The Tsunami Coming Up

Intro

I have raised a big exception within myself by reading "The Coming Wave", by Mustafa Suleyman". Why?

• The book is relatively new (unproven)
• It tries to predict the future (fails 90% of the time)
• It's the very same subject of another book I recently read (the "AI monster")

What lead me into this exception? A few more bullet points, of course!

• It was recommended by someone I trust
• The topic is very hot off the press
• There is a deep connection with me and the work I do

The... the verdict! How wise was I by deciding to take this one?

Good investment... or waste of time?

Let's see...

What does Surfing Has to do with this?

The argument of the book: we need to be able to contain?technology (and its developments) at any time we want. And currently, we are not.

Let's look into the so called waves: technology changes that compounded their effects through society and created new life experiences, with consequences to how humans live their lives.

The coming wave is defined by two core technologies: artificial intelligence (AI) and synthetic biology.        

Think about something as simple as fire. Or electricity and then automobiles. One interesting example: cars came first to replace horses. One of the ideas behind it?

To be cleaner as it eliminates the horse dung that transmitted diseases!

Have you ever though about that? It failed to foresee global warming for sure. But can we imagine what would happen with 8 billion people in this planet taking horses to go left and right?

The amount of examples provided are interesting for the reader to gain perspective on how individuals thought about those changes and what were then the consequences.

(hint: most of the time, people were wrong)

The author then claims that humans cannot contain technology, especially general purpose technologies. The argument is that once benefits are perceived, they will attract others who want the same benefits despite the risks, and the more join the party, the cheaper the same technology becomes, making it accessible, and therefore broadly used. An argument that is surely supported by many examples, including nuclear weapons. Even if used as an example that "some" containment is possible, it reminds us that such deadly platform for entire mankind is still sourced and explored by nations and individuals.

Another statement that we have often observed as being true and support that point of view is...

Technology just wants to be free

.... or even...

• Technologies are ideas, and ideas cannot be eliminated

It made me think of human cloning though. The technology actually exists now for at least two solid decades but it didn’t proliferate (though it is used and accessible for those with excessive wealth and power, let me acknowledge that). I doubt it is for lack of ideas how to use it. It means there is a point where it is too much and containment is possible.

How far are we going to get?

The ultimate vision of nanotechnology is one where atoms become controllable of automatically assembling almost anything.        

What Makes this Wave Special

One very interesting analysis of the wave is what comes next in the book, a structure or framework that I believe we can use to understand the technologies and impacts. According to Mustafa, the unique characteristics of the coming wave that challenge containment (or the possibility of) are:

?? Asymmetry: the risk here is that virtually anyone can get access to so much more power than entire organizations or even countries / States in little to no time at very low cost. We have seen some of this with Ukrainian individuals re-purposing their hobby drones to assist in the war against Russia with some degree of success.

? Hyper-evolution: Moore's Law states that the number of transistors on a microchip doubles about every two years with a minimal cost increase. The observation of the author is that technology in general expands and advances right now exponentially faster than that, and that the pace will only increase, pretty much into real-time. That would mean containment wouldn't be possible because once something is created it is also already broadly used.

?? Omni-use: think about deep-learning systems. Those can be used for playing games... or flying a fleet of bombers. Again, how quickly these new uses come into play makes a huge difference as it makes it harder to understand the implications of containment.

?? Autonomy: the question is "will humans still be in the loop?". Notice: not in control, just in the loop. We have observed how people - myself included - are happy to surrender a lot of control for gathering benefits, starting with how much we give away our data. What will happen as more control is taken by the machines? And then more? And even more - removing that off switch to anywhere near any human? That's what the author believes is about to happen.

One doesn't need to agree with any of the arguments, but they should trigger thought at individual and collective level.

Knowing that... means what?

The Leviathan

It means we need saving, which according to the author can only be provided by the State. But... not without concerns.

Through several chapters and sections, Mustafa explains current challenges with States and governments, with examples that go from how we went through the COVID pandemic into the current states of war across several countries in several regions. Then, into some of the possible further mistakes governments can make that will lead into the many different catastrophic or dystopian outcomes the author raised as "the dilemma".

And yet, because of the "great bargain" - the exchange of monopoly for use of force (by the state) with preservation of order and public services (for the people) - we should trust and work with the same governments and states in solutions that allow for containment of this wave or at least specific technologies within it, a "narrow path" between openness and closure when it comes to containment.

To achieve that, we would then need to work through 10 ideas, working one by one and understanding that we need all of them, in order to be prepared for the wave. These are the ideas:

?? Safety: building an Apollo Program for Technical Safety

?? Audits: knowledge is power, power is control

?? Choke Points: buying time

?? Makers: Critics should built it

?? Business: Profit + Purpose

?? Governments: Survive, Reform, Regulate

?? Alliances: time for treaties

?? Culture: Respectfully Embracing Failure

?? Movements: People Power (We)

?? Living in the "Narrow Path"

All good ideas and, if anything, very popular here in LinkedIn. I don't think anyone will call those innovative or new.

One additional question: are we running out of time?

Personal Thoughts

Reading carefully, what I have felt is that the author's concerns are coming more from a personal perspective rather then collective or social concern. Let's see....

The message was clear (...): 'The pitchforks are coming.', I said. For us, the marketers of technology.        

What does that passage really means?

As background about the author, he is a co-founder of both Deepmind and Inflection AI, therefore brings several (very interesting) stories about AI development at Google as well as within the walls of those companies.

What I hear / read? Guilt - after making terrific profits over several years with such developments, of course. And fear - reminding me a bit of what I read and watched with "Oppenheimer".

With that in mind I find it very, very hard to trust on whatever comes next.

Another problem of is the “dilemma”. That means we can either do one thing or another. In the author's words: catastrophic or dystopian outcomes.

A fear-based dualism, as if dualism wouldn't be bad enough alone. It can only be black and white. That’s a big problem with the argument, denying the much higher probability of shades of gray (better explored in the "Scary Smart" of Mo Gawdat).

Observations

Or better said, the verdict.

It was a bad decision and much of a waste of time. ??

Let me clarify: the book has its virtues. And has its importance. I would even still recommend people to read this, even more for those who are distant from technology and the relevant debates about the profound impacts they will have for all of our lives. Not as a source of truth, please, but as a starting point for reflection. What else?

• Easy of reading: 4 stars. Nothing extraordinary about it, but it flows and that's good as a reading experience.
• Learning something new: 2 stars. It's all over the media and it's a field I am connected with. Didn't add value there.
• Interesting and Engaging: 2 stars. I dragged myself to read the last chapter. Reflecting about it, I feel there is a lot more energy from the author at the beginning to explain the current situation, with relevant facts and stories and emotions, but that dies as he tries to move into his recommendations.

If I had to chose between "Scary Smart" (review available!) and this one to get started, I would probably recommend this one. That he goes beyond information technology makes as difference, even if he doesn't go as deep as I would hoped.

Comparing the two in terms of positioning, clearly Mustafa is more concerned about the future developments, while Mo is rather more optimistic (at least for the long term). Picking one of the two books, that may make a difference for you: select the one in opposition to your own bias to enhance the experience!

How do you feel the State should - or not - interfere with current and future technology developments?