Would You Design Your Child?

Designer Dogs, 2060: A thought experiment

If I Were 16 Again

What an AI Genius Could Do: A fictional short-short story

My AI Advisor: A short-short story

The Biggest Molecule: A short-short story

A Grumpy Gardener: A short-short story

AI: Maximizing the Potentials, Minimizing the Perils

It’s easy to see both the up- and downsides of artificial intelligence.

Just a few upsides: more accurate medical diagnosis, safe, fast automated vehicles, AI-driven instruction that ever adapts its style and pace based on the student’s ongoing performance.

On the downside, luminaries such as Bill Gates and Elon Musk worry that self-teaching AI computers could get smart enough that humans won’t be able to stop them from nefarious ends.

It would seem that, per Stuart Russell, author of Human Compatible, that we optimize risk/reward if we take two steps: 1. Don’t let the computer “know” the goal of the software. 2. Block the computer from making decisions beyond a certain magnitude—that when implications of a decision go beyond a certain point, human override is required. It’s kind of like the car salesperson who has discretion to give a 10 percent discount, but if more seems required, the boss must approve.

Another fear about AI is that an evil individual or entity could use it to nefarious ends. A few examples: release a murderous virus into the water supply, threaten to close down the electric grid unless paid a zillion dollars, or develop an algorithm for manipulating people into voting for Candidate X. (Whoops, that already pretty-much exists.) Of course, most powerful things, notably nuclear energy, could be used cataclysmically, yet most experts conclude that, rather than prohibit it, it’s wiser to install in-computer and human oversight.

A similarly moderate stance could apply to genomic research. On the upside it could better address such diseases as cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease and create drought-resistant-, high-protein, and insect-repellant crops. Gene editing might eventually be used to create a super-intelligent human. Yes, that person’s brainpower could be used for social good but what if the gene-editing also caused him or her to have to live in physical pain? Or the person could use the hyper-intelligence for personal gain even if it causes great pain to the world. Again, it would seem that regulation, both built-in and legal might yield the risk/reward sweet spot.

What worries me is that such restrictions may move such research to jurisdictions that have looser restrictions. For example, the worldwide consensus has been that for now at least, gene editing be conducted only for research, not clinically. He Jiankui defied that by using CRISPR to edit the embryos of two recently born twin girls in what he said was an effort to prevent them from contracting HIV. Russian scientist Denis Rebrikov is planning to insert a gene into an embryo that would enable deaf couples to produce hearing babies. Geneticist Bing Su has inserted a gene for brain size, which is correlated moderately with intelligence. So, in this big world of ours, amid ever advancing gene editing tools, it seems quite likely that, given the huge stakes—even a country or non-state-actor creating an army of supergeniuses—that restrictions would move some non-complying research underground.

En toto, it’s probably wise to establish restrictions on AI: laws, professional standards, and, more difficult, building-in limitations to AI software: forcing them to switch off when the stakes are great or the implications unclear. Social norms and fear of punishment will facilitate research that has a positive risk-reward ratio while restraining less advisable research. Outright bans would likely yield worse net results, as occurred when religion restricted scientific research in the Dark Ages. It seems we must accept that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Despite the likely excesses, it seems wise to bet on humankind, that, net, we’ll probably derive positive effects from AI. It certainly will be interesting to watch.

What Will Happen to the "Bottom Half?"

Predictions vary as to the percent of jobs that will be lost to automation, offshoring, and gigging but it’s likely to be between 20 and 60 percent within the next decade or two. 

Consensus is that much of the remaining decent-paying employment will demand ever more brainpower, technical chops, and communication skills. And with so many applicants available, employers will be able to insist also on people who are likeable, reliable, enthusiastic and healthy.

The Big Question is, what’s going to happen to the many millions of people who don’t get hired for those jobs? I fear that things will be different from previous technological waves in which new technologies, net, created more new jobs. I predict that because so much of the future economy will be based on digital products and services, which can be produced by the millions with a push of a button.
My PsychologyToday.com article today describes what will likely be a problemed existence for the "bottom half" and possible approaches to ameliorating the situation.

How the Earth Got Conquered in 2078: A look at genetic enhancement

Genetic enhancement is seen by some as a savior, by others as a horror. I offer an  optimistic vision in my PsychologyToday.com article today. 

Enhance? A short-short story about genetically enhancing intelligence.

A May 22, 2017 New York Times headline reads: “In ‘Enormous Success,’ Scientists Tie 52 Genes to Human Intelligence."
A week later, the Journal of Cellullar Bioechemistry chronicled the enormous progress and potential in gene editing.

Such research suggests that in a decade or two, parents may have the option of having their sperm and eggs genome-edited to ensure their child has high or at least normal intelligence.

As my PsychologyToday.com contribution today, I offer a short-short story that explores one possible implication.

12 Predictions for 2050

As my PsychologyToday.com article today, I make 12 predictions for 2050.

On Human Genetic Augmentation

New gene editing technologies such as Crispr have moved genetic enhancement from science fiction to reality. 

In my PsychologyToday.com article today, I interviewed a preeminent expert in the field, Harvard's George Church, on the promise and perils.

What's New in Neuropsychology?

Sure, many of today's "exciting findings" will become tomorrow's blind alleys, but the quantity, quality, and centrality of the new neuropsychology research findings boosts my hope that we'll finally get those breakthrough cures and even ways to make us better "normals."  

I briefly describe the current crop of research findings in my PsychologyToday.com article today.