the medicine but not the weapons? To enjoy abundant clean energy while dealing with climate change? To use our technologies to bring us closer together, rather than isolate us?

    It’s to ponder questions like these that I’ve come to meet Chris Anderson, the CEO of the TED Talks, the pre-eminent meeting of, as Chris puts it, “people who can offer a lens through which to see the world in a different way.” Every year Chris and his team gather together the world’s leading thinkers from every discipline and give them 18 minutes to tell the rest of the world how they see things. The results can be found on TED.com. Here you can see Ray Kurzweil summarise his law of accelerating returns, or Kevin Kelly talk about his idea of ‘The One Machine’ that the internet will become, or Hod Lipson demonstrate his robots (along with a host of other mind-shifting presentations that make you see things from a different angle). TED tells a different story of our world than the one we’re used to seeing, and it’s the same story I’ve seen on my travels. There is no shortage of fresh ways to see our future. It turns out we’re not necessarily looking at a damage limitation exercise, but a possible renaissance. But first we have to see it. Only then can we have to make it happen.

    Seeing it is a revelation. We’re so used to being told that everything is getting worse, that the planet is doomed or that the next pandemic to finish you off is just around the corner, or that technology will subjugate us. It’s a world where a book called Is it me or is everything a bit shit? becomes a best seller. And it’s not true. Or at least it doesn’t have to be. Klaus Lackner has a machine, that works now, that takes CO2 out the air. George Church has co-developed a process that can take that CO2, mix is with sunlight for pity’s sake! and create gasoline. Thin film solar technologies will soon take power to where there is no grid, while at the same time mobile devices will continue to take the world’s knowledge (accessed on billions of mobile devices) to every corner of the globe. Solar power continues to show exponential rises in efficiency while nanotechnology is already changing the face of manufacturing and will continue to do so. Medicine may soon see an end to a host of the things that kill us. This story is not being told, which is perhaps the biggest threat to our future. Not that it couldn’t be better, but that because we can’t see it, we don’t know it’s an option.

    “The history of ideas is a really thrilling history,” says Chris, “and ultimately that is what will drive all of our futures. There’s a very boring view of the world which is that ‘things happen’ and you can’t really do much about it.” It’s something he’s experienced himself. “After I left university I became a journalist, then I started a company… and then fifteen years were taken over by all the stress of working. I didn’t have much spare time to think. When the whole ‘dot com’ bust happened the huge gift I got was discovering, holy crap, there’s so much amazing new thinking out there.” I know what he means. Before I decided I actually wanted to answer the question “what next?” I was on the same treadmill, too busy to look up to realise that the story we’re told wasn’t necessarily the only game in town. This book didn’t start off with the word ‘Optimist’ in the title. It was my agent Charlie, who when I told him the sort of thing I was finding out, remarked on how uplifting some of it was and suggested the change.

    We communicate through stories. It is stories that grab us the most and it stories we identify with. Hollywood knows this, political spin doctors know this, newspaper editors know this. “What the story?!” ask editors pointedly when young journalists bring well written pieces that lack a narrative. My own editors were keen to make sure this book had a personal story, and encouraged me to make sure it wasn’t lost in the rush of facts. Chris is very interested in stories, and how the Internet, as it continues its prodigious growth across the globe, can help us, for the first time, tell a story that includes everyone.

    The most memorable thing for Chris about the 2009 TED conference was a dance troupe called The Legion of Extraordinary Dancers. “This troop could not have existed ten years ago. They exist because kids who used to just dance down on the street corner started filming themselves, putting it up on YouTube and suddenly the community that they’re comparing themselves to is a global community. This kid in Tokyo sees a move from Detroit and innovates within hours, puts it online and so on, so the pace of innovation is dramatically increased.” John Chu, who created the troupe from finding the most popular of those YouTube clips says, “Dance has never had a better friend than technology. Online videos and social networking have created a whole global laboratory online for dance.” It’s not just in dance. “This is happening in hundreds of areas of human endeavour,” says Chris. “I’ve started to call it ‘crowd accelerated innovation’ and I find it incredibly exciting.”

    Chris thinks rather than letting go of our humanity, we are re-discovering it. What could be more human than the Legion of Extraordinary Dancers? Kids from diverse backgrounds from across the world, innovating and collaborating to bring a new dimension to an art form as old as society, using technology to help them express themselves and innovate physically with their bodies, to meet, to collaborate, to just dance – and then show the world. Look what we did. Here is something of the exponential growth in wisdom, community, understanding I was looking for to go with Ray Kurzweil’s accelerating technologies.

    “The acceleration of knowledge and ideas made possible by the fact that humanity is connected for the first time is vast,” says Chris. “The re-discovery of the spoken word as a tool for communicating is a big deal. If you think about it we evolved as human-to-human communicators. It was the village camp fire, the elder standing there with his painted face on a starry night, fire crackling, drums beating and telling a story and every eye locked on his and all those mirror-neurons in all those brains syncing up with what he was saying. By the end of this story his whole village would go to war against another village or make peace.”

    “So TED is one of the new storytellers?” I ask

    “It’s one of them. That mode of communication kind of got lost in the print age because it didn’t scale, it was a village-sized technology at best. To me it’s thrilling that it now scales and so one great teacher can inspire many people. One of the things that we see as our role is to try and help nurture that process of re-discovering how to do that, because I think we got to a place where lessons became a person in suit mumbling behind a lectern reading their notes for an hour while a class of people snoozed.” Suddenly, horrifying images of my ‘O’ level economics class come pouring into my brain. I shudder. “It shouldn’t be like that,” says Chris. “So, one of things we see, and this was a big kick for me, is TED speakers competing. An unexpected consequence of putting this stuff online is speakers are looking at what other speakers are doing and are putting in far more preparation time than they ever used to.”

    Just as YouTube became a laboratory for dance, TED is becoming a laboratory for the art of oration. Here you will see a statistician blow your mind and end his talk with some sword swallowing. Here you will find Steven Pinker explain that the world is getting safer, and Robert Wright mix philosophy, sociology and stand-up comedy to give one explanation as to why – a theory he calls ‘the non-zero sum game’. I don’t know about you, but that’s the kind of lesson I can get on board with.

    “We’ve actually got to bring back real creativity and find a way of nurturing that in the education process,” says Chris. “In the age of Google the notion of having to cram all these little brains with facts is bonkers. What’s needed is to build skills like how do you stimulate people to ask the right questions? how do you stimulate people to have a meaningful conversation? to think critically? What are lenses you give people to think about the world? I mean, if I’d have been taught Robert Wright’s non-zero view of history that would have had tremendously more value to me than endless facts about French kings.” It seems that the two things Artificial Intelligence needs the most if it’s ever to stop playing chess and start playing Madlibs, are the two things we need the most too: curiosity and creativity.

    What is our collective story today and who tells it? The storytellers of our day-to-day lives used to be the press and our politicians. Like all good storytellers they used emotion to hook us into one of two, on the face of it, very uninspiring, dull stories. Story one: life happens to you, the future is not going to be very good (especially if you vote for that guy), it was better in the old days, you’ve got to look after yourself, the world is violent and unsafe, your job is at risk, the generation below you are feral and dangerous, things are changing too fast and you can’t trust those immigrants/ scientists/ left-wingers/ right-wingers/ nerds/ geeks/ religious people/ atheists/ football fans/ the rich/ the poor/ what you eat/ your neighbour. You are alone. Make the best of it. Vote for me. Buy my paper. I understand. (Story two is, in summary: ‘Shock! People have sex.’)

    It’s hardly inspiring is it?

    But the story is beginning to be told by other people now, by the Legion of Extraordinary Dancers, by speakers at TED talks, by Mohamed Nasheed who battled dictatorship to the brink of his own death and then got on with battling climate change, by Cynthia Breazeal who wants to build robots that help children learn, by Vicki Buck who quit government to create jobs to take on global warming, by George Church who wants you to stay healthy longer, by Eric Drexler who wants to usher in a post-scarcity world using technology on the nanoscale, by the good people at Konarka who take electricity out the sky and give to the developing world. A story being told by the curious and the smart, that inspires the curious and the smart in all of us, by people who wonder and ask the kind of questions that haven’t been asked before. Crucially, none of them wait for permission to ask those questions, or then to find the answers. It is being told through writers who find themselves traveling across America and readers of blogs who might say in the pub, “did you know the technology exists to make petrol out of the air?” It is being told by the cult of the possible, who seek to achieve, to bring us what we desire. Peace. Understanding. Space to love each other. People who encourage us to evolve.

    Eric Drexler has written, “As the Web becomes more comprehensive and searchable, it helps us see what’s missing in the world. The emergence of more effective ways to detect the absence of a piece of knowledge is a subtle and slowly emerging contribution of the Web, yet important to the growth of human knowledge.”

    I think we’re beginning to see, collectively, what’s missing, and crucially we’re now able to do something about it. Technology doesn’t give you permission like your teachers did. It gives you agency – to ask, to learn, to connect, to do. It says, “go on then, show me what you’ve got”.

    “I don’t know that the future’s going to be better,” says Chris. “But I think there’s a very good chance that it will be and I think that’s something that everyone can do to further increase that chance. There are several quite profound and inspiring ways of thinking about the world that suggest there are these trends that have the potential to drive a better future and I think there is such a thing as moral progress, driven not by any difference in the DNA kids are born with, but just driven by what they see, and seeing more of humanity just naturally flicks on certain switches that make people more empathetic. Of course, the future might well be truly horrible. I think it’s all to play for and I think everyone of sound mind and conscience should be in the game, trying to shape it in the right way. It’s a very false and shallow view of history to say that it’s just one thing after another. Ultimately though our history is the history of ideas. It’s a really thrilling history and ultimately that is what will drive all of our futures.”

    Ideas, creativity, curiosity – and dancing. Now there’s a mix.

    More of my talk with Chris, will of course, make it into the book…

  • March26th

    With 'singulatarian' Ray Kurzweil

    With 'singulatarian' Ray Kurzweil

    Back to Boston.

    It’s amazing how quickly you can accept international travel as work-a-day. When I started my journey a flight heralded a feeling of adventure in me. Now, it’s like getting in a car. Another thing that’s changed is my attitude to my interviewees. When I first secured an interview with my quarry in Boston I was slightly intimidated. ‘How do you talk to someone like that?’ I asked myself, the ‘that’ in question being Ray Kurzweil. Now, as I come to end of my journey and try to tie it all together I find less trepidation in myself. I’ve spent the last year meeting extraordinary people, and I’ve got used to it. Turns out extraordinary people have plenty enough ordinary about them to get hold of.

    I arrive in Boston, deal with the ever rude and superior immigration staff and am picked up by Tracy Wemett, who you may remember as Konarka’s PR woman and driver of some, shall we say, reckless enthusiasm. Tracy, on hearing of my return to Boston has generously offered me her basement for the week, which makes a welcome change from hotels. Still, we’ve got to get to her apartment alive which, given her driving, is not a certainty.

    Since I saw Tracy last it seems I haven’t been the only one to notice her maverick approach to the road. One speeding ticket too many and she’s been required to take a driving education course by the state of Massachusetts. The results are reassuring. She tells me, “I was told I’m the sort of person who will make a road where there isn’t one.” She pauses. “Apparently that’s not good.”

    I spend the next day preparing for my interview with Ray. (I also take a visit to meet genius-entrepreneur Howard Berke at Konarka, who was, like many genius-entrepreneurs, a mixture of enthralling, socially odd and genuinely entertaining. More on him in my chapter on Solar).

    Ray Kurzweil is variously an inventor, guru, madman, prophet or genius depending on who you listen to. One indisputable truth is that Ray is a very good inventor. He invented the first machine that could scan text in any font and convert it into a computer document, a technology he applied to building a reading machine for the blind (which led to him, on the side, inventing the flatbed scanner and the text-to-speech synthesizer too). Stevie Wonder was the first customer – and this in turn led to Ray inventing a new breed of electronic synthesizers that captured the nuances of traditional ones. (In a former life as a musician I coveted the ‘Kurzweil K2000’ but not being very successful musician I could never afford one). Our interview opens in much the same way as Ray’s last book The Singularity is Near (hereafter referred to as TSIN). “The philosophy of my family, the religion, was the power of human ideas and it was personalised,” he says. “My parents told me, ‘you Ray can find the ideas to overcome challenges whether they’re grand challenges of humanity, or personal challenges’ ”.

    Ray’s journey to visionary genius/ techno-prophet/ crazy person (delete as appropriate depending on your prejudices) had its genesis in his attempt to work out a way to time his inventions for maximum impact. “I realized that most inventions fail not because the R&D department can’t get them to work but because the timing is wrong. Inventing is a lot like surfing: you have to anticipate and catch the wave at just the right moment,” he writes on page three of TSIN. So Ray started looking at technology trends and he saw something extraordinary – a clear, unmistakable pattern of exponential innovation, something he calls ‘the law of accelerating returns’ – a phenomenon centred around the idea that technology regularly doubles in efficiency. Such doubling is seen, for instance, in the increasing processing power of computers. Reality has kept pace with the predictions of ‘Moore’s law’ with almost unwavering allegiance, with performance per dollar doubling about every 18 months. But Ray says the effects of the law can be found, well, nearly everywhere, that the law of accelerating returns is the governing law of all creation.

    To understand the implications of Ray’s idea you have to get your head around how potent a force it is if something has the propensity to double. Think of it this way. Let’s say you travel a metre with each step you take. If you take ten steps you’ll have covered ten metres. Now imagine that instead of each step progressing one metre, it somehow doubles the distance you covered with the last one. So while your first step covers one metre, your second covers two and by your third your stride is four metres. The difference between ‘normal stepping’ you and ‘doubling stepping’ you is extreme and gets ever more so. As a doubling stepper your first ten steps will cover not ten metres, but one thousand and twenty four. Instead of covering the equivalent of about 1/10th of a football field you’ve covered over ten. And with your next step you’ll cover ten more – with the step after that covering another twenty whole pitches.

    By the time you’ve done just 27 steps you’ve traversed 67 million metres, or to put it another way, you’ve gone one and a half times round the world. Your next step? You double that distance and do another 67 million metres. At this rate you could walk to the sun and back (and be 85% of the way to Mars) in 38 steps (your last step having covered 137,438,953,000 metres). One can only imagine the trousers you’d need. Meanwhile, normal stepping you is about a third of the way down a football pitch. Now, of course, you can’t step like that but technology, says Ray, can. And he’s not wrong.

    Certainly on my trip I’ve seen other examples of mankind’s exponential adventure, in the plummeting cost of genome sequencing, or the ‘cost per watt’ performance of solar technologies for example. Ray cites these examples and others. The first hundred pages of TSIN almost bludgeons the reader with graph after graph, based on historical data showing exponential growth in the number of phone calls per day, cell phone subscriptions, wireless network price-performance, computers connected to the internet, internet bandwidth and so on. These all have a computing flavour, but Ray sees exponential growth of knowledge too, citing exponential growth in nanotechnology patents as an example. What about the economy? Ray plots exponential growth in the value of output per hour (measured in dollars) in private manufacturing and in the per-capita GDP of the US. Ray quotes example after example because he want us to get past what he sees as an inherit prejudice in our human thinking.

    “Our intuition is linear and I believe that’s hard-wired in our brains. I have debates with sophisticated scientists all the time, including Nobel prize winners that take a linear projection and say “it’s going to be centuries before we…” and “we know so little about…” and here you can fill in the blank depending on their field of research. They just love to say that. But they’re completely oblivious to the exponential growth of information technology and how it’s invading one field after another, health and medicine being just the latest.”

    You can’t get to Mars in 39 steps wearing linear trousers (like the one’s most of our minds wear). You need exponential ones (like technology has). But because we’re hard-wired to think in linear, rather than exponential terms we fail to see when things are coming, argues Ray. We’ll be far further than we think, far quicker than we expect. Ray predicts for instance that by the middle of the century we’ll have artificial intelligence that exceeds human cognition, a game-changing explosion of intelligence that we will merge with to usher in the next stage in our evolution – a human-machine hybrid, enhanced with similar exponential bounty brought to us by entwined revolutions in nanotechnology and biotechnology. Aging will be ‘cured’ and we’ll be able to move onto a more stable platform than our frail biology. At the same time we’ll have solved the energy crisis and dealt conclusively with climate change.

    “All these Malthusian concerns that we’re running out of resources are absolutely true if it were the case that the law of accelerating returns didn’t exist,” he says. “For instance, people take current trends in the use of energy and just assume nothing’s going to change, ignoring the fact that we have 10,000 times more energy that falls on the Earth from the Sun every day than we are using. So if we restrict ourselves to 19th Century technologies, these Malthusian concerns would be correct.” In other words, the law of accelerating returns in solar energy will soon see a green energy revolution, as the technology keeps doubling its efficiency. Ray reckons five years from now solar will be taking coal to the cleaners when it comes to cost per watt. We won’t be switching to solar because we want to save the planet, we’ll be doing it to save our bank accounts.

    “I just had a debate this week at a conference held by The Economist with Jared Diamond who basically sees our civilization going to hell in a hand-basket and points out various trends and makes this assumption that technology is a disaster and only creates problems and he has really no data to point to, it’s just aphorisms and scoffing at technology with no analysis. But he’s got a bestselling book because people love to read about how we’re heading to disaster.”

    Part of understanding what Ray is getting at requires you to understand that he sees all creation as an exercise in information processing. Everything can be expressed as data coming in, some kind of manipulation or interaction, and some data goes out. So, two atoms collide (data in), they interact in some way (data processing) and emit light and heat (data out). This is the most boring way ever to describe fire, but it doesn’t take away from the essential premise that everything can be viewed as a manipulation of information. In other words, everything (including you) is an ‘information technology’ and therefore the law of accelerating returns becomes the fundamental law that governs all creation.

    In 1999 Ray published a book called The Age of Spiritual Machines in which he applied this law to make predictions, and handily he made a bunch for the decade from 2009. Critics and advocates alike have lept on these, loudly proclaiming “Ray was right!” or “Ray was wrong!” depending, it seems, on how they view the world – and all ignoring the fact that Ray didn’t say his predictions were for one year, but for the period beginning 2009. “Most of Kurzweil’s predictions are actually astoundingly accurate,” writes one blogger, while another asserts his forecasts are “ludicrously inaccurate.” Oh dear.

    My own analysis is that, with the odd caveat, Ray seems to be on the right track with his predictions and many seem extremely prescient. According to Ray 89 are correct, 13 are “essentially correct”, three are partially correct, two are ten years off, and just one is wrong (but he claims it was tongue in cheek anyway). Certainly there is some pride in Kurzweil’s response to his critics and you could argue he’s stretching the point a bit when he defends some of his predictions, massaging the semantics of the prediction to match the current situation, but, all that aside, he’s still been right more often than he hasn’t. By anybody’s reckoning that’s prediction nirvana, and a skill any investor would love to have (oh, Ray’s latest venture? A hedge fund.)

    But part of the problem with Ray Kurzweil, or rather part of the problem in talking about Ray Kurzweil is that he raises strong emotions. Trying to separate reasoned debate from the howl of emotion that his work provokes is hard. Take the view of Douglas R. Hofstadter, now a cognitive scientist at Indiana University, but more famously the author of Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid – an attempt to explain how consciousness can arise from a system, even though the system’s component parts aren’t individually conscious.  (This is a key area of study for Ray too, because it is through reverse engineering the human brain that he believes we’ll be able to unlock the mechanisms of mind, replicate them in machines and so free ourselves from the biological limitations of our brain). Here’s what Hofstader has to say about Ray’s ideas:

    “I find is that it’s a very bizarre mixture of ideas that are solid and good with ideas that are crazy. It’s as if you took a lot of very good food and some dog excrement and blended it all up so that you can’t possibly figure out what’s good or bad. It’s an intimate mixture of rubbish and good ideas, and it’s very hard to disentangle the two…”

    That’s like Stevie Wonder saying, “I can’t work out if Paul McCartney is a genius or a wanker”. Such is the trouble with talking about Ray. (You can see the full text of the interview this comes from here)

    As I comment throughout An Optimist’s Tour of the Future, the advance of new technologies, particularly biotechnology, make many people (including me) uncomfortable – and then Ray comes along and says, ‘belt up, things are going way faster than you thought, and by the way, that means I’m not going to die. Would you like to transcend your biology with me? Hurry now’. It’s no wonder our linear-trousered brains are stretched to the limit, no wonder some people find Ray just too difficult to engage with. And on the other side of the coin are those who do see Ray as some kind of prophet, whose ideas save them from the sticky issue of their mortality. Ray’s ‘Singularity’ – the moment at which ‘strong AI’ arrives and we merge with it – has been called “the Rapture of the nerds” (a phrase coined by science fiction author Ken MacLeod). These Utopian-techno-nerds don’t really help Ray’s cause. I advocate the approach of Juan Enriquez, the founder of Harvard Business Schools’ Life Science Project, and another Boston resident, who told me, “Do I always agree with Ray? No. Does he make me think? Always.”

    It seems to me (from my linear trousered perspective) that progress in robotics, AI, synthetic biology and genomics brings philosophical questions such as “what does it mean to be human?” into your living room, and not in an ‘interesting-debate-over-a-glass-of-wine’ sort of way, but in a ‘right-in-your-face-what-are-you-going-to-do-about-it?’ sort of way.

    When the possibility that the hand your mate Robin lost to cancer three years ago can be replaced by a robotic one with a sense of touch becomes a real option we begin to ask ourselves, ‘Is that hand really part of Robin? If I shake that hand am I really shaking Robert’s hand? Gee I don’t know. I feel kinda weird’. (By the way, Robin isn’t fictional, he’s Robin af Ekenstam and you can watch a video of his new hand being attached here). And just as we can start to engineer robot hands and merge them with humans, we will soon, thanks to the law of accelerating returns, be able to engineer to genuine robot intelligence and merge it with our brains, argues Ray.

    “The basic principles of intelligence are not that complicated, and we understand some of them, but we don’t fully understand them yet. When we understand them we’ll be able to amplify them, focus on them – we won’t be limited to a neo-cortex that fits into a less than one cubic foot skull and we certainly won’t run it on a chemical substrate that sends information at a few hundred feet per second, which is a million times slower than electronics. We can take those principles and re-engineer them and we’re going to merge them with our own brains”.

    It’s statements like this that bring Ray into conflict with many scientists who think he’s not so much running before he can walk, as getting in jet fighter straight out of the crib. Although, for Ray, that’s kind of the point. Crib to jet fighter is really just a few doublings after all, the law of accelerating returns in action. But for some, Ray is a bit like Tracy. He makes a road where there isn’t one, they say.

    One thing is certain. If a conscious human-like intelligence is ‘computable’ (i.e. it can be run on a machine substrate) the processing power to compute it will be within reach of the even your desktop very soon. Hans Moravec wondered, “what processing rate would be necessary to yield performance on par with the human brain?” and came up with the gargantuan figure of 100 trillion instructions per second, which is one of those numbers that generally makes most of us go “hmmm, I think I’ll make a cup of tea now.” To put this number in context, as I was ushered into the world in the early seventies IBM introduced a computer that could perform one million instructions per second. This is one millionth of Moravec’s figure. By the dawn of the millennium chip-maker, AMD, were selling a microprocessor over three and half thousand times quicker (testament to a technological journey that had been populated with continual exponential leaps in processing power throughout the intervening period). This yielded a chip that is still 280 times less powerful than the brain’s computational prowess (by Moravec’s reckoning) but is a staggering upswing in power nonetheless. Intel have just released their ‘Core i7 Extreme’ chip which is forty times faster than the AMD device from 2000 and computes at the mind-numbing speed of 147,600,000,000 instructions per second – or about one seventh of Moravec’s figure. At this rate your new laptop will achieve the same computational speed as the human brain before the decade is out. Soon after that, if the exponential trend continues, your laptop (or whatever replaces it) will have more hard processing muscle than all human brains put together. This will happen sometime around the middle of the century according to Kurzweil.

    Supercomputers have passed Moravec’s milestone and it’s therefore no surprise to find various projects using them to try to simulate parts of animal and human brains, merging neuroscience and computer science in an attempt to get to the bottom of what’s really going on in that skull of yours. It’s important to realise that simulating something often takes more computing power than being something (aircraft simulators have more computers than actual aircraft for instance) and a complete simulation of an entire human brain running in real-time is still beyond the reach of even the most powerful computers. But not for long. Henry Markram’s Blue Brain project (which works by simulating individual brain cells on different processors and then linking them together) believes “It is not impossible to build a brain, and we can do it in ten years.” He’s even joked (or not, depending on how seriously you take the claim) he’ll bring the result to talk at conferences. Markram has similarly upset more conservative voices in the AI field. Even Ray thinks he’s over-optimistic. (The prediction falls outside the curve predicted by Ray’s graphs by a hefty margin).

    You can see Markram’s TED talk (where he suggests he’ll be bringing the Blue Brain back to the conference as a speaker within a decade) below.

    I find myself thinking back to my talk with George Church, Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School. If you accept evolution as an explanation of how humanity came to be, that the common genetic code of all living things is proof that you, I and Paris Hilton all, at some point, evolved from the same source (that source being a collection of molecules that became the first cell) then one way of looking at the human being (and therefore the human brain) is ‘simply’ as a collection of unthinking tiny bio-machines computing away – reading genetic code, and spewing out ‘computed’ proteins and the rest. We’re machines too, just wet biological ones. You are an information technology.

    Robotics pioneer Rodney Brooks makes this argument as well. “The body, this mass of biomolecules, is a machine that acts according to a set of specified rules,” he writes in Robot: The Future of Flesh and Machines

    Needless to say, many people bristle at the use of the word “machine”. They will accept some description of themselves as collections of components that are governed by rules of interaction, and with no component beyond what can be understood with mathematics, physics and chemistry. But that to me is the essence of what a machine is, and I have chosen to use that word to perhaps brutalize the reader a little.

    In short, intelligence and consciousness are computable, because you and I are computing it right now. I compute, therefore I am. George Church was less brutal in his take on the ‘human machine’. “I think of us more and more as mechanisms,” he told me. “We’re starting to see more and more of the mechanism exposed and it just makes it more impressive to me, not less. If someone showed me a really intricate clock or computer that had emotions and self awareness and spirituality and so forth I’d be very, very impressed and I think that’s where we are heading, were we can be impressed by the mechanism.”

    But something’s not sitting right with me, and it’s not that I don’t like being called a ‘machine’ (believe me, that’s nothing compared to some of the heckles I’ve had). In fact, the machine metaphor makes a kind of sense given what I found out at Harvard.

    It was Cynthia Breazeal, head of the personal Robotics lab who I met last time I was in Boston that expressed it best.The bottom line is there’s still a long way to go before we can have a simulation actually do anything. I mean they can run the simulation but what is it doing that can be seen as being intelligent? How does that grind out into real behaviour, where you show it something and have it respond to it? I still think there’s a lot of understanding that needs to be done. I do, I really do. I think we’re making fantastic strides but I think,” (she dropped to a conspiratorial whisper, smiling) “there’s a lot we still don’t know!”

    Cynthia nailed the root of my discomfort. Someone can give you the best calculator in the shop, but if you’ve never learned any maths, it’s largely useless to you. If the brain is computable, it’s not that we won’t have the processing power to recreate its mechanisms, but that we’re still a long way off working out how to drive that simulation. If you’d never learned to read your eyes could take in the shape of every letter on this page, but it’d mean nothing to you, and printing it out photocopying it a hundred times (or even inventing the printer and photocopying machine in order to do so) wouldn’t help you either. Just as you had to learn to read, AI and neuroscience research, collectively, have to tease out not only what it is they’re looking at, but what it means.

    Sure, there’s exponential growth in processing power, but the jury is out as to whether there is an equivalent growth in understanding how to use that power more ‘intelligently’, to create (to paraphrase one of Henry Markram’s analogies) a concerto of the mind by playing the grand piano of the brain. If there had been, maybe your new laptop would be one-seventh as smart as you are. But it isn’t. This is where the strength of projects like the Blue Brain (and Cynthia’s work) really lie – as tools to slowly help us to pose the right questions that will lead to a better understanding of intelligence, emotion and consciousness.

    This is what I really want to ask Ray. “Have you got any graphs that clearly show an exponential growth in understanding? or in the ability of us to collectively make sense of the great philosophical questions, the intractable questions – ‘What is life?’, ‘What is consciousness?’” I ask. “Have we seen the law of accelerating returns in our understanding of these questions? Is our knowledge, our wisdom also keeping pace?”

    “Well, I’m actually working on that in connection with my next book which is called How the mind works and how to build one, says Ray.

    Well he would be, wouldn’t he?

    More of my interview with Ray will, of course, be in the book…

  • October20th

    Paul phones me this morning to say that an interview today is looking ‘unlikely’ although the president ‘might’ have time to meet me at his home this evening, but that’s pure speculation on his part. “Look, I think it would be useful for you to come to a lecture the president is giving today about Gandhi, and try and talk to him there,” says Paul. “As my interview?” I ask a little incredulously. “No, no, just, you know, to put you in the president’s mind.” It’s now clear to me that despite months of e-mailing, Paul has left arranging my interview to the very last minute. I get the feeling he’s genuinely embarrassed, having assumed he’d have no problem slotting me into the president’s diary during my time here, and suddenly finding that, er, he can’t. Both the president and I leave Malé tomorrow – me to visit eco-resort Soneva Fushi and him to talk pre-Copenhagen Climate Conference strategy with the Indian government. “Look, you’ll get your interview, even if we have to change your flights,” says Paul, but I’m beginning to fear that my flight being turned into a pig is more likely (and probably the cheaper option).

    The lecture – a talk to commemorate UN World Peace Day (a day chosen because it is also the annual anniversary of Ghandi’s birth) – isn’t until the afternoon, so I take the morning to explore some more of the capital. I visit the National Museum, and am shown around three floors of artefacts that attempt to tell the rich history of these islands. My guide is Asma. Just finishing her ‘A’ levels Asma hopes to find further education abroad relating to museum practice (there are no opportunities here she tells me). I promise to put her in touch with my friend Ross Parry who I know from my day job co-running Flow Associates and who is ‘the big cheese’ at the world-leading Museum Studies course at Leicester University – and where foreign students flock before returning home to help revitalise the interpretation of their cultural heritage.

    Too much history, not enoug space

    The National Museum of the Maldives

    Early settlers in the Maldives were Buddhists. The nation’s conversion to Islam is told in the legend of Berber Abul Barakat – who thwarted of the evil sea demon, or Jinni, through recitation of the Qur’an, thereby bringing to an end the long-standing ritual of providing the beast with a virgin upon which to feast. On hearing of this demon-quashing theology the then King Shenuraza concluded the Maldives should follow the teachings of Muhammad. Islam remains the state religion to this day.

    Various colonial powers have had a crack at invading and ruling the islands – the Portuguese, the Dutch, the British – with bloody results, demonstrating with depressing regularity that regime change often comes hand-in-hand with brutality and loss of life. Reflecting on this gives today’s lecture greater resonance. Nasheed’s democracy movement embraced the non-violent resistance championed by Gandhi, and in doing so succeeded in birthing a political revolution with minimal bloodshed.

    I also take time to pop into the National Art Gallery. It’s a great space. There’s no sense of an ‘in the know’ hierarchy of arts aficionados and a blissful absence of those overly wordy and simultaneously patronising labels. I find myself more interested by the work on display here than in any gallery I’ve visited.

    Rothko's watery mirror - The brilliant 'Blue 05' by Samah Ahmed

    Rothko's watery mirror - The brilliant 'Blue 05' by Samah Ahmed

    I arrive in good time for the lecture and sit next to a man called Per, who turns out to be a) recovering from Dengue fever and b) the head of the Red Cross in the Maldives. On my other side, a very fat and aggressively cheery fellow called Wahid makes easy conversation, laughing and smiling with each inhalation and exhalation of breath, while telling me of his role in the recent transition of power.

    The lecture is inspirational and Nasheed, as is his habit, delivers it without looking at his notes. He’s a compelling speaker, not because his delivery is overly slick, but because you can tell he believes every word. It’s something I’ve seen in the various speeches I’ve watched in preparation for my hanging-in-the-balance interview. During an early conversation with Paul, the PR man had told me, “the thing with the president is that he just tells the truth. Which can cause me some problems.”

    Nasheed talks of one of Ghandi’s core principles – “that to bring down the might of an Empire, with all its guns, bombs and tanks, you don’t fight fire with fire. Total rejection of violence in all its forms is, strangely enough, the best way to combat dictatorship.”

    nasheed lecture crowd

    Gandhi’s logic was flawless. If protestors challenge the existing regime, say by assembling for protest, and get away with it, the authority of the ruling power is undermined. But if the protest is suppressed by brutal means then the regime loses legitimacy. It’s a lose-lose situation for the oppressor. But it hinges on the resolve of the protesters to take whatever punishment is dealt out without retaliating. This requires enormous acts of will – and strong examples of non-violent leadership.

    Nasheed turns the lecture to the subject that has brought me to his country: reactions to climate change. He sees no value in criticising developed nations for the advent of man-made global warming, instead citing Gandhi’s doctrine of forgiveness and his famous maxim ‘An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind’. For him ‘tit for tat’ politics and historical grievance will not lead to a solution. A recurring soundbite in his rhetoric on climate change goes, “This is not like your standard disarmament negotiations or trade negotiations. You cannot negotiate with the rules of physics.”

    “The Maldives is a small country,” he says to the assembled crowd. “We emit less than 0.1% of global greenhouse gasses. The Maldives has played no part in causing the climate crisis. And yet, we stand to lose the most from global warming and rising seas. It would be so easy for us to point the finger of blame at Western nations for causing the climate crisis. It would be so easy for us to refuse to help solve a problem we did nothing to create.  However, the problem with this line of thinking is that it will make ‘the whole world blind.’ Unless every country on Earth agrees to cut carbon pollution, all of us will suffer as temperatures rise. The Maldives has announced plans to become the world’s first carbon neutral country. We do this not because we can solve global warming on our own. We do this because we hope to lead by example. If the Maldives can become carbon neutral, bigger countries might follow. By doing the right thing and showing the way, we can make a far bigger impact than blaming others for causing the problem. To quote Gandhi: ‘Be the change you wish to see in the world.’ ”

    Moving forward without rancor over the injustices of the past is, admits Nasheed, not always easy to do. It’s difficult to imagine that the fit looking, bright-eyed young president before me has been brought to the brink of death twice through torture, but when he speaks now, you can hear the memories – a tiny modification of his tone, an imprint of something that he will not speak of (at least not in public) but that still troubles him.

    “I understand, from my own personal experiences, how difficult it is to forgive. It is especially difficult to forgive people who refuse to say sorry for the hurt they have caused. But at the same time, I don’t believe that retribution, or going for a witch-hunt, will make us happy.”

    "I know how hard it is to forgive..."

    "I understand... how difficult it is to forgive"

    Nasheed practices what he preaches. Few would have blamed him for throwing his former nemesis Maumoon Abul Gayoom in jail. Instead the erstwhile dictator now leads the opposition. On his election Nasheed said, “A test of our democracy will be how we treat Maumoon.”

    The lecture ends (you can see the full text of it here) and I search out Paul who tells me with some trepidation that getting an interview with the president today remains “very unlikely”. I remind him this is my last full day in Malé and I think he can see I’m finding it hard to hide my exasperation. He looks a little like a rabbit in headlights, poor boy. After all, he knows how far I’ve flown, and that I’m here on these dates at his invitation and the promise of a presidential audience. “Look, could you do me a favour?” he says “Go and introduce yourself to Ziattey, he’ll be with the president, you’ll recognise him from his ponytail. He’s Nasheed’s right-hand man, they go back a long way. If you can convince him then you might get your interview”. It seems Paul thinks I have a better chance of getting my interview than he has. (In all fairness, I get the feeling Paul is constantly grappling with a moveable feast when it comes to dealing with the presidential diary and he’s been doing his absolute best.)

    At a buffet lunch in a private room I find ‘Ziattey’ (former democracy campaigner Mohamed Ziyad) and introduce myself. “I’m hoping to interview the president,” I say and recount my months of communication with Paul. He assesses me with a kind of bemused indifference. Being Executive Services Secretary Ziyad looks after the Secretariats of the President, Vice President and Special Envoy and visiting authors are, I would imagine, of as much interest to him as the next Simon Cowell manufactured slice of Christmas muzak is to me, i.e. of no interest at all. “This is the first we’ve heard of you,” he says. “Paul hasn’t mentioned you to us at all. There is no chance of you getting an interview. The president is busy.”

    Bollocks.

    There’s a part of me that’s about to lose it, but I suspect throwing a tantrum in a room filled with government officials will totally scupper the now, admittedly, wafer thin possibility of an audience with Nasheed. I’ve not given up yet.

    I spy the jocular Wahid (who sat next to me during the lecture) talking to the president as they both nibble on spring rolls from the buffet. Wahid, as ever, looks like he’s just heard (or is about to tell) the funniest joke ever told. They’re an odd pairing – Nasheed has the look of a jockey, while Wahid looks like a Maldivian Oliver Hardy. I use the fact I ‘know’ the larger man to infiltrate the circle, via a Ziyad-distracting ‘dummy’ visit to the buffet (where I admittedly do pick up an Onion Bhaji).

    Bhajing in on the president

    Bhajing in on the president

    I compliment Nasheed on the lecture and remind him of our brief introduction after the cabinet meeting. Ziyad is instantly on to me and I see him moving towards us with a look of ‘must save the president from the author’ on his face. I make my last ditch effort, explaining (very quickly) to Mohamed Nasheed that I have travelled here on the promise of an audience with him and leave the island tomorrow. Ziyad is now with us. This is absolutely the last hope I have. The president turns to him.

    “My diary is pretty full today”. Ziyad nods. “So, the only way we can do it… is now? We can do it now I think.” My hopes rise. He wants to help me out and is trying to find a way. Bingo. My dad always used to say, ‘If you want anything done, go to the top’.

    Ziyad looks slightly annoyed. I’ve exhibited out-and-out brass-neck by directly asking the president for an interview moments after he has told me it’s impossible. I’ve shown his authority no respect and now his boss is on my side. I’m an irritant he wasn’t expecting when he woke up this morning, and you can’t blame him for being miffed.

    “How long do you need?” asks Nasheed. The ways thing are looking I suspect I’ll be lucky to get 10 minutes. Still, in for a penny, in for a pound.

    “An hour?” I say.

    To my complete surprise the president says, “OK, but it has to be now.” Bingo! again.

    “Here?” I ask.

    “No, we’ll do it at the presidential offices.”

    Before I know it I’m in a coterie of officials, (including, I notice, security staff with those funny earpieces) being escorted out of the building. Ziyad ushers me into the back of black windowed car that starts to drive off before I’m fully in it and he reprimands the driver. From this moment on he becomes helpful, if still rather peeved. But if Nasheed has agreed to talk to me he’ll make it happen.

    We arrive at the presidential offices and rush straight through security. In the lift I try to break the emotional stand-off between us by asking him if he was with the president when he was exiled in Sri Lanka and Britain. “No, I was here,” he says.

    “That must have been difficult?” I respond. “The last regime didn’t really make it easy for you.”

    He looks at me like I’ve just said the most facile thing possible. And then his face saddens a little. “It was hard,” he says softly. That’s an understatement. I subsequently find out that as a key figure in the democratic movement he was targeted and abused by Gayoom suffering arrest, solitary confinement and torture. The businesslike man escorting me to my interview was so severely treated by the National Security Services that it took a long spell in intensive care to recover. Now he confidently walks the corridors where the former regime endorsed and ordered the indignities he was forced to suffer. I’ll probably never get a chance to talk to Mohamed Ziyad again and that’s a shame. His story, like so many who fought for change here, is extraordinary.

    Mohamed Ziyad

    Mohamed Ziyad

    I’m ushered into a wood-paneled meeting room and a few minutes later Nasheed enters, smiling. It’s less than 15 minutes since Ziyad had told me there was no chance of me getting an interview.

    In person Nasheed is both compelling and, well, normal – and surprisingly candid and open. There is little of the guarded phrasing typical of career politicians. By contrast he’s ‘fresh’ and disarming. Early in our conversation he says “You know I’m always told ‘be cautious – not to do that, don’t say that, you can’t be saying this’. I end up saying something ‘wrong’ every week and they don’t like it.” He smiles. “But I have to go on saying what I believe in.” The ‘they’ in question is the government machine he’s inherited, which clearly frustrates him. It’s a common refrain I’ve heard in my travels – that the way governments work is frustrating, compromised and slow (it’s particularly revealing to hear it from a head of state) –  and increasingly I realise I’m meeting people who’ve decided to get on a do things without waiting for government to catch up.

    Examples include:

    • Harvard genetics pioneer George Church who has been working to create a surveillance and licensing strategy for the synthetic biology industry for the last five years. “Part of the reason governments don’t want to act is because they don’t want to be accused of being clueless, which they are when it comes to my field.”  So George has just got on with creating an international consortium of more or less all of the key players in synthetic genome and gene synthesis. He hopes that when the details are worked out the government will ‘rubber stamp’ it.
    • …or Vicki Buck, the ex-mayor of Christchurch, New Zealand (who I’ll blog about as my virtual self – this blog – catches up with the real me just back from the Antipodes) who sums up her view rather brilliantly as, “if we wait for governments to sort out the climate change thing, we’re buggered”. Vicki quit politics to become a Clean Tech entrepreneur, and her eco-directorships now outnumber her limbs.

    The logic, and it’s seductive, is we do not need to wait for legislators to give us permission or guidance. Indeed, it’s increasingly clear, many argue, that they cannot. The mighty ‘ideas broker’ Nick Gerristen who I meet in New Zealand said:

    “One of the biggest issues I see is that we are expecting a system that led us to where we are, to now ‘remarkably’ be able to correct itself and take us further – in many senses do a 360 degree turn and contradict itself. For me Copenhagen was a stunning example of this reality – the end of the world system has started….and so yes, we need something else…more elegant, subtle but more powerful  enabling and encouraging individuals to reclaim their personal sovereignty… to encourage thinking and most importantly action.”

    Einstein encapsulated it nicely too:

    “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”.

    Even Arnold Schwarzenegger is saying something like it.

    “I believe technology and economic focus will overtake the politics and regulatory efforts of national governments. We are beginning on a historic great transformation, a new economic foundation for the 21st Century and beyond. We in California do not wait for Washington or Beijing or Kyoto. We are moving forward and making great progress.”

    When both Einstein and The Terminator agree on something it’s compelling in a whole new way. (In my mind’s eye I suddenly imagine the physicist and the cyborg discussing the relativistic characteristics of the Uzi 9 millimetre machine gun).

    'I agree with the German'

    'I agree with the German'

    'The Austrian has a point'

    'The Austrian has a point'

    Nasheed isn’t waiting either – as demonstrated by his commitment to, and action on turning the Maldives carbon neutral. But he still has to deal with the frustrations of government, does he not? He laughs and says something I didn’t expect.

    “I think what’s helping me is Tom Sharpe,” – an out-of-the-blue reference to the English satirical author whose comic novels are famous for graphically and lewdly lampooning authoritarianism. “The comedy of it all – of government, of endless meetings, another meeting and again another meeting. You’d be amazed at the kind of ‘work’ I do,” chuckles the president. “Apparently I am doing work they tell me. I hope to find a conclusion for each meeting, but in the end what you decide upon… is to have another meeting.”

    The Copenhagen Climate conference must have been a special kind of hell for Nasheed, yet he was hailed as “the real hero” of the conference by Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen. “The Copenhagen Accord is a long way from perfect. But it is a step in the right direction towards curbing climate change,” said Nasheed, before returning home to get on with leading by example.

    Nasheed understands better than most how to negotiate the seemingly impossible, and to have the patience to endure the  almost infinite progression of baby steps to a resolution.

    “When you reach a dead end in trying to convince someone or trying to do something it would be best to give it a moment, and give it some thought. There’s no value in just banging on. There’s always more than one avenue to any  destination. All roads actually, finally lead to Rome. Even in a dead end, when things get really, really bad you have to keep going – however badly you suffer, whatever losses you incur, you just have to keep going. You have to make a tiny step. Don’t just be stuck with a single option.”

    By example Nasheed recalls his interrogations at the hands of the last regime’s Chief of Police, Adam Zahir – which became a battle of wills. “I can see many would say there is no point reasoning with him, but there is nothing else better than reason,” he says. “And despite his reputation, you could see he was wobbly”.

    Zahir was the only person Nasheed asked to resign when power was transferred. I’m fascinated by how he works with those who remain in a military and police force that formerly worked to oppress him. He answers with a typical optimistic pragmatism.

    “I think they, being very hard people, with their military background and minds, actually look up to me because I did not capitulate.” Suddenly he becomes stern, and the pencil he is holding becomes a pointer. “They tried their best,” he says stabbing it forward. “They tried to get me to capitulate.” He lightens. “You know some of the police officers I work with now are my personal interrogators.” He’s almost amused by the irony, but then a hint of metal creeps back into his voice. “They know who they’re talking to”.

    Our talk turns to climate change.

    “This is the biggest challenge we will ever face,” he says. “Not terrorism, not piracy, not drug dealing: nothing compared to this. So we really need to try and do something about it. No matter how small or however insignificant we may be.”

    “Are there some parallels between a man in solitary confinement and a tiny nation in the midst of the world’s biggest problem?” I ask. “Do you think something in your solitary confinement prepared you for this role?”

    He looks at me squarely and I worry for a second my question might be taken as making light of his ordeal, that I’m trying to spin it as a useful experience and have therefore have trivialised what happened to him. But instead he exclaims, “I think you’re very right there! Yes! If you can muster the faculties to survive in solitary for long periods of time you must have some mechanisms, some tools upon which you can build a strategy for stopping global warming. Very true.” He points, not at me, but as if as some philosophical target hovering between us. “I was just one person right in the middle of some huge, very sophisticated machinery. And we are in solitary, in a cell, surrounded by bigger nations and big countries with huge achievements and we are just probably nothing, but still…” He shrugs. “…we have our ideas. We want to survive. We are not asking for much.”

    From this point on it becomes hard to separate the man from the nation. When he speaks ‘I’ and ‘we’ become interchangeable. When he recalls the struggle for democracy or talks of the current battle against global warming the language is also transposed freely between the two (indeed he often slips between timeframes when answering a question). For him it seems the two are not separated, but two events in an ongoing war to help his homeland flourish. Perhaps this is why so many people find Nasheed a compelling negotiator – an ability to come across not just as a representative of his country, but an embodiment of it. In our time together I certainly begin to get this feeling. It’s as much in the way he rebuffs hard line Islamists (who have publicly criticised him this week for removing his wetsuit and exposing his chest at the close of Saturday’s water-bound cabinet meeting) as it is his views of political and environmental realities. “No sane Maldivian would think you could be in the water with anything on you. What are they talking about? Have we ever gone swimming with a T-Shirt on? No! So why should the president? That is not the Maldives.” The message is something like ‘I’m a Maldivian first, and the president second’.

    Nasheed hoisted by own petard

    Nasheed hoisted by own petard

    That sea, which is such a part of the Maldivian national psyche is also, many believe, the biggest threat to the nation. Certainly if enough of the ice sheets currently melting in the Antarctic and Greenland slip off the land into the water the Maldives are likely to be one of the first nations to disappear below the waves. Nobody will care who’s wearing a T-Shirt or not then.

    Given the severity of the threat he sees to his nation how does he keep optimistic?

    “With the belief that there is hope, that there is a bright future. By seeing another picture other than the very fearful picture that is staring you right in the face.” He slips time frame and we’re back in the democracy battle. “What I would try to do is imagine another country, another homeland, another time, other circumstances”

    That can’t always be easy to do though? Earlier in our conversation Nasheed had told me that nearly everyone around him told him the fight for democracy was ill-fated (“My family, everyone, told me ‘You have a good life, two daughters, a good wife, you have a home, a job – what is the point?’”) and it’s not hard to find commentators who suggest the battle against global warming is futile. This is the view that we should be battening down the hatches and giving up – a view that sees the Maldives’ plan for carbon neutrality as a ridiculous and facile footnote on the inevitable march to climate Armageddon.

    “There is always the option of resigning yourself to whatever you have and then not think about other possibilities and other futures,” he says. “But working against the odds has been our thing and it has given us some tools for working towards a better picture. You have to believe that you can.”

    At its core then it’s all about having the right vision?

    “I’ve always been optimistic. I feel if you can show the light at the end of the tunnel it’s bearable to move out from difficult times and situations – if you see some light at the end. It’s easier to go towards that and reach that goal. I know that this is huge odds, but if you look at the situation the Maldives were in five years ago, most people would have said ‘what is the point with the democracy movement? we are wasting our time.’”

    The fact I’m having this conversation with a head of state who was a former political prisoner, whilst sat in the presidential offices, rather amplifies the essence his argument.

    The big picture, the goal, the brighter future, optimism that things can be achieved. All admirable ideals, but how does one hold onto these when you’re embroiled in the ‘endless meetings’ and the ‘comedy’ of government he talked about earlier? By way of an answer he sighs and puts his hand to his temple in a gesture of comic resignation. This inspires me to ask if, in a strange way, he misses his days in solitary and spent under house arrest, where he had plenty of time for thinking. He smiles.

    “I really do,” he says almost wistfully. “I’m surviving from the reserve – and my feeling is you will only be able to survive for five years on a reserve – and this is probably why five years is a natural term for anyone to be a leader.”

    “Your brain is too full with the day-to-day now?”

    He sits forward. “You don’t get the bigger picture,” he says urgently. “You lose the concepts. So then you get hold of processes, frameworks, strategic plans, matrices – it’s all very good…” He tails of. “But if you don’t see the bigger picture…” he shrugs.

    This is the essence of leadership. Keeping to a simple vision, even when things get complicated. Later during a visit to Australia, a man called Bruce Ward (who helps me investigate the way soil carbon could reverse the effects of global warming) wisely remarks ‘Keeping things simple isn’t easy’.

    The president points to the clock indicating that our time is nearly up. I have one more question, and then a request. First I want to know what it’s like being a head of state. This is the first president I’ve met (and will possibly be the last).

    “You’re quite young to be president. Do you ever wake up and go ‘my God, how did I get here?’” I ask.

    He smiles, and takes a moment to think.

    “You do feel that, you know, you’re not so grand, you’re not so big – but people take you to be. But you only have one of a president, so the whole system is arranged around looking after me.” He pauses. “It leads you to very awkward situations, where you think ‘Oh my God, can I have some moment for myself?’ Every single step you make, everyone, someone is watching you.”

    Nasheed is both ordinary and extraordinary at the same time. Like his idea for an underwater cabinet meeting he manages to mold day-to-day reality with something singular and exceptional. He is both a leader and eminently approachable (as evidenced by the method by which I finally got my interview). Having met him it seems almost obvious that he’d want to have a cabinet meeting underwater.

    Time is short and I decide in the little time I have left to do a bit of advocacy for Klaus Lackner and his carbon scrubbing technology (see my post on meeting Klaus here). The president hasn’t heard of Klaus (although he has heard of Klaus’ key advocate, the mighty Wally Broecker). As I explain the potential of Klaus’ work you can see his brain working. His eyes go up and to the right. He leans forward. How much money does Klaus need? (Nasheed tells me he is hoping to put aside $100million each year for investment in his carbon neutral project). I repeat the figure Klaus gave me of $20million to take his technology to the next stage – a design that can be rolled out worldwide. Suddenly I find myself suggesting to the president that maybe one of the deserted islands in the Maldives might act as a good demonstrator for the technology, to show the world its potential. As an act of cheek it goes beyond anything I’ve ever done (Clearly this is a day for sticking my neck out). The bloke from New Cross has just overstepped the mark. Except the president says, “So he should come down here, and we could give him some room…”

    Should I put him in touch with Klaus?

    “Please do!”

    And what would be the best way of doing that I wonder?

    “I think the best way would be to get in touch by personal e-mail,” he says, scribbling his contact details on a piece of paper and handing it to me. I’m dumbfounded. A president has just handed me his private e-mail address. (It’s not a government e-mail account, it’s hosted by one of the world’s popular web-mail providers.) I want to phone my mum and shout ‘Mum! Guess what?!

    I have one last question. What’s his one tip for approaching the future?

    “Never give up hope, you know? Never give up. Just keep moving.” He pauses. “Tomorrow must be better. Tomorrow is better.”

    Our interview is over and we pose for a photo together as I thank him for his time. He smiles readily and, ever the diplomat, thanks me for my questions.

    nasheed and author

    And then he is gone. A presidential aid escorts me out the back entrance of the offices and I am once more on the humid streets of the capital. I have a huge grin on my face. It’s not just that I finally got my interview, it’s because the interview has made me feel lighter.

    Nasheed is a lightening rod for optimism, and it’s hard not to feel better about the future after spending time with him. And then it strikes me forcibly that it’s not just him, but all the people I’ve been meeting. From Nick Bostrom, the philosopher, to George Church the geneticist. From Wally Broecker the climate scientist to Cynthia Breazeal the robotocist. From Hod Lipson the Artificial Intelligence pioneer to Xavier Claramunt, the orbital hotelier. All of them are inspired by what can be done, all of them are doing something to make it real. And none of them is waiting for permission.

    During our interview Nasheed had said

    “Thoughts are real, they’re material. Once you have given thought to something, it then becomes material very often and quickly. If you can see a bigger picture then you work for that.”

    He is, of course, right.

  • September23rd

    It’s a big question, but one that is particularly pertinent to my interview today with Robotics and Artificial Intelligence researcher, Hod Lipson. Because Hod and his team build machines that find truths.

    The search for truth has a long history (one could argue it is history) which I’m not about to get into (and it’s not the book I’m writing) but if someone said to me ‘Go on then, history of truth in 5 minutes’ I’d probably reach for two key figures – Socrates (born Greece, 469 BC) and Francis Bacon (born England, 1561), not least because they both died in interesting ways (which is useful for storytelling).

    Socrates was put to death by the state of Athens for “refusing to recognise the gods recognised by the state” and “corrupting the youth” (explaining perhaps why Black Sabbath rarely toured in Greece). Despite clear chances to escape his fate, Socrates placidly took a drink containing poison hemlock prepared by the authorities. Francis Bacon, many believe, died as a result of trying to freeze a chicken. It might seem odd therefore to hold up both as key figures in the history of reason.

    Socrates natural hier?

    Socrates' natural heir?

    You may also wonder why I am suddenly diving into the past when I’m writing a book about the future. Bear with me, and blame Hod Lipson and his robots.

    Both Socrates and Bacon were very good at asking useful questions. In fact, Socrates is largely credited with coming up with a way of asking questions, ‘The Socratic Method’, which itself is at the core of the ‘Scientific Method’, popularised by Bacon during ‘The Enlightenment’ – a period of European history when ‘reason’ and ‘faith’ had an almighty bunfight and the balance of power between church, state and citizen was being questioned. Lots of philosophers and scientists challenged the prevailing orthodoxy of religious authority by saying ‘we need to make decisions based on critical thinking, evidence and reasoned debate, not on sacred texts and religious faith’ and the church replied with ‘yes, but we own most of the land, plus people really like the idea of God. Ask them’.

    I'm pretty popular, actually

    I'm pretty popular, actually

    The Socratic Method disproves arguments by finding exceptions to them, and can therefore lead your opponent to a point where they admit something that contradicts their original position. It’s powerful because it kind of gets people to admit to themselves that they’re wrong. It’s also pretty good at exposing your own (as well as others’) prejudices and gaps in reasoning. Lawyers use it a lot. Don’t let this influence you against it. Lawyers also use toilet paper and you’re not about to reject that idea.

    Used by lawyers

    Used by lawyers

    Here’s an example.

    During excessive bouts of hard and progressive rock emanating my older brothers’ bedrooms my dad used to say, “people only play electric guitars because they can’t play real ones” (by which he meant acoustic guitars played by nice chaps called Julian with sensible haircuts, as apposed to electric guitars played by long haired geezers called Dave and Jimmy).

    First step of Socratic method: assume your opponent’s statement is false and find an example to illustrate this. This You Tube clip of Pink Floyd’s David Gilmour playing acoustic guitar for instance. Clearly Dave Gilmour can play a ‘real’ guitar as well as an electric one and my dad must grudgingly accept the fact. At this point dad would assert that Dave Gilmour was ‘the exception that proved the rule’.

    Next step. Take your opponent’s original statement and restate it to fit their new modified position. “So, dad, you’re saying that people only play electric guitars because they can’t play acoustic ones, except for Dave Gilmour who can do both?”. Then return to step one.

    Ironically this led us to playing dad far more Black Sabbath, Pink Floyd, Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin than if he’d kept his theory to himself. (MTV’s ‘unplugged’ series would become his nemesis). Eventually dad would have to admit the truth – which was not that the rock musicians we listened to weren’t talented, but that he just didn’t like rock music.

    This example is trivial but you can use the method to demonstrate some pretty esoteric points, and expose fundamental new insights. A popular example that can really annoy your mates in the pub is proving that things don’t have a colour.

    Socratic argument, while undoubtedly one of the most useful things ever devised can also annoy the tits of people, as the man who lends it his name found out to his cost. The story is that Socrates used his technique to prove a lot of bigwigs in Athenian society were mistaken in their thinking – and they responded by having him killed. This proves that engaging people’s brains is never enough if you want change. You have to engage their emotions too. As Professor George Church said to me during our talk last week “Politicians know how effective emotion is in comparison to rational thought. You can really move mountains with emotion.  With rational thought you just end up getting people to change the channel”.

    By the time Francis Bacon went to university, teachings of one of Socrates’ students, Aristotle, had become entrenched as the way to conduct ‘scientific inquiry’. Aristotle had pioneered deductive reason, the practice of deriving new knowledge from foundational truths, or ‘axioms’. In short, it was generally believed that if you got enough boffins together to have a solid debate, scientific truth would be teased out over time. This worked well for mathematics where axioms had been long established (e.g. the basic mathematical operations – plus, minus, divide, multiply) but was less good for finding out new stuff about the physical world. Much to Francis’ dismay it seemed that science involved sitting around in armchairs. Nobody was getting off their arse and observing anything new or doing any experiments. Nobody was finding the ‘axioms of reality’ (which is arguably a good name for a progressive rock outfit).

    'Let's do it in 13/8!'

    'Let's do it in 13/8!'

    In common with Socrates Bacon stressed it was just as important to disprove a theory as to prove one – and observation and experimentation were key to achieving both aims. In a way he was Socrates 2.0 (which is another good name for a prog band). He also saw science as a collaborative affair, with scientists working together, challenging each other. All of this is hallmark of scientific good practice today – observe, experiment, theorise… and then try to prove yourself wrong – all in collaboration with peers who can give you a hard time. It’s important to note that Bacon himself wasn’t a distinguished scientist. His main contribution was the articulation and championing of an empirical scientific method. That said, he did do the odd experiment, including the one that killed him.

    While traveling from London to Highgate with the King’s personal physician, Bacon wondered whether snow might be used to preserve meat. The two got off their coach, bought a chicken and stuffed it with snow to test the theory. In his last letter Bacon is said to have written, “As for the experiment itself, it succeeded excellently well.” Some historians think the chicken story is made up, but the popular account is that the act of stuffing the chicken led to Bacon contracting fatal pneumonia. This is possibly the only instance of bacon being killed by eggs.

    Reason's nemesis?

    Reason's nemesis?

    Hod Lipson looks like a very friendly bear. He has a round, but not chunky frame, thick black hair and looks healthy and happy. His features are open and innocent. He’s almost childlike if it weren’t for his demeanour – a kind of solid confidence that only comes with age. You get the feeling Hod knows exactly what he wants to achieve. I suspect he was a mischievous child, curious, poking his nose into most things. And whilst most of the scientists I’ve met are driven by an almost insatiable curiosity, Lipson takes curiosity to a new level, literally. He’s curious about curiosity.

    “ ‘Artificial Intelligence’ is a moving target,” he says. “So, you can build machine that plays chess, then you build one that can drive through city streets and so on. People argue about whether it’s really intelligent or not – and usually it’s argued it isn’t. I want to create something where nobody can argue it isn’t intelligent. So, I was thinking about what’s an unmistakable, unequivocal hallmark of intelligence, and I think it’s creativity and particularly curiosity.”

    “Does a curious and creative machine mean a sentient machine?” I ask.

    “Well, what does that mean?” asks Hod. “I have to push you on what you mean by ‘sentient’.”

    Bollocks. I’ve just been asked by a leading researcher into intelligent machines to define sentience – one of the biggest pending questions in philosophy. This is worse than when Cynthia Breazeal asked me to come up with an alternative word for ‘robot’. Or if Andrew Lloyd Webber asked me to say something nice about one of his musicals. I feel out of my depth and we’re barely into our chat. I do the only thing I can.

    “Well, let me ask you,” I say. “What do you mean by it?”

    Hod pauses. I’m not sure he was expecting a return serve, especially one that in any decent rule book would be considered cheating.

    “I interpret it as deliberate versus reactive. Er… human-like…” He pauses again. “I don’t know.”

    A-ha! Well, like I said, it is one of the biggest pending questions in philosophy.

    “Alive?” I venture.

    “It’s difficult to identify what life is right?”

    And there’s the rub. Life has avoided a definitive definition for as long as we’ve tried to make one – as has ‘intelligence’. So if you’re trying to create ‘artifical intelligent life’ you’re already in a quagmire of semantic lobbying. I’m reminded of my chat last week with George Church (Professor of Genetics, Harvard Medical School). “I think life is actually quantitative measure,” said George, by which he means something that can be defined not with either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ but on a scale. “It’s not something where either you either have it or your don’t. So I would say that there are some things that are more alive than others.” And  I don’t think it’s overstating things to say that Hod certainly has made machines that are ‘more alive’ than many others.

    Then he says an interesting thing. “I think men have this hubris of wanting to create life. We try to create life out of matter.”

    ‘Hubris’ is one of those words like ‘semiotics’ and ‘insurance’ that I’ve heard a lot but didn’t really know what it meant for a long time (I’m still struggling with ‘insurance’). I look up ‘hubris’ when I get to back to my hotel. It means excessive pride or arrogance. In classical literature it’s usually a precursor to, and the cause of, a character’s downfall. The legend of Icarus is a good example. With that one word Hod has encapsulated the two defining criticisms aimed at Artificial Intelligence research. On one end there are those who say we’ll never create a truly artificial intelligence and that we’re arrogant to believe we can. On the other there those who worry we will build smart machines and in our arrogance be blind to the danger that they will one day do away with or enslave us. (There are more measured positions in between the two such as Hubert Dreyfus’s and Hod’s own – both of who suggest that a lot of AI research has been in the wrong direction).

    Hod doesn’t believe in the latter James Cameron-esque scenario, but sees a confederacy of man and machine. He has some sympathy for the ‘singularity hypothesis’ of Ray Kurzweil (who I’m interviewing early next year) which talks of a ‘merger of our biological thinking and the existence of our technology’ but doesn’t see a machine-human hybrid (Juan Enriquez’s Homo Evolutis) as the only scenario. “Merging could also mean intellectually merging, meaning that they explain stuff to us.”

    Lipson became famous (in robotic circles) for his work building robots that are arguably self aware. His Starfish robot, which I see sitting forlornly on a shelf in his lab, is iconic for learning to walk from first principles. It wasn’t given a program that told it how to move its various motors and joints to achieve locomotion. Instead Lipson gave it a program that enabled it to learn about itself – and use this knowledge to subsequently work out how to move.

    “The essential thing was it created a self image,” Lipson tells me. “It created that self image through physical experimentation. So it moved its motors, it sensed its motion and then it created various models of what it thought it might look like – ‘maybe I’m a snake? maybe I’m a spider?’ We told it to create models – multiple different explanations that might explain what it knows so far.”

    The robot then stress-tested those models by sending them into competition with each other. “It creates an experiment for itself that focuses on the area where there’s the most disagreement between what the models predict. We put in the code to look for disagreements,” explains Hod.

    For example, let’s say the robot is wondering which move to do next in order to learn about itself more. It could try a movement that, when completed, the models all predict it will be sitting at an angle of about 20 degrees. One model might predict 19 degrees, another 21 degrees, a third 21.2 degrees. However, if it tries another move the models have very different ideas about the result. One says the robot will be at an angle of 12 degrees, another predicts 25 degrees, a third says 45. This latter movement is more likely to be the one the robot chooses next, because it will learn the most from it, and get an idea of which model is closer to the truth. It’s where there’s most disagreement that there’s most to learn. “We tell it ‘you create models – multiple different explanations for what you see – and then look for what new experiment creates disagreement between predictions of these candidate hypotheses,” says Lipson “That’s the bottom line of curiosity”.

    The models that do best ‘survive’ and the program kills off the others. The remaining models ‘give birth’ to a generation of slightly mutated tweaked versions of themselves and another round of ‘survival of the fittest’ ensues. Or to put it another way, over many iterations the program hones in on a model that describes reality. The predictions get closer and closer to what actually happens until one model is deemed sufficient for the robot to say ‘this is what I look like’.

    If all this talk of ‘mutation’, successive ‘generations’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ sounds slightly familiar that’s because this kind of mathematics takes its inspiration from Darwin’s theories of evolution. Mathematicians might call it ‘reductive symbology’ or say Lipson’s work is a good example of ‘genetic algorithms’ – and it’s a technique that’s been around for decades. What’s different about Lipson’s work is the implementation, something he calls ‘co-evolution’.

    “We set off two lines of enquiry. So one of them is the thing that creates models and the other is the thing asks questions, and they have a predator/ prey kind of relationship. Because the questions basically try to break the models.” The questions try to find something the models disagree about so they can kill off the weaker ones. It’s like Anne Robinson in code.

    It has to be said that if you see the Starfish robot ‘walking’ you wouldn’t immediately think it had a future career as a dancer. It doesn’t so much walk as stagger and flop forward. It’s less Ginger Rogers and more gin and tonic. Still the achievement is not to be sniffed at. It had no parents and no role models. This was a robot actively learning to do something no one had taught it to. And robots that learn this way have all sort of interesting possibilities – as Lipson was about to find out.

    You can see Hod’s demonstrating his starfish robot in this TED talk.

    With colleague Michael Schmidt he wondered if the same computer program he’d placed at the core of his Starfish robot could go beyond working out merely what its host body looked like and begin to reach useful conclusions about the wider world.

    “We said ‘let’s take it out of this particular body and let it control motors of any experiment’ ”.  Their first idea was to give the robot brain control of motors that set up the starting position for a ‘double pendulum’ before letting it fall. The robot was also able to record the results of each experiment using motion capture technology – allowing it to accurately record the pendulum’s motion.

    A double pendulum is a bonkers little contraption. It consists of two solid sticks jointed together in the middle by a free moving hinge. Double pendulums do wacky things (You can see one in action here). Whilst the top pendulum swings from left to right the bottom one likes to mix it up. Because it’s not attached to a stationary point (like the top pendulum) but something moving (the bottom end of that swinging top pendulum) it will swing left, swing right, spin round clockwise, or counter clockwise, seemingly at random. Lipson and Schmidt chose the double pendulum because it’s a good example of a system that’s simple to set up but which can quickly exhibit chaotic behaviour – and therefore would be a good test of the technology’s ability to build a useful conceptual model of what was going on. The results were startling. In fact, the program went a long way to deriving the laws of motion. In 3 hours.

    It followed the same process as it had when it sat in the robot – guessing at equations that might explain what it had seen so far, then setting up new experiments (in this case new starting positions for the pendulum) that targeted areas of most disagreement between the equations. “With the double pendulum it very quickly puts it up exactly upright, because some models say it’s going to fall left and some models say it’s going to fall right. There’s disagreement. It’s not a passive algorithm that sits back, watching,” says Hod smiling. “It asks questions. That’s curiosity.”

    Just like humans, it seems machines learn best when they ask their own questions and find their own answers, rather than being given huge amounts of data to absorb. “Most algorithms you see are passive. They’re data intensive. You feed in terabytes of data and these algorithms just sit back and watch. But in the real world you can’t sit back and watch. You have to probe, because collecting data is expensive, it takes time, it’s risky.” By constrast Lipson’s machine brain “only ever sees what it asks for. It does not see all the data.” In fact Lipson decided to compare the efficiency of this ‘active’ method of enquiry against a more traditional passive ‘here’s all the data, what can you tell me?’ method. “It doesn’t work. It has go through a reasoning.”

    Remind you of anyone? I see the hemlock taker and the chicken freezer partially re-incarnated in machine form. The programming consigns inaccurate models to the dustbin by getting the robot to admit there are others that offer a better explanation of the real world  (hello Socrates) and does this with evidence won via experimentation (hello Bacon). What Lipson has done is create a computational methodology for asking good questions. And asking good questions is what it is all about when it comes to understanding anything.

    “Physicists like Newton and Kepler could have used a computer running this algorithm to figure out the laws that explain a falling apple or the motion of the planets with just a few hours of computation,” said Schmidt in an interview with the US National Science Foundation (who helped fund the research).

    However, we’re still a long way off what I (or Hod) would call an intelligent machine. It still takes a human to work out if anything the machine has found is useful. The machine didn’t know it had found laws of motion, it took Hod and his colleagues to recognise the equations that were produced. “A human still needs to give words and interpretation to laws found by the computer,” says Schmidt. So, we’re still some distance from Hod’s confederacy of man and machine, where they explain stuff to us.

    One of the areas Hod’s brains could turn out useful is cracking problems where there is lots of data, but we still have little idea what’s going on. Indeed plenty of people with acres of data have been beating a path to his door including heavyweight data generators like the Large Hadron Collider at CERN near Geneva. “The people as CERN said ‘there is this gap in a prediction of particle energy. Here’s data for 3,000 particles. Can you predict something?’ ” The result was a strange mix of elating and disappointing. “We let it run and it came up with a beautiful formula,” says Hod. “We were very excited but it was a famous formula they already knew. So for them it was a disappointment…. But for us… We rediscovered something that people are famous for.”

    Again, the crucial insight comes from humans who can tell if something means anything or not. It’s the crucial step – and without it the results are largely worthless (which is not to say the time saved is not incredibly useful). I’m reminded of a scene from Douglas Adams’ comedy The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy in which a supercomputer called Deep Thought is built by a race of supersmart humanoids to answer the ultimate question. ‘What is the answer?’ ask the humanoids awaiting instant enlightenment. ‘To what?’ says the computer. ‘Life! The Universe! Everything!’ they respond. ‘The ultimate question!’ The computer announces there is an answer… but it will take several million years to compute. At the duly allotted time millennia later the humanoid’s descendants gather to hear the answer, which is announced to be ‘42’. The problem, suggests Deep Thought, is that they don’t really know what ‘the question’ is.

    "You're not going to like it"

    "You're not going to like it"

    No-one understands the irony in this story more than Hod Lipson. “In biology there are many systems where we do not know their dynamics or the rules that they obey”. So he set his machine looking at a process within a cell. True to form the program generated an equation in double quick time. But what did it mean?

    “We’re still looking at it,” says Hod with a smile. “We’re staring at it very intently. But we still don’t have an explanation. And we can’t publish until we don’t know what it is.”

    “You don’t understand what it’s saying?

    “No,” says Hod.

    “But in science you go from observations which produce data, to models which produce predictions, to underlying laws – and from there you go to meaning. What’s good is that we can go from data straight to laws, whereas previously people could only go from data to predictions. So now a scientist can throw it some data, go and have a cup of coffee, come back and see 15 different models that might explain what is going on. That saves a lot of time. Previously coming up with a predictive model could take a career. Now at least you can automate that so you can focus on meaning.” That’s a powerful enabling technology. More time to think. Hod is doing for thinking what dishwashers have done for after  dinner conversation. Although it may not always work out that way.

    Several months later I e-mail Hod to see if they’ve got anywhere with the equation his machine generated from the cell-observing experiment. “We’re still struggling,” he writes “We’ve been trying for months to get the AI to explain it to us through analogy. But we don’t get it.” It could be that Hod’s machine has discovered something our human brains are just not smart enough to see. “Maybe it’s hopeless,” he says “Like explaining Shakespeare to a dog.” This is why Hod is trying to convince his collaborators to publish the equation anyway – and see if anybody else out there can shed light on its meaning.

    "Shakespeare? It's above me."

    "Friends, Romans... Hey! Is that a biscuit?!"

    Because Hod is curious about what makes us curious I ask him if his program could come up with a model of how to learn.

    “Could we use your program to observe data about how machines learn, or how people learn, and come up with a model of learning?”

    We’re getting seriously abstract now.

    Hod laughs. “That’s what we’re working on now. We’re working on what we call self reflective systems. We want to make machines meta-cognitive – they are thinking about thinking.”

    This is something of a departure from a lot of AI research. “Almost all the AI systems program a way of thinking and they do that thinking for you – which is the extent of it. You could argue that’s about as smart as a lizard. But if you want to get to human-like intelligence, you need a brain that can think about thinking…”

    Sadly (for this blog) Hod’s work in this area is currently unpublished so out of courtesy I’m leaving a more detailed explanation of what we discussed until the book is published. In summary however, Hod is taking his model of ‘co-evolutionary AI’ to the next level. Instead of modeling robot physiology, the motion of pendulums or data from physicists in Switzerland he has one robot brain trying to model how another one learns – and then, in true Lipson style, he’s asking one to challenge the other – in order to find out more. In this way one brain builds a model of how the other learns, and can start to make helpful suggestions.

    “That’s self reflection,” says Hod. He adds, “That’s important in life. You can learn things the hard way, or you can think about how you’ve been thinking.”

    It’s something you can imagine Socrates or Bacon saying.

  • September11th

    Boston13

    Today I meet George Church, professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School, a towering intellect and, as it turns out, a generous, warm and funny guy.

    I’m exhausted before I meet George. I’ve been cramming as much knowledge into my head as I can about the areas he works in. I don’t want to squander my opportunity with one of the fathers of the genetic age. I’m worried that my weariness will affect my concentration during the interview and as I approach 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur I’m almost dead on my feet. I have a splitting headache and feel deeply fatigued. Suddenly travelling, research, a couple of night’s fitful sleep and doing gigs in the evening has caught up with me. Pull it together Mark.

    Despite my tiredness I can’t help but be amused by a sign found all around the Harvard Medical School campus…

    Harvards smoking plan

    Some of the cleverest people on the planet work at Harvard Medical school – but it’s heartening to think that even they may sometimes need some help telling ‘inside’ from ‘outside’. 

    As soon as I sit down with George my tiredness vanishes. We’ve two hours allotted, which is generous given his standing. We talk in the end for four, and get on well. He likes the idea of the book and is a passionate advocate of communicating the implications of the genetic age to wider audiences. I’m a conduit. And really, when it comes to feeling tired, I can hardly complain. George is a narcoleptic.

    Perhaps one of the cornerstones of my book will be trying to convey just how deeply incredible and mind-blowing cells and the genetic apparatus they contain are. We are entering the genetic age where, within my lifetime, I am now convinced children in many nations will have their genome sequenced at birth. In the future you may well be given a user manual for you as your very first birthday present. Your genetic heritage and its implications will be accessible to you.

    If like me, you’ve heard the words ‘gene’, ‘genome’ and ‘DNA’ a lot, but not really understood the implications then you’re in for a shock. A good one I think. As I researched deeper into the subject I had numerous ‘Bugger me!’ moments.

    Imagine if you will that someone plonked a computer into the middle of a society that had never seen one. Imagine they start to examine it, first understanding and making sense of the different components parts, until after long years of study they discover that patterns of material they’ve found at various places throughout the computer are code. Sets of instructions. Then they learn to decipher the code. They can read it. Then they learn to alter it. Now the computer isn’t an impenetrable curio, now they can change it. It becomes a tool.

    Now replace the word ‘computer’ in the last paragraph with ‘human’ and you’ve got an idea of where biology has got to. You’re full of code. Code that we can now read, and potentially ‘fix’ and change. Stop for a second. Think about it. You’re full of code. In fact, every single one of your cells has code in it. Most cells have the entire code that describes you wrapped up inside. A trillion infinitesimal USB sticks of data that define how you are made.

    Some people call DNA a ‘blueprint’ but, as George and I discuss, it’s more a cookbook of recipes for all the different parts of you. Understanding not only the cookbook, but how particular cells choose which recipes to make, in what quantities, and how the external environment affects the chef is the challenge genetic medicine now faces.

    We’re just at the beginning of the genetic age. Juan Enriquez (who I’m seeing on Wednesday) makes the analogy that as explorers we have a genetic continent to discover, and so far we’ve mapped a part of the coast. Whilst the ‘code’ you are given at birth is important to understand, how that code is interpreted as we age, or affected by what we eat, drink and do (or ‘expressed’ in genetic parlance) is not fully understood. Or to put it another way, the interaction between us and our environment is yet to be made of sense of, genetically speaking.

    To this end George has set up the Personal Genome Project (PGP) – which is recruiting 100,000 volunteers who are “willing to share their genome sequence and many types of personal information with the research community” in order to “advance our understanding of genetic and environmental contributions to human traits and to improve our ability to diagnose, treat, and prevent illness”. Or, to put it another way to work out why some people who drink and smoke like crazy don’t get really ill, while most of us would. I’m one of the volunteers (for the PGP, not the drinking and smoking). George has put his money where his mouth is. Want to see his genome? Go here. See, I wasn’t joking about the narcolepsy.

    Anyway, if I started now on everything we discussed I’d have no time to prepare for my interviews next week. Suffice to say we covered ethics, engineering, gene therapy, synthetic biology, sociology and politics. And then he took me for a beer.

    I’ll return to the subject of genetics in future posts… for now, I need a brain rest.

  • September10th

    Another research day, perhaps for one of my biggest and most wide ranging interviews of the whole tour. Tomorrow I’ll meet George Church, professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and Professor of Health Sciences & Technology at Harvard and MIT. It’s no lie to say that his name will go down in history. His contribution to our understanding of genomics and life processes is huge.

    Professor Church jointly developed the first genomic sequencing method (in the early 80s) and was one of the key figures in getting the Human Genome Project off the ground. Oh, and he’s spearheading one of the most promising approaches to creating synthetic life – starting with a ‘toolkit’ of 151 essential biomolecules. All this means that I’m studying like crazy. I’ve got so much to ask him and am having to become a fast student of genetics… I don’t want to ask any stupid questions, given how privileged I feel to have secured an interview. Luckily, my interview with Mark Bedau has stood me in good stead, but even still.

    Let me tell you now. What’s happening in genetics will change everything.

    Everything.

    The more I read and understand the more amazed I become. The potential upsides are stratospheric, the implications fundamental, the ethical dilemma mind numbing…

    Luckily I’ll get some brain rest. I’ve just been called by Tommy’s Comedy Lounge offering a spot tonight…

  • September7th

    I arrive in Boston tired after a long journey from Guildford, via Woking, Heathrow and a nice chat on the plane with Ryan, a undergraduate physics student at Brown University (which has recently entered the public consciousness in the UK, it being the choice of Harry Potter actress Emma Watson). We have a long chat about genetics (he’s reading Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene) the Large Hadron Collider (he’s not a big fan, saying that the money spent on it could have funded thousands of other labs globally) and what to call meals when your flying between timezones. We can’t decide whether it’s ‘Linner’ or ‘Dunch’. Thinking about the LHC, its current ‘out of operation’ status is something of an embarassment all round, not least I suspect for the person who had to make the phonecall to all the funders… ‘What do you mean it’s the parts and the labour?!’

    Hungry, I find a seafood bar near my hotel, where I’m rewarded with a cool beer and the hugest starter I’ve witnessed, well, since the last time I was in the US. Even in these first few hours Boston reveals itself to be a town that values intellect. My waitress is training to be a pychotherapist after quitting her job as a producer at ABC and I chat to senior couple (childhood sweethearts) one of whom worked on Byte magazine, which was something of a sacred text for computer geeks everywhere in the late 70s. Before going to bed I e-mail my article about the psychology of humour to The Telegraph and note with amusement that they’ve let me have my gags about Ed Milliband (Labour) and Lembit Opik (Liberal Democrat) but have removed my suggestion that Tory’s get caught naked more often than representatives of other political parties. Hmmm. I’ll refrain from wondering what this says about The Telegraph’s sense of humour.

    A jet-lagged inspired early rise the next day sees me set of to explore Boston, which is deserted. I put this down to the early hour but it stays ominously quiet. Outside the MIT media lab (where I’ll interview Cynthia Breazeal on Wednesday) I meet a grumpy PhD who explains it’s a national holiday, ‘Labor Day’ (like William Shatner, a Canadian import). He’s not happy, explaining he’s left completing his doctoral dissertation a little late, hence having to work on a holiday that traditionally marks the end of summer for US citizens.

    The day warms into one of pure summery goodness (if this is the last day of summer it’s going out on a high) and I walk and walk and walk. All in all I’m out for 8 hours, and walking for 7 of them. In the Public Gardens I stumble on a large demonstration in support of President Obama’s proposed health reforms. It’s interesting to think that while I’m here I’ll be meeting scientists that may make many of the conditions that these demonstrators believe need legislative reform to provide equitable treatment a thing of the past. Indeed, my research on the genomics revolution shows it has the potential to drastically reduce the healthcare burden in all societies… but as ever politics will need to play its part. Let’s hope it’s an equitable one. Genomics has applications in reducing the cost of health care but also raises the ugly spectre of insurance firms turning you down for cover based on a risk-assessment of your genome.

    I chat to a few of the demonstrators and ask why they think some people are anti-reform. A few mention the worry it’s ‘socialism by the back door’. In America it seems anything that might have the word ‘socialist’ attached to it is treated like one of the ugly tumours genetic medicine may banish. It strikes me as sad that the word has become devalued by misinterpretation, like ‘feminism’ seems to have and, to a certain extent, ‘optimism’. One thing that is bothering me is that everyone I speak to asks me where in Australia I’m from.

    Boston is a city built on learning. You can’t move for college campuses. I wander to Harvard Medical School, where I’ll interview Professor of Genetics George Church on Friday and feel slightly awed by how important the building on 77 Louis Pasteur Avenue is in relation to the future of medicine and synthetic biology.

    Today, by contrast, was a research day, reading up on sociable robots… and comedy clubs in the city. I’ve scored a gig tomorrow night at Mottley’s Comedy Club which should be fun, my first gig in the states…

    I’ve just stayed up to do an interview on BBC Radio Wales about the psychology of humour, it’s 1:40am. Time for bed.

  • September6th

    The lovely Taragh Bisset, me and uber-comedians Robin Ince and Andrew O'Neill

    The lovely Taragh Bisset with me, and uber-comedians Robin Ince and Andrew O'Neill

    Girls are forward in Guildford. At least by proxy. As part of my gig for the British Science Festival I conducted an ‘experiment’ to judge how mirthful the town was – in short, a caption competition, on which I had left a box, underneath the place to put a caption, saying ‘anything else you want to tell us?’ Someone wrote ‘No’ which seemed rather redundant, one criticised a part of my set (possibly the only time I’ve been heckled in writing) but another wrote “My friend Fabia thinks you’re cute,” provided a phone number, and continued, “she’s not concerned about your financial status, has firm boobs and will wear socks.” Now, just to be clear the last three points weren’t just randomly volunteered (that would have plain scary) but referred to some of the gags I’d done earlier in the evening. Anyway I thought it only fair to phone said number from stage… and between us, the crowd and I left a rather awkward message. Still, it’s an interesting technique for picking up potential dates. Turns out Fabia is a budding (award winning) playwright and children’s authoress. Her mate Les won the caption competition. The picture was this…
    Public Hare

    Les wrote, “Michelle, they can see your public hare”.

    The gig was fun if a little nerve wracking. It’s been a while since I’ve done any stand-up and I was, well, rusty. The timing was a little off, and I missed a few builds (gags on top of another). Still, it was nice do something live again – and when I’ve finished the book I should really write a stand-up show based on it and get back out again. In fact I’m toying with the idea of doing a few gigs in the US if I can find some amenable clubs. The crew from Greg Atkins TV were there again, filming every success and failure. It’ll be interesting to watch. (We’d spent the afternoon filming my introduction to the series – essentially a very short version of what you’ll find under ‘About the optimist on tour’ link above). Tom, the cameraman did his fabulous Gollum on cue and I did a questionabe ‘Lord of the Ring’ gag about a Gollum/ Yoda love-in. Andrew O’Neill and Robin Ince were, as ever, brilliant. If you haven’t seen either, do so immediately. I particularly endorse Robin’s battle against creationists, and Andrew’s subversive and hilarious battle against racism…

    Andrew O’Neill battles racism:

    Robin Ince battles science denial:

    I also did my first live TV interview with BBC South to promote the gig, and have a new found appreciation for the talents of anyone that can present live as a result. In the media-frenzy that is my life I was also asked to be the guest editor on the science festival’s blog site – and put in a piece to The Telegraph for Tuesday’s science page. To think my first piece in a British national is in the Telegraph! My mum would be pleased, and the exposure can’t hurt…. But I think I need to go and sing ‘the red flag’ a few times.

    Right, off to the airport. I still can’t quite believe I meeting Cynthia Breazeal (sociable robots), Bill Mitchell (smart cities), George Church (Genetics), Rick Hess (solar power), Juan Enriquez (see post below ‘At one with Juan?’), Wally Broecker and Klaus Lackner (again, see post below ‘Cynicism and Climate Change’), finishing off with Hod Lipson (robots again). Also looking forward to meeting my American publisher Rachel Holtzman at Penguin and my good chum Colin, a neuroscientist in NY.

    My mind may be totally fried upon my return… Right off to Heathrow… While I’m flying, why not sign the ‘pardon for Alan Turing’ petition? I think it’s important.