What is clear: AI-powered products and services have made it into nearly every aspect of our personal and professional lives in just a few years. And as AI solutions continue to emerge and converge, that pace of change will only continue to accelerate. It’s easy to find scenarios of a utopian future of abundance where machines do all the hard work—as well as grim scenarios where unemployment soars as traditional workers are replaced by increasingly capable machines.

There is a popular argument that tools like AI essentially are neutral, and can be used for good or evil, depending on the user’s intentions. While AI is unique in that we’re building it to be capable of developing its own learning and “intentions,” it’s realistic to expect that for the foreseeable future, AI will be shaped by the direction of its human creators.

We can say with certainty that AI is such a profound tool that its impact marks a true global paradigm shift, similar to the revolutions brought about by the development of agriculture, writing, and manufacturing.

While the future changes that AI will bring are almost impossible to imagine, we have identified three key benefits and three key risks worth keeping in mind:

Risks of AI

Drastic changes to our lives
AI created with bad intention
AI created with good intention goes bad

Benefits of AI

Increased efficiency
Solving problems for humanity
Liberate humans to do what they do best

What Are the Benefits of AI, in Greater Detail?

In an ideal world, AI represents a win-win scenario by providing strengths that humans don’t possess. Advanced pattern recognition, computing speed, and nonstop productivity courtesy of AI allow humans to increase efficiency and offload mundane tasks—and potentially solve problems that have evaded human insight for thousands of years. Let’s look at some benefits of AI in more detail.

AI offers increased efficiency

We are human, and so we make mistakes and get tired. We can only perform competent work for a limited time before fatigue takes over and our focus and accuracy deteriorate. We require time to unplug, unwind, and sleep.

AIs have no biological body, side-gig, or family to pull their attention away from work. And while humans struggle to keep focus after a while, AIs stay as accurate whether they work one hour or 1,000 hours. While they work, these AIs can also be accurately recording data that will, in turn, provide more fuel for their own learning and pattern recognition.

For this reason, AI is transforming every industry. The amount of time and energy companies have to invest in repetitive manual work will diminish exponentially, freeing up time and money, which in turn allows for more research and more breakthroughs for each industry.

AI is solving problems for humanity

As AIs gain greater capabilities and are deployed in different capacities, we can expect to see many of the problems that have plagued government, schools, and corporations to be solved. AIs will also be able to help improve our justice system, healthcare, social issues, economy, governance, and other aspects of our society.

These critical systems are rife with challenges, bottlenecks, and outright failures. In each realm, human bureaucracy and unpredictability seem to slow down and sometimes even break the system. When AIs gain traction in these important domains, we can expect much more rational, fair, and thorough examinations of data, and improved policy decisions should soon follow.

AI is liberating humans to do what they do best

As AIs become more mainstream and take over mundane and menial tasks, humans will be freed up to do what they do best—to think critically and creatively and to imagine new possibilities. It’s likely this critical thought and creativity will be augmented and improved by AI tools. In the future, more emphasis will be placed on co-working situations in which tasks are divided between humans and AIs, according to their abilities and strengths.

Perhaps the most important task humans will focus on is creating meaningful relationships and connections. As AIs manage more and more technical tasks, we may see a higher value placed on uniquely human traits like kindness, compassion, empathy, and understanding.

What Are the Risks of AI, in Greater Detail?

Will AI change our current way of life? Absolutely. Do we know exactly how? Absolutely not.

AI already is affecting nearly every aspect of our personal and professional lives. Every human institution—businesses, governments, academia, and non-profits—is already experiencing the accelerating pace of change. And although AI is often portrayed in terms of solutions to solve problems in healthcare, transportation, and business productivity, there is also a darker side to consider.

There are concerns that AI will replace human workers, and some people fear the ultimate outcome will be that superintelligent AI-powered machines will eventually replace humans entirely. While this is a possibility, many experts believe that it’s more likely that AIs will enhance, not replace, humanity and that eventually, we might merge with AIs.

It’s essential to think about what might happen when a tool as powerful as AI malfunctions or is used with malicious intent. Consider the following two scenarios:

Scenario 1: AI created with bad intentions

Those who insist that technology is neutral will point out that a hammer can be used to build a home or to hit someone over the head. As with any technology in the wrong hands, AI could be created to help humans commit horrible acts. This might be an autonomous weapon programmed by the military, or a malevolent algorithm set loose by an individual hacker.

Fear associated with AI—a technology that is intelligent and capable of self-learning—is not unfounded. But it’s important to remember that humans also are highly intelligent and capable of rapid learning and improvement.

Moreover, it’s also worth remembering that harmful AI capabilities aren’t created in a vacuum. While one person or group is attempting to create something harmful, there is often an equal or greater amount of energy being invested to stop that harm and create countermeasures that limit risk and impact.

Scenario 2: AI created with good intentions goes bad

Another scenario is the runaway AI, in which a machine that was built with good intentions turns bad—a staple of classic Sci-Fi films like “Blade Runner” and “2001 Space Odyssey.” Indeed, when the sentient computer HAL turned against astronauts in the 1968 Stanley Kubrick film, many viewers found the premise to be unrealistic. With the widespread use of AI, as well as its growing capabilities, this scenario may no longer seem as far-fetched.

Addressing concerns over whether AI will drive massive job displacement, Singularity University Co-Founder and Chancellor Ray Kurzweil explains that while certain jobs will be lost, new jobs and careers will be created as we build new capabilities.

Kurzweil notes that AI will benefit humans and that AI is less likely to be threatening than beneficial to us, and it benefits us in many ways already. In Kurzweil’s view, a robot takeover is less likely than a co-existence, where machines reinforce human abilities and accelerate our progress.

The concept of transhumanism refers a multiplicity of philosophical currents that explore the possibility using science and technology to go beyond the human species. The transhumanist vision resembles that of many modern utopias in that it critiques our existing situation through the imagination of a desirable future alternative. The difference is that transhumanism is also committed to searching for the most appropriate scientific and technical means to bring that future about. Considered by some as the “defining worldview of the postmodern age”, transhumanism can be understood then as a technoscientific utopia, a worldview that stems from a dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the here and now and which seeks to transform it. As opposed to literary utopia, transhumanism is utopian practice.[1]

Transhumanism makes a series of promises: the increase of physical and intellectual capacities, the elimination of genetic disease, and the potential for personalised drugs and vaccines. A tenet of the movement is that “the first human being to live a thousand years is already living.” In the words of the philosopher Antonio Diéguez, “it’s been a long time since there was a doctrine that showed such enthusiasm for changing reality.”[2]

There are numerous problems that arise when considering transhumanism in the context of a global ecological and social crisis such as the one experienced today. First, the problem of accessibility and supremacy is one of the most common counterarguments, as it is reasonable to think that the kinds of enhancements transhumanism proposes would further separate the rich from the poor. It is not a stretch to imagine a future in which enhanced individuals are the ones in positions of power.

Meanwhile, both the irreversibility of changes and the unpredictability of consequences should encourage the exercise of caution. Living in a world in which humanity’s actions have far greater impact and reach than ever before in history should raise our sense of responsibility here. Moreover, the appeal of the precautionary principal grows when faced with the possibility of irreversible changes. As Riechmann has pointed out, it is impossible to ‘un-invent’ the hydrogen bomb or genetic manipulation.

Transhumanism presents itself as a utopia. It promises advancement and progress beyond imagination. However, the question is: Whose utopia would this be? Will the advanced digital technology bring emancipation from routine, menial tasks? Or will it create a new underclass while helping the elite accumulate unprecedented power and wealth?

Kurzweil argues that the transhumanist project will succeed though the fusion of three components: genetics, nanotechnology and robotics. According to him, through an ‘upgrade’ from a biological body to the one endowed with superior digital or biomechanical technology, humanity can achieve longevity, if not immortality. Biotechnology will provide the means to redesign not only embryos but also mature adults. Body tissues could be rejuvenated through genetic modification, and biotechnology may be utilised to attack and remove cancerous tumour formations. Nanobots would cleanse the new upgraded body from pathogens and viruses. In this transhumanist future, nanotechnology will be there to replace and augment organs with neural implants that will cater for new software downloads and will increase the individual’s neural abilities.

Shelley’s novel, ‘Frankenstein’, poses a question of what might happen if humanity, enabled by scientific discovery, is capable of creating new life. By practicing his newfound technology, Dr Frankenstein equalises to a deific creator—albeit, it isn’t a new Adam he brings to life, but a monster. If applied consciously, biotechnological advances could offer a cure for diseases and longevity, as Kurzweil proposes, but what if it is abused by scientists employed by ruthless corporations or militaristic regimes?

Although the transhumanist and singularity utopia envisions a leap forward for the human species in total, it ignores the profound social inequalities existing both on the local and on the global level. Taking into account disparity in opportunities between the haves and the have nots, it is a challenge to picture how they would cease to exist after the advent of singularity.

The new technological revolution will instead make most jobs redundant. Whereas machinery like steam engines replaced manual and repetitive work, AI will outcompete humans in the intellectual sphere too, meaning that human workers will no longer have special skills to offer. They can become simply redundant. Hence, the new ‘useless class’ will play no economic role in society. Although we may argue that this does not make them ‘useless’, Harari justifies the terminology by pointing out how disenfranchised individuals will have no function within the new social order; their meaning of life may therefore be compromised.

Here is a broad sketch of what a transhumanist society might look like: the ruling class—the supreme owner of the new technology—will be able to control the manufacturing of goods and the provision of services without the input from the lower classes. By enjoying the access to biotechnology, the ruling classes will continuously enhance their abilities, health and longevity, thus gaining an enormous advantage over the rest. In such a society, the power will be concentrated in the hands of a small elite on the scale unprecedented in human history.

This may well sound far-fetched, yet, given the status quo with all its injustices, the devastating consequences of the rise of AI and bioenhancement seem more than plausible.

Transhumanism presents itself as a utopia. It promises advancement and progress beyond imagination. However, the question is: Whose utopia would this be? As China Mieville once stated, we live in a utopia: it’s just not ours. Utopias for some might could mean a nightmare for others. Will the advanced digital technology deliver a utopia for the majority, facilitating emancipation from routine, menial tasks? Or will it create a new underclass while helping the elite accumulate unprecedented power and wealth? We simply do not know yet. But given the prevalent contemporary trends, the latter seems more plausible.

In a 2011 New Yorker profile, Peter Thiel, tech-philanthropist and billionaire, surmised that “probably the most extreme form of inequality is between people who are alive and people who are dead”. While he may not be technically wrong, Thiel and other eccentric, wealthy tech-celebrities, such as Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, have taken the next step to counteract that inequality – by embarking on a quest to live forever.

Thiel and many like him have been investing in research on life extension, part of transhumanism. Drawing on fields as diverse as neurotechnology, artificial intelligence, biomedical engineering and philosophy, transhumanists believe that the limitations of the human body and mortality can be transcended by machines and technology. The ultimate aim is immortality. Some believe this is achievable by 2045.

"Transhumanism doesn't have much to say about social questions. To the extent that they see the world changing, it's nearly always in a business-as-usual way – techno-capitalism continues to deliver its excellent bounties, and the people who benefit from the current social arrangement continue to benefit from it," says Mark O'Connell, the author of To be a Machine, who followed various transhumanists in Los Angeles."You basically can't separate transhumanism from capitalism. An idea that's so enthusiastically pursued by Musk and Peter Thiel, and by the founders of Google, is one that needs to be seen as a mutation of capitalism, not a cure for it."

On an even more basic level, a transhumanist society would undoubtedly be shaped by the ideals of those who created it and those who came before it. Zoltan Istvan, the transhumanist candidate for governor of California, told Tech Insider that “a lot of the most important work in longevity is coming from a handful of the billionaires...around six or seven of them”.

Immortality as defined by straight, white men could draw out cycles of oppression. Without old attitudes dying off and replaced by the impatience of youth, social change might become impossible. Artificial intelligence has already been shown to absorb the biases of its creators. Uploading someone’s brain into a clone of themselves doesn’t make them less likely to discriminate.

that a transhumanist society would inevitably lead to “people lording it over others in a way that has never been seen before in history”. It doesn’t take much to guess who would be doing the "lording".

“The first enhanced humans will not be ordinary people; they’ll be the people who have already made those ordinary people economically obsolete through automation. They’ll be tech billionaires,” says O’Connell.

If those who form society in the age of transhumanism are men like Musk and Thiel, it’s probable that this society will have few social safety nets. There will be an uneven rate of technological progress globally; even a post-human society can replicate the unequal global wealth distribution which we see today. In some cities and countries, inhabitants may live forever, while in others the residents die of malnutrition. If people don’t die off, the environmental consequences – from widespread natural resource devastation to unsustainable energy demands – would be widespread.

The Law of Accelerating Convergence

The strangest, most interesting and magical-seeming creations of the future will occur at the intersection of multiple exponential trend lines. You might call this the law of accelerating convergence and can summarize it as follows:

As technology continues to exponentially accelerate, the interactions between various subsets of exponential technology will create opportunities to slingshot past the already breakneck speed of accelerating change in ways that are even stranger and more difficult to predict than the path of any individual exponential technology.

If we look at any singular outgrowth of exponential tech and focus solely on it, we’re missing the vast possibility space of the ways technology is about to reshape the world.

This is a tough concept to get our heads around.

Even trying to work through the ramifications and implications of a single exponential technology requires diligent thought and the willingness to take intellectual risks. Trying to comprehend how they’re all going to affect each other is six shades of impossible.

After all, what’s more important: artificial intelligence or biotechnology? What is going to have a bigger impact on the world: nanotechnology or solar energy? These questions don’t have easy answers. There’s an insidious assumption hidden within, which is that different technologies operate independently of each other. But in practice, they don’t. The importance of biotech might hinge on a crucial development in artificial intelligence. A new solar breakthrough could come about by applying concepts from nanotechnology.

The only way to know the future of virtual reality is to study the future of artificial intelligence. The only way to know the future of 3D printing is to study the future of biotech. The only way to know the future of energy systems is to study advanced materials design.

IBM announced at CES 2020 that its newest 28-qubit quantum computer, Raleigh, achieved the company’s goal of doubling its Quantum Volume (IBM names its systems by city names). Raleigh reached a Quantum Volume of 32 this year, up from 16 last year.

IBM has doubled its systems' Quantum Volume every year since 2017, when it first demonstrated a Quantum Volume of 4 with its five-qubit computer called Tenerite. In 2018, the 20-qubit Tokyo obtained a Quantum Volume of 8, and last year the 20-qubit IBM Q System One, called Johannesburg, achieved a Quantum Volume of 16. Increasing the Quantum Volume each year is an important goal, both to IBM and the quantum computing industry in general.

Last year I wrote a more detailed description of Quantum Volume, which you can find here.

The higher the Quantum Volume, the more real-world, complex problems quantum computers can potentially solve, such as those explored by IBM's quantum network organizations.

Quantum Volume is a full-system quantum computer performance metric developed by IBM researchers in 2017. It produces a numerical value, such as the newly announced QV of 32. Interpreting Quantum Volume is simple—the larger the number, the more powerful the quantum computer.

You can look at the Quantum Volume number as you would look at a numerical grade given by an expert consultant who has evaluated the significant issues affecting the power and ability of a quantum computer to perform complex computations.

Quantum Volume considers such technical factors as how long quantum bits (qubits) can maintain their quantum state, errors made during hardware calibration, crosstalk, spectator errors, gate fidelity and other fidelity measurements. It also considers the number of qubits and their connectivity, as well as circuit software compiler efficiency.

IBM today announced its Q (quantum) Network community had grown to 100-plus – Delta Airlines and Los Alamos National Laboratory are among most recent additions – and that an IBM quantum computer had achieved a quantum volume (QV) benchmark of 32 in keeping with plans to double QV yearly.

Last year IBM introduced Quantum Volume, a new metric for benchmarking QC progress, and suggested others should adopt it. QV is composite measure encompassing many attributes – gate fidelity, noise, coherence times, and more – not just qubit count; so far QV’s industry-wide traction has seemed limited.

Welser emphasized IBM Q Network membership has steadily grown and now spans multiple industries including airline, automotive, banking and finance, energy, insurance, materials and electronics. Newest large commercial members include Anthem, Delta, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and Woodside Energy. New academia/government members include Georgia Institute of Technology and LANL. (A list and brief description of new members is at the end of the article.)

Now, researchers have developed a tiny silicon chip smaller than the width of a human hair that can accelerate electrons using an infrared laser. The output is only a fraction of that of a large accelerator, but the researchers plan to combine a thousand of these devices by the end of this year to accelerate electrons to 94 percent of the speed of light, or 1 million electron volts (1MeV), which would be powerful enough for research or medical purposes.

A single stage can currently boost the speed of the electrons up to 1KeV (a thousandth of a MeV), but because the device is an integrated circuit it shouldn’t be too complicated to stitch many of the devices together to accelerate them to much higher energies. They are fabricated using industrial processes, which should allow for significant cost reductions.

If the team achieves their goal, the resulting device could make it possible for far more scientists to carry out cutting-edge experiments in chemistry, materials science, and biological discovery. Talk about a convergence of technology from the very large to the every small.

One particularly promising application would be to use them to create small bunches of electrons that result in x-ray pulses just a few attoseconds (one quintillionth of a second) long. These could be used to probe chemical reactions and other events at the molecular scale on extremely short timescales to create “molecular movies,” Joel England, one of the authors of the paper, told IEEE Spectrum in 2017.

There could also be promising medical applications of the technology. One of the authors is working on a way to transport high-energy electrons from the accelerator-on-a-chip directly to tumors using a catheter-like vacuum tube that could be inserted below the skin. That would be a major improvement over today’s bulky and tricky-to-focus X-ray based radiotherapy devices.

The device is probably a long way from replacing the massive accelerators used for particle physics experiments. But the researchers point out that computers have shown that stitching together thousands of low-cost integrated silicon chips is an incredibly powerful and scalable design approach. So never say never.

I

https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/#

Editor’s note: Founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who had helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the Doomsday Clock two years later, using the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero) to convey threats to humanity and the planet. The decision to move (or to leave in place) the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock is made every year by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 13 Nobel laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and disruptive technologies in other domains.

Humanity continues to face two simultaneous existential dangers—nuclear war and climate change—that are compounded by a threat multiplier, cyber-enabled information warfare, that undercuts society’s ability to respond. The international security situation is dire, not just because these threats exist, but because world leaders have allowed the international political infrastructure for managing them to erode.

As is colloquially said, like horseshoes and hand grenades, almost is close enough.