Extreme Futurist Festival – Grinders, the Practical Transhumanists

I attended Rachel Haywire‘s Extreme Futurist Festival this past weekend and as I mentioned before, I found it to be much more artistic and counter-cultural than the Singularity Summit or Humanity+.  I like the empathetic side of the LA futurist scene.  Take Megan May Daalder‘s mirrorbox for instance.  She built a device as an art installation that shows two people half of their own face overlaid with half of their partner’s face.  This device supposedly builds empathy and is actually being studied by cognitive scientists.  It sprung from an artist’s urge to explore empathy.  I sometimes feel that us NorCal futurists do a poor job of exploring empathy.  We tend to be cold rationalists.

Several speakers at XFF were grinders, into present day augmentation and biohacking. Rich Lee made the case that we are too risk averse in America these days.  We lack the guts we used to have when we undertook the risky Apollo missions.  It seems fairly obvious that the more you have to lose, the more cautious you become, but I am pretty risk averse myself, so this may just be my cowardice talking.  Maybe our testicles are literally shrinking from all the endocrine disruptors in the environment. Though my girlfriend helpfully points out that testicles are not a prerequisite for bravery or for Apollo missions for that matter.

Lee went on to complain that excessive regulations and the risk of lawsuits were preventing us from getting jet packs into the hands of consumers where they belong.  I’m not generally sympathetic to this point of view since the most innovation seems to happen in the most heavily regulated states.   Also, a DOE scientist recently told me about the advances in energy efficiency brought about by government regulation.  Of course, the efficiency standards are controversial, and I understand Thiel’s argument that bits are relatively less regulated than atoms.  But I will say that lawsuits seem essential for the protection of the public from big corporations.  Even when regulations are needed they are often not properly enforced, so the public requires some recourse.  Part of me feels that if Lee is really interested in living in a gutsy place when men can be men and regulation is minimal, he might want to check out Somalia.

But I don’t want to bust on the grinders too hard.  The next speaker was Tim Cannon from Grindhouse Wetware and he talked about embedding magnets into fingertips which I guess is a grinder rite of passage.  It’s really the side of the ring finger of your non-dominant hand.  This adds a sixth sense where one can detect electromagnetic fields via the vibration of the magnet in their finger.  I had heard about this before and it seemed pretty cool, but not really that useful.  It sort of reminded of those Brainport sensory substitution devices where a vibrating matrix of pixels is placed on the tongue and represents images from a camera worn on the head.  I guess you can start to “see” the “image” of vibrations on your tongue after a while.  But then, this is not quite like that.  This is a totally new sense.  A sense of EM fields.  Meh.  Who cares?  I can always pull out my trusty gaussmeter for that.

But my ears perked up when Cannon noted that these magnets could really serve as a sort of an input port.  Any sensor data could be converted to EM vibrations.  He went on to describe a range finder glove called Bottlenose that basically gives the wearer who has embedded magnets a sonar sense.  Now that’s starting to get interesting.  I am still too cowardly to do it myself.  But when I said that I would wait until version 3.0, I was assured by a biohacker from Phoenix that they are already at version 3.0 and have worked out excellent bio-proofing to prevent toxicity, along with the optimal size, shape, and placement of the magnets.  Hmmm.  Let me think about it.

I could go on a long phenomenological rant here, but I will try to keep it short.  It’s really exciting to think about adding all of these extra senses.  I subscribe to the embodiment idea that our cognition is deeply shaped by our body and our senses.   Thus our cognition may be expanded by adding these senses.  At what cost? That’s less clear.  Will neurons be recruited away from the other senses?  But it will definitely change our experience of reality.  Consider the North Paw, a device that gives you a sense of north.  You could become like one of the aboriginal Guugu Yimithirr speakers who always know which way is north.  Which thought triggers an urge to go on a “how-language-shapes-cognition” rant, but I will refrain from that as well.  For now, I will only say that I find Boroditsky’s arguments compelling.

Anyway, Cannon also presented some other cool projects such as the HELEDD which is a tool to capture biodata and relay it via bluetooth.  This is one all the QS’ers are going to want.  They also have a transcranial Direct Current Stimulation device where you run electrical current directly into your brain called the Thinking Cap.  Dave Asprey has presented this sort of thing before.  The Grindhouse version comes with a library to operate an arduino controller so that you can tweak your brain electrocution, err stimulation.  Supposedly you can increase your working memory and concentration if you do it correctly.  I would definitely need to read up on this one more before giving it a shot.  It’s one thing to test this on stroke survivors without much to lose.  I feel like I have a higher level of cognition than your average stroke survivor.  (Most of the time.)  What are the long term consequences of shocking your brain incorrectly?

At the end of the day though, I was won over by Lee and Cannon’s bold and practical transhumanism.  I admire the grinder way of iterative biohacking to achieve affordable, open, and flexible hacks that anyone can access.  That stuff is really cool, even if I don’t have the guts to try it myself.

2012 Humanity+ Day 1 – Part 4 – Fred Stitt Online Education

This is part of an on-going series about the 2012 Humanity+ conference:
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 3.1

Architect and educator, Fred Stitt spoke at H+ 2012 about the future of education.  Stitt said that he had problems with education from an early age.  It annoyed him how inefficient it was to transfer information in a traditional classroom lecture.  It has a very low rate of bits per minute according to Fred.  I am less inclined to discount the bit rate of non-verbal communication, but I agree with the overall sentiment.  The “Education is broken” meme is gaining steam as evidenced by Thiel’s 20 under 20 fellowship where he pays promising young people to forgo college and start working directly on the projects they are passionate about.

Stitt’s preferred solution to the education problem is a little less controversial, namely, online learning. Online learning has received a lot of attention lately.  Norvig and Thrun’s Stanford online AI class famously attracted more than 100,000 students and was recently transferred over to Udacity, which is a private player in the online learning space.  MIT is a big participant with it’s OpenCourseWare and edX partnership with Harvard.  Coursera, which partners with many schools such as Stanford, Caltech, and Duke rounds out the Big Three of the Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) world.  So many big name schools have already started providing courses online.

Of course, I don’t want to neglect one inspirational small player, the Khan academy whose earnest founder, Sal Khan, won over the hearts (and pried open the pocketbook) of the Gates foundation.  Sal records very engaging lessons himself primarily using a virtual blackboard.  The Khan academy has quizzes for students and tools to help teachers keep track of student progress.  There is also a cool map to show students which foundational skills are required to learn each subject. I am pleased to say that I myself contributed in a small way to this project when I helped Asante Africa image a bunch of laptops to help native translators could translate Khan academy videos into several African languages.  My friend David is really into a free-schooling and was less enamored with Khan academy when he checked it out.  He thought it was too geared toward helping kids pass tests as opposed to actually learning the material.  I do agree that Khan academy’s work is more complementary to rather than than a replacement for standard classroom education.

But yeah, online learning.  It’s a thing.  According to Stitt, one of the issues that make online learning so important is the discriminatory practices of the current education system.  He pointed out the quotas that previously restricted Jewish student enrollment at the ivy league colleges and the current Asian quotas that appear to be in place.  He also mentioned that the faculty pose one of the largest obstacles to broader adoption of online learning.  So academia appears to be populated with backward racist luddites.  Do tell, Fred, do tell.

Stitt did acknowledge some drawback to online learning such as the lack of accreditation.  He argues that there will be various mechanisms for teachers to sign off on student mastery of subject matter as the field matures, but that schools that have traditionally acted as guardians of accreditation are fighting to maintain the status quo.  Stitt seems to suggest that skyrocketing education costs will provide more opportunities for new players to disrupt this situation.  Another problem with online learning is the lack of personal contact and feedback.  One solution Stitt brought up that I found interesting is the concept of multiple campus enrollment.  He is apparently suggesting that online students would be able to physically attend multiple campuses to interact with students and teachers.  Arguably, the students who stand to benefit the most from online learning, such as those in remote or undeveloped parts of the world, don’t have access to campuses anyway.  Those folks might be stuck waiting for immersive virtual reality to provide a technical solution for remote personal interaction.

Finally, it seems from my notes that Stitt suggested online learning could provide a platform to research the learning process itself.  I scribbled something about optimizing perception and lobe activation.  Now that does seem interesting.  As teachers can gather more data about precisely how the courseware is consumed, they will be able to identify the highest value techniques for students with various learning styles.  The Inner Life of the Cell video comes to mind when thinking about optimizing perception and lobe activation.  The maker of this video also presented at H+ this year and I will say more about this later, but students that watched this video scored well above a control group deprived of this animation when testing time came.

There is plenty more to say about online learning in relation to free-schooling and also the question of how humans will stay competitive in the face of automation.  I will try to dig into that more in future posts.

UPDATE:  I just came across this article in which the One Laptop Per Child folks just dumped a bunch of tablets on some African kids and let them teach themselves.  I must say that I have some skepticism around free-schooling, but this is pretty compelling.  My nagging concern is that without some curriculum, kids will overlook important foundational knowledge that is maybe less fun or interesting.  I like the idea of presenting kids with a carefully curated set of apps to explore on their own.  With this approach, care can be taken to include stuff grownups agree is important.

Do science fiction writers really write the future?

This is my multi-part series on the 2012 Humanity+ conference:
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

In my previoius post, I was discussing Kim Stanley Robinson’s talk at the 2012 Humanity+ conference.  One point I forgot to bring up was about the influence of writers.  Robinson made the assertion that the vision of H.G. Wells influenced the formation of the Bretton Woods system and thus deeply impacted the course of the 20th century.  I searched around but I couldn’t actually find anyone else who made that connection.  (At least no one sane.)  I tend to be skeptical when science fiction authors tell us how deeply impactful the work of science fiction authors is.  I heard this argument from Neal Stephenson at Black Hat this year where he promoted his Hieroglyph project.

Stephenson wants SF writers to start writing positive stuff to inspire the engineers again like they used to in the old days.  But I have a hard time blaming SF writers for the Great Stagnation of innovation.  SF writers have given us a bunch of great technology that the engineers have failed to deliver yet.  Where’s my immersive virtual reality?  Where’s my utility fog, dammit?  The world wide web was supposedly inspired by a dark story by Arthur C. Clarke, so engineers don’t appear to require HappyTimeUtopia stories to inspire them.

You know, I think that markets might play a role here somewhere.  Technically, we could probably build some sort of moon base, but no one wants to pay for it.  I was talking to a scientist from PARC at VLAB last night and told me that we spend more on air conditioning in Iraq than NASA’s entire budget.  So please don’t blame (or credit) the engineers or SF writers  too much for our lack of a bright shiny future.  Politics and markets play a pretty big role in what actually gets built.