If you could make all 7.5 billion people on Earth sit down and read a book of your choosing, what book do you choose and why?

First give me time to write it.

It would be an optimistic book. One which points out what’s wrong with the world today but which suggests how we can fix things.

It would require a different political system. One which fulfills the needs of the people rather than the profits of the rich. It would mean raising the living standards of the poor. That would lead to more industry and higher profits while also reducing crime.

It would draw attention to the fear that we needlessly face. For example you are ten times as likely to drown while taking a bath as you are to be killed by a terrorist.

It would point out that evolution has engineered us to be nice to each other. We work together better to improve things - that has survival value, rather than work against each other. We hear a lot about the ‘bad’ because our media considers bad news is more interesting. Bad news generates fear. Fear makes us demand action. Idiot politicians pander to this and their actions generate more bad news.

Sorry religion - you would be required to justify your existence. It’s not enough for you to defend your ‘faith’. Let’s look at ‘faith’ in terms of what it really means - a belief which does not depend on evidence, one which is not open to reason and discussion. Faith has no right to being secure from being questioned. Faith can’t move mountains but we’ve seen what it can do to skyscrapers. We may blame the Islamic faith for acts of terrorism but other religions cannot say their ‘faithful’ followers did not carry out brutal acts.

The book would draw attention to how we are damaging our planet and suggest ways we can fix this. We cannot continue to treat finite resources as though they were infinite. We need those resources to look further for new resources and we are unlikely to find those on earth.

Instead of war I would propose we work together on expansion into the last frontier. Space. We must colonize space to ensure the survival of our species. Certainly we can look to the moon and Mars but that’s NOT enough. We need to move further to the stars. When we do so we should take with us all the lifeforms we can collect. When we have moved out a radius of 30 light years from earth, then and only then can we think of Earth’s life being secure.

Is this all a pipe dream? It is until we make the effort to start.

The future of computers and AI - Conductive polymer matrix for AI (CPMAI)

The problem with existing computers is that they constantly develop. For most users by the time they have saved up to buy the latest computer, technology has advanced and the computer rapidly becomes obsolete with faster more capable machines being available.

Enter the CPMAI

Imagine a block of conductive polymer. It has an ‘active’ matrix with X, Y and Z coordinates and is overlaid on a nano sized scale with a second matrix which is a control matrix. This controls the first matrix and establishes which areas conduct, which areas insulate, which areas are resistive, capacitive, inductive and semi-conductive. Using the control matrix you can construct a circuit in the active matrix. You can make a simple circuit such as a radio or a more complex circuit such as a computer.

 With a CPMAI the problem of obsolescence no longer applies. The control matrix simply reprograms the active matrix to produce a new circuit version.

What about the AI bit though?

If the active matrix is configured and programmed to be an artificial intelligence then it controls both matrices in the CPMAI. It becomes capable of redesigning itself to be progressively more intelligent. Within a very short space of time we get a SAI - super artificial intelligence. One which has a greater intelligence than its human originators.

Should we fear such a Super-Artificial Intelligence?

We assume that a machine intelligence will follow the same rules as a human and will be governed by self interest, selfishness and greed. That may have been true for humans in the past, for many it still is, but many of us have risen above this and are altruistic. Perhaps this may be because being altruistic makes us feel good about ourselves and is therefore being governed by self-interest.

Would a computer feel the same way? 

In 1942 Isaac Asimov thrashed out with his publisher, John Campbell, the three laws of robotics for a short robot story ‘Runaround.’ Here they are:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws

In 1985 Asimov extended the laws by adding a ‘zeroth law’ in the book ‘Robots and Empire.’ In that book the law was proposed not by a human but by a robot.

0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

Had Asimov lived, he died in 1992, I have no doubt that a further law would have been conceived which would have replaced all the robot laws. It was left to author David Kitson to conceive this ‘Nihilist’ law in his book ‘Turing Evolved.’

David Kitson was not alone in conceiving this absence of rules.

The robot Number 5 in the film and book ‘Short Circuit’ didn’t need a law to tell him what was right and wrong.

Number 5: Programming says “Destroy”. Is disassemble. Make dead. Number Five cannot.
Newton Crosby: Why? Why cannot?
Number 5: Is wrong. Incorrect. Newton Crosby, PhD, not know this?
Newton Crosby: Of course I know it’s wrong to kill, but who told you?
Number 5: I told me.

Humans need a set of rules to guide our behavior. We learn these rules from our parents and society. In addition we have evolved to be altruistic and help each other. A group of humans are more successful at survival than an individual. As a species we are beginning to recognize that we must not only protect our local group but our nation and our species. We are beginning to recognize that we need to protect all life - even those life-forms we find undesirable. I’d like to think that the super intelligent computer would develop the same sense of morality as in the movie ‘Short Circuit.’ The danger is that a SAI will become overprotective leading to a nanny state where humanity is not allowed to take the chances required for development. However, if we can recognise that potential danger then a SAI would also recognise it and limit its 'nanny' behaviour.

I suspect that a SAI will quickly outpace humans in this view.