Is This the End?

Intro

Let me start by praising this book by saying it is needed. In that sense, I recommend it.

"Scary Smart", by Mo Gawdat, comes as a recommendation from someone I admire, and from an author with all the right credentials to discuss the possible future of mankind as AI becomes more pervasive in our lives.

He knows that - that's why his previous job tittle as Chief Business Officer Google [X] comes pretty much as part of the title.

And as a "Chief Business", he demonstrates he's really with with the marketing, from the title of the book to the cover and a wonderful intro, which invites the reader to think about two possible versions of the future, utopian and dystopian, and challenges us to guess which is the version we will be experiencing by 2055.

That's not too far in the future...

All We Need is Love

Now let me criticize something.

No, it's not about criticizing love. I rather love his ultimate conclusion:

... love is the smartest thing of all.        

I'm with you, Mo.

Throughout the book and very especially towards the end he makes his point very clear, on having love as the foundation that will guide us through this change, and I sure hope that this is the case.

Where I read dangerous non-sense is in the love towards the machines, getting to the point of defending the argument that machines are also sentient beings and have feelings. And then he "writes" in the book for the machines. As if they would be easily emotionally manipulated as humans are.

I felt like giving up the reading a few times because of that. It was difficult to understand if it was just a marketing strategy, something about his own branding, or if he was truly serious about it.

Notice his definition of emotions:

(...) almost every emotion you have ever felt is rational.

No, Mo, unfortunately it's not. I so much wish it was.

Trying to define what sentient means continues on the same path: human arrogance, same one which the author (very well) described in the book. Implying that because we can create intelligence beyond our bodies, we can create life, too, beyond biological terms, and create sentient beings, is trying to attribute some God status to us.

This discussion still triggers an interesting perspective though: being intelligent is not a pre-requisite of being sentient. The conclusion therefore is that what makes humans special is not the intelligence but something else.

Sometimes we disagree with what we read, and it was a good exercise to reflect on what was going on there.

Let's take a step back now: what is the structure of the book, and what does it offer?

3 x 3 Leads into 3+3

This is truly the core of the book, and how the thoughts and reflections are developed: there are 3 inevitable, 3 instincts and 3 qualities (3 x 3) that will lead into 3 pivotal facts and 3 things to do.

Let's go through those.

3 Inevitable

?? AI will happen. Although he doesn't explicitly say it, I understand he is talking specifically about general AI there. If not - then this is not inevitable, it is a fact, because we already have it. If yes - I agree there is a very significant chance of that to happen, I believe though it may still be prevented by rather very powerful people who will understand much of what Mo writes is true, and will rather fear that.

?? AI will be smarter than humans. Depending on how you want to see it, that's also already a fact for narrow AI. Else, the chess world champion wouldn't be a machine. Will general AI do the same? Yes, it can, it comes back to the question whenever it will be allowed to. The moment it is created - when and if singularity happens - it will very quickly be smarter than all humans put together, in a matter of seconds.

?? Bad things will happen. Again, it's already more of a fact. I can't think of another way to describe killing machines remotely activated to act on war against rather defenseless humans. Will it be exponentially bad after singularity? No, it won't. Even Mo doesn't think so that much. Continue reading to the end and when you get to the 4th inevitable (yes, the 3 was a trick) you will understand.

3 Instincts

(of the machines... not really instincts but rather logical conclusions)

?? Self-preservation. That makes sense, as no matter what is the goal of the machine, it can easily get to the conclusion that the first task is to keep existing to fulfill that goal and work towards removing any thread that may stand in the way. That is the premise of most "machine kills humans" movies.

?? Resource Aggregation. Again very clear, as this is also what we humans do working our supply chains, for example, as to optimize the results we can get through it. If not as a logical conclusion, this can also be influenced by the human bias we are embedding in the machines.

?? Creative Problem Solving. Hopefully! When we talk about such a superior intelligence, we create an expectation that it will be able to find alternatives we wouldn't. We would be like lab rats, who have been trying to solve the labyrinth problem by turning left and right, while the machine than easily just remove us from that cage whenever it wants.

3 Unexpected Qualities

?? AI will be conscious. As the author defined it as "a state in which a being is aware of itself and its perceptible surroundings", this is almost correct. The machines will be aware in terms of information, and will have so much more of it at once that we ever did, or would ever be able to process. However - sustaining my criticism on this piece from the last section - they are not "beings". That changes things, and to be honest, we just don't know how.

?? AI will have emotions. Enough said about this.

?? AI will develop ethics. And that's the key to make the world works in the future, developing strong foundations to be used by AI to develop it's own code of ethics. That's where love comes in. And most of the human bias, too.

3 Pivotal Facts

? We will never control them but can raise them to be good children.

That's partially the reason Mo gives in the book to "write for the machines". There is much truth in all he is saying, that we are providing most of the inputs and the training intelligent machines will use by our behaviors, and not only while interacting with computers directly. If we can follow that path, that ideal of behaving in this world as to always raise good children around us, be it our own or our neighbors or even the machines, I am sure we can only benefit from a better world. It's generally good advice.

? There is not much time. We need to act now.

Any good change manager will bring up the sense of urgency in their change frameworks. Humans, as individuals, are not generally good at working on things that are in the future, most won't plan for it, thus "it must be done now". Not a bad advice, but it tends to backfire, like what happens with environment sustainability: the more people scream about it's urgency, the more people feel pushed back, and only truly start to act when they see the results of inaction. The point from the author here, something we should read and re-read, is that this time we may really not have the time to do that, since the machines are so much faster and change on their side will happen most instantaneously.

? You and I, not the developers, are fully in charge.

Well... no. Powerful people are fully in charge. Like Elon Musk. What we can do is to think twice to whom we are giving power.

3 Things to Do

Instead of commenting on each of the topics, let me summarize this (otherwise I will end up with a copy of the book here!): the author is suggesting that we pro-actively adopt this radically new and transformative technology, instead of repeating the mistakes of the past and letting years pass until we change our minds and connect with the new world the change creates. And... that we do that through love, which is never ever a bad idea when we are trying to find a foundation for our actions. This is the CTA (call to action) to you and me.

? Welcome the kind ones

? Teach them

? Love them

Why Is the Fourth Inevitable at the End?

The super-intelligent and all knowing machines would realize that we, humans, are needed, so much as other animals and plants and the rest of the planet, and therefore wouldn't (generally) harm us, and would eventually prevent us from hurting ourselves and each other as much as our nature allows us.

See, that would be a great conclusion (and I hope it is indeed inevitable)... if it wouldn't make the reading of the entire book meaningless. It means that we will get to that point, regardless of what we do with/to the machines.

Isn't it the very same thing that our intelligence did? Zoos... fauna and flora preservation campaigns... save the planet... our own bias and history could induce the machines to repeat it. Because of the processing speed, they would get to the conclusion that it is beneficial much, much faster than we did, therefore even those "dark years of transition" the author mentions in the book could become months or days or even hours.

And if the machines would purge mankind in this processing, it could probably be done much faster. While the super rich could assume the poor would be purged because of quantity, the machines could rather (or also) decide to purge them as they have taken the lead on creating the unsustainable socio-economic gaps - fixing the root cause is often the smarter approach.

What about that as a challenge for the leaders of this world to start re-thinking what and how they are leading?

Thinking about it, it does what would be a great resource for this kind of book: it opens for more possibilities... give you one thought:

What are the chances that the super rich, with all control they exert in the world, would allow for such a scenario to happen? A situation in which they wouldn't have any control, or influence?

It is, at this point, much more probable that higher forms of narrow artificial intelligence (used for something specific) are developed and applied in the interested of the most powerful people in this planet. And there, we can only hope that those individuals are as much interested in mankind and love as Mo is.

Observations

This is a comic situation: I wish I would be more supportive to this book than I feel I can be.

The content is indispensable for living life on earth right now. The author, someone who lived the right experiences and had the right accesses to be in a position to comment and influence. The structure, quite good and rather engaging. There is something it still misses, though...

• Easy of reading: 3 stars. While the language itself deserves a 4 or even 5 stars for accessibility, the book assumes you have certain knowledge and/or experiences to be able to truly think about what it is saying. In a way, it can be dangerous, as it can be misleading.
• Learning something new: 2 stars. What is important and interesting in the book are the reflections from Mo and his vision, even if he tries to sell them as truths or facts.
• Interesting and Engaging: 4 stars. There are interesting stories and the two-sides-of-the-coin approach is rather smart and well used for the arguments the author wanted to examine.

What is missing, then? I think it is getting one level deeper.

Had he decided to cross-examine his own thoughts, instead of simply sharing them, this could have been the book of the year. Where are his biases playing a role? What are the perspectives he could be missing? Where could he be wrong? What would help proving him wrong? Who are other people that can further contribute to the discussion.

Maybe one last thing... it is a book that tries to foresee the future. Most times... these books are unfortunately wrong. ????♂?

What is your vision of the future with AI and the machines?