Rise of the cyborgs

People have been requesting that I do more futurist posts, so here's a bit of holiday optimism.

A lot of recent futurist discussion in the media and blogosphere has revolved around either the technological stagnation thesis, or the question of whether robots will replace humans. Elsewhere, people are toying with the implications of more far-out technologies like brain emulation and desire modification, or following the ongoing mini-booms in natural gas fracking and 3-D printing.

But it occurs to me that people may be overlooking something big: another technological revolution that is right under our noses, about to change our world in a big way. I'm talking about the rise of biomechanical engineering...or, to use a more catchy term, cyborg technology. The cyborg revolution is not a far-future sci-fi conjecture; it is upon us even as I write these words.

For a taste of how cyborg technology may soon change our world, check out this BBC article. The key technology is the integration of human brains with computers. Here are some extrapolations of technologies that currently exist:

1. Direct mental control of machines (also called Mind-Machine Interface, or MMI). Non-invasive ways of controlling machines with one's mind have already been developed and will soon be commercialized. The biggest benefit of this, of course, will be for physically impaired people, but it will also probably allow us to write a lot faster; just think words, and they appear on the page. Writing speed is probably a significant constraint on productivity, so MMI may have the potential to raise service-industry productivity, which has been lagging in recent decades. Of course, MMI may also be a much easier and more fun way to play video games, control your mobile devices, etc., than punching buttons.

Another aspect of this is mind-internet interface. Obviously, this is scary, since you don't want your brain getting hacked by jerky teenagers halfway around the globe. So I'm not sure if this will ever be done, especially because sight is already a very fast way to assimilate information from the net.

2. Augmented intelligence. Artificial intelligence is one of the most-talked-about technologies, but if you think about it, it's probably easier and more natural to begin with the intelligence we already have, and simply augment it with computers. The BBC article I cited discusses experiments in which artificial devices have already served as functioning brain structures in rats, in particular as artificial memory centers; expect this technology to improve rapidly.

If we can store human memories in artificial brain structures, the implications are enormous. First of all, it would vastly expand the knowledge base and expertise of a human knowledge worker; if we could store vastly expanded amounts of knowledge, we would no longer be constrained to specialize in one incredibly narrow field. This might unlock huge innovative potential, as individual humans could do the kind of creative work that now require teams of humans.

If these artificial brain structures can be exchanged between people (a nontrivial task, obviously!), then we get human memory transfer, and the possibilities are even more enormous. Instant education, as expertise is copied and transferred from human to human. Functional immortality, as full sets of memories are transferred to cloned brains (Note: This is an idea I got from Miles Kimball; he explains it in this post). Etc.

Artificial brain structures might also allow boosted cognitive ability. Imagine humans with the processing power of computers at their beck and call. This, of course, is a more speculative technology...but maybe not so speculative, to wit:

3. Augmented learning. This sounds very pie-in-the-sky, until you read the BBC article and find that it is already real and may even be available over the counter:

Transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) is a way of running electrical current through the brain with electrodes attached to the outside of the skull. The US Defence Advanced Research Agency (Darpa) currently uses tDCS to improve the learning speed of snipers, claiming it cuts the learning curve by a factor of 2.5. There are issues, though. "They learn more quickly but they don't have a good intuitive or introspective sense about why,” says Vincent Clark, neuroscientist at the University of New Mexico. 

Such devices were initially expensive, but now GoFlow sells a DIY kit for $99, which consists of two electrodes, cables and a 9-volt battery. So, in theory, everybody can try and tune his or her own brain at home. But if it is not applied correctly, anything could happen – from enhancing intelligence (intended), rewiring our brains (who knows?) through to electrocuting ourselves (not intended). Neuroscientist Roi Cohen Kadosh from Oxford University says he wouldn’t buy the DIY kit, because he thinks it is premature to distribute it to non-experts. “People might feel like they should stimulate their brain as much as they want, but just as buying a medicine on the counter, you need to know when to use it, how often, in what conditions and in what cases you should not take it.”

There is no word to describe this except for "amazing". I fully expect other bloggers to buy the kit, try it out, and tell me how it goes...

Of course, another possible application of this exact same type of technology is:

4. Mood modification. We already know how to stimulate certain emotions with direct brain stimulation; noninvasive methods, of the type currently being developed for artificial learning, would revolutionize the applications of this technology. For example, cognitive behavioral therapy currently relies on human attention and vigilance to replace negative thoughts with positive ones (thus alleviating depression and anxiety); if this process could be automated, it could help cure some of the great psychological scourges of modern society.

But why stop there? People with phobias could get rid of the phobias by counteracting fear responses at high speed; as soon as you see the thing you fear (a dog, or an enclosed space), a computer will see your fear response spiking and stimulate feelings of safety and security instead. Poof, phobia gone! Not to mention social anxiety; imagine how easy it would be to talk to cute girls at parties if your mobile device could zap you with artificial self-confidence every time you started to get scared.

Of course, at this point, mood modification becomes a rudimentary form of my "holy grail" technology of Desire Modification. The thing to understand is that non-invasive external stimulation of emotional responses is not very far away; we're talking a few years, not a few decades.

5. Artificial sensory input. This already exists and is on the market, in the form of cochlear impants (artificial ears) and visual prostheses (artificial eyes). The technology is improving very rapidly. At the point where artificial senses become as good as (or better than!) natural ones, whole new worlds of possibility open up.

For example: artificial eyes and ears would replace all input devices. You would never need a television screen, a phone, Google Goggles, or a speaker of any kind. All you would need would be your own artificial eyes. You could play video games in perfect, pure augmented reality. Imagine the possibilities for video-conferencing, or hanging out with friends half a world away!

And why stop there? If you wanted, you could perceive the buildings around you as castles, or the inside of a spaceship. The whole world could look and sound however you wanted.

(Of course, brain chips that could feed artificial input to the sensory perception centers of the brain - the technology of The Matrix - could accomplish this task even better. But this might be farther away.)


OK, time to stop. Of course, I haven't come close to encompassing the full set of possibilities available from brain-computer interface, but I think I've shown that many cyborg technologies that currently exist have the potential to quickly and dramatically reshape human life. I leave it to you to fill out the list.

What will this mean for the economy? Well, unlike media and information technologies (which can usually be copied without cost), biomechanical technologies are good old manufactured goods; their inclusion into the economy will show up in the GDP statistics, unlike Facebook or Craigslist. And because these technologies have the potential to vastly improve the human experience, we can expect them to become near-universal consumer goods, provided our legal institutions allow it.

Also, cyborg technologies have the potential to improve human productivity quite a bit, as my examples above have hopefully shown. Humans who can store vast amounts of knowledge and expertise, who can directly interface with machines, and who can make themselves more well-adjusted and motivated at the touch of a (mental) button will be valuable employees indeed, and will prove useful complements to the much-discussed army of robots.

All this means that cyborg technologies, if they become widespread, will do much to quiet the fears of the stagnationists. But this, of course, requires institutions that allow these technologies to become universal. Currently, I feel that institutions like the FDA and the health care system are biased toward treating the "sick", and place way too little value on technologies to improve the average human experience above its baseline (witness how we push antidepressants on everyone, but ban even weak recreational pleasure drugs like marijuana). I fear that our society will collectively decide that anything that improves on "natural" humanity is unsafe for public consumption. This would sacrifice huge amounts of growth potential on the altar of what is essentially a pointless, semantic distinction (Isn't it "natural" for old men to become impotent? But we still allow Viagra...).

In any case, the cyborg revolution is upon us. Pay attention, futurists. This could be very, very big.


Update: Just to clarify, I think that: A) cyborg technologies that affect the mind are going to be far, far more important than ones that affect mainly the body, and B) Noninvasive methods of brain-computer interface definitely count as "cyborg" technology; you don't have to have robot parts in your head to be a cyborg.

Update 2: In this must-read piece, io9's George Dvorsky lists 16 science fiction predictions that actually came true just in 2012. Cyborg technology dominates the list; see items 1, 3, 10, 13, and 15. The cyborg revolution is upon us!

Update 3: A TED talk on cyborgs just came out. Like I said, this is bigger than anyone realizes, and is right now in the process of exploding into the public consciousness.

Update 4: Futurist Ramez Naam has an article in Forbes summarizing a lot of the new cyborg tech and speculating about where it might take us.

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Writer's Block: Getting Past the First Sentence

Suppose you have a writing assignment to do and it's due tomorrow and you're completely blocked. You don't even know where to begin.

Here's how to get started.

First, accept the general strategy that you're going to produce crap first, then make something out of it later. Because that's how writing works, frankly. Everything you've ever read in print started out as something way crappier than what finally got published. Most of what passes for "writing skill" is actually revision skill.

Secondly, forget about rules. Drop all your inhibitions over grammar, syntax, spelling, vocabulary, use of pronouns (first person, second person, third person), etc., because all that stuff can be fixed later. If you have a brief (80,000-foot-level) outline, fine, but for now take it off the table and hide it somewhere.

Start by writing the following sentence: "The most important thing I'd like to say about [subject] is XYZ." (Fill in the subject and XYZ yourself.)

Again, don't fuss over the fact that you're using first person voice ("I'd like to say"), because that's easily fixed later. There are hundreds of ways to fix it. Here's one: "There are lots of ways to look at [subject]. But probably the single most important thing to note about it is XYZ." Here's another: "Most people think ABC about [subject]. But in fact there are many reasons to take the XYZ point of view. A quick review of the evidence will show why DEF might well be a more worthwhile way to understand [subject]." You can always take yourself out of the discussion. Do it later.

Okay, you've written something, so congratulate yourself. The thing to notice is that once you've captured your main idea in a few words, you can now move in one of two directions. It may well be that your most important point is something you can only get to after first addressing a bunch of other things. In that case, move up to the top of the page (above the sentence you just wrote) and plan on writing downward, until you get to your most important point.

The other way it could go is that once you've stated your most important point, you need to back it up with examples and/or discuss important sub-points. In that case, start writing a new paragraph below the sentence you just wrote and plan on continuing downward toward the bottom of the page.

In one case you're moving toward the main point from above; in the other case you're moving from the main point downward. It may well be that you end up having to do both. But the point is, you've driven a stake into the ground. You have a reference point to work away from, or work toward.

Don't be afraid to state your conclusion first (at the very top of your piece), then, in the next paragraph, back up and explain how you got there. When I feel it's going to take a lot of difficult setup to get to my main point (and then I get all constipated-feeling, because I know the backstory is going to require a ton of well-thought-out explanation), I shortcut the whole process by stating my "punchline" early on, usually in the second paragraph. The first paragraph will state what it is I want to talk about and perhaps give some bullshit justification for why it needs to be talked about. Then, right away, in the second paragraph, I'll say something like "Rather than draw this out, let's cut to the chase. The right way to approach a problem like XYZ is to think about it in terms of ABC." Then I spend the rest of the piece supporting my already-delivered "punchline."

So give yourself permission to introduce topics in any order, including conclusion-first.

It may sound simplistic, but the most important thing you can do when you're blocked is just write something. Laugh, resign yourself to the idea that you're going to produce utter crap, then do just that: Quickly write down a big long list of absurdly simplistic statements about your topic. Or just write a laughably bad first paragraph and pretend you just discovered it under a stack of papers in a mental hospital. Laugh at it. Then move on.

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Making the Writing Process Easier

Most people (including many professional writers) consider writing difficult. In fact, it's probably the most frighteningly difficult thing most people do in their professional lives, second only to public speaking.

Part of the reason for this is that people acknowledge, I think, on a gut level, that writing is a form of artistic expression, and yet most of us (for whatever reason) are convinced we're not capable of "art." No one is asking you to create art, though, so why impose that expectation on yourself, unless you're writing a sonnet?

Much of the fear of writing comes down to the fear of producing embarrassing crap. But here's something you should always bear in mind. Everything you've ever read, in print, started out as something crappier than what you ended up reading. You've only ever known the glossy polish of the final product. You didn't see the crappy rust-covered underbelly of what came before.

So don't hold yourself to a "final output" standard when you sit down to write. Your first effort may well be crap. But then, so was everyone else's first effort. You just didn't see it.

Always give yourself permission to produce crap. If you don't, you might never get past the first sentence.

Rumination is important preparation for writing, so always give yourself as much time as you can to think about your subject before sitting down to write. Break your topic down mentally into the simplest possible bits. Think each bit through on its own. What would you say in 25 words or less about each bit? Take notes if that helps.

I rarely sit down to write on a topic that's less than 70% to 80% thought-out in advance. (I count something as "thought out" if I am 90% confident that I understand my own unique take on the subject and can write about it in a way that will fool 90% of readers into thinking I know what I'm talking about.) I know I can count on the writing process itself (which is iterative, reentrant, non-linear, and thus organic) to help fill in the missing 20% to 30% of thought-outness, but I never count on (say) 90% of what I'm going to write just "coming to me" as I write. Only 20% or so will "come to me," and most of that in the editing pass, after the crappy first draft is laid down.

I like to think of putting fingertips to keyboard as the last step in a long chain of preparatory actions (research plus rumination). Captured keystrokes are just a static artifact of the dynamic thinking process that went before.

One of the best insights I can give you is that simple thoughts are easier to write down than complex thoughts, so anything you can do to de-complexify your thinking will have a huge payoff when it comes time to write. Stuff that's arduous to write is usually arduous to read. How do you make the arduous easy? Simplify.

If you find yourself completely choked up when you sit down to write, it's either because you're afraid to produce crap, or because your thinking on the subject matter is still muddled. If you're not under a deadline, take more time to think the subject through, except in simpler terms. (You can always make simple stuff complicated later, although I don't recommend it.) If you're under a deadline, sit down and quickly write a bunch of absurdly short sentences on the topic in question, phrasing everything in unacceptably oversimplified terms. I guarantee that if you quickly fill a page with laughably simplistic one-liner statements about a subject, the Fussmaster General inside you will be eager to jump at the chance to cross all that crap out and do a more meaningful job of expressing the same thoughts. In other words, you'll be ready to write "in anger."

One more point and then I'll shut up.

Techniques exist for simplifying the expression of ideas. Most of  them revolve around semantic clarity and micro-syntax. Just by avoiding certain types of words (for example, gerunds, which are verbs pretending to be nouns) you can force yourself to write in a simpler, clearer manner. The neat thing is, simple writing always comes out faster (and reads better) than turgid-but-logically-complete writing. The simpler you write, the easier the process, for you and the reader. I'll be talking about some of my favorite techniques in this regard over the next few days.

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Contralateral Brain Exercises for Programmers

Lateralization of brain function has been well studied, and if there's one thing nobody disagrees on, at this point, it's that the brain does the bulk of its speech and language processing on the left side (in or near Broca's area). The right brain does have its own language comprehension ability (particularly when it comes to understanding metaphors, idioms, and prosody), but in general the right hemisphere lacks any ability to comprehend syntax or grammar, and people who suffer trauma to the left brain's speech and language centers develop profound verbal disabilities whereas damage to the right brain seldom produces profound language deficits.

It's also fairly well accepted that "the left hemisphere has been shown to be better prepared to process information in a more analytical, logical, or sequential fashion," whereas "the right hemisphere more efficiently serves tasks that require the holistic, or simultaneous, processing of nonverbal gestalts and the complex transformations of complex visual patterns" (The Neuropsychology Handbook, Chapter 7).

Writers and programmers deal (intensively and regularly) with large amounts of text; text that deals with sequential logic and conforms to especially rigid rules. This unavoidably brings a huge amount of left-brain usage. Is that a problem? No. But it might mean writers and programmers (and other "left-brain-intensive" folks) could benefit from greater engagement of the right hemisphere, because creative problem-solving requires active participation by both halves of the brain.

If one accepts the notion that programmers are (in work mode, at least) heavily lateralized to favor the left hemisphere, it stands to reason that those of us who deal in code for a living could benefit from contralateral brain exercises (exercises designed to stimulate the less-used side of the brain; the right side, in this case).

What does this mean in practice? If you already have hobbies or activities that engage your right brain, you might want to consider doing those things more intensively and more regularly. For example, if you occasionally play a musical instrument (an activity that requires an exceptional amount of cross-hemisphere coordination), start playing the instrument every day rather than occasionally.

If you like to paint, set aside time each day to paint. Do it intensively and regularly.

If you like photography, take photographs every day, without fail.  

Build up stamina for whatever it is you do that brings your less-dominant hemisphere into alignment.

If classical music gets your juices going, take a several-minute-long break once every hour or so (or during any natural break point in your work) to listen to classical music. Note that music is processed bilaterally, in a non-straightforward way [Andrade and Bhattacharya, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, June 2003 vol. 96 no. 6 284-287). But the point is, any kind of music processing requires the active participation of the right brain. So if your right brain has been "going to sleep" (not literally, of course) while you've been writing code, you can wake it up again simply by listening to music.

Interestingly, a certain amount of evidence exists that comprehension of poetry depends largely on right-brain engagement. Therefore, if you like poetry, try reading some before you sit down to work every morning.

My favorite exercise is this: Find an image of something that elicits a strongly positive non-verbal reaction in you (something that, just by its appearance, inspires you). It might be a picture of your favorite athlete in a moment of triumph. It might be a photo of some natural wonder (the Grand Canyon, a mountain, a glacier, a forest). It might be a picture of an iPhone. Whatever.

Tape the picture to the corner (or edge) of your monitor in the morning before you begin work. Leave it there, in your peripheral vision, for a while. Maybe all week.

You don't actually have to look at the photo to be affected by it. Its mere presence in the visual field will have an effect on your brain. I'm convinced this is why so many people put pictures of their children (or spouse, etc.) on their desk. You don't put a picture of your child on the desk to remind yourself that you have a child, nor to remind yourself what your child looks like. You already know what your child looks like. You've seen the picture a million times already, in any case. You put the picture there because its mere presence inspires you to perform better.

Try the inspiring-photo-in-your-peripheral-vision technique for a week, and try changing the photo to a different one every now and then. See if it doesn't spur your creativity. It works for me. Let me know if it works for you.

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Interface Design Lessons from the Aerospace Industry

F-111A cockpit.

Expand your mental image of what a "device" is, for a moment.

I'm sure you'd be willing to agree that a fighter jet is an extremely complex, high-functionality device. Yet it has to have a usable human interface (or else it's not worth much). How does one provide a highly usable interface for such a complex "device"?

In the 1960s, the way to do it was as shown in the accompanying photo of the cockpit of a General Dynamics F-111A. You don't have to be a pilot to appreciate the fact that the "user interface" to the F-111A was (let us say) intimidating in its complexity. Is such an interface usable? Apparently it was. Over 500 of these aircraft flew, with the cockpit design shown in the photo.

F-22 Raptor cockpit.

Fast-forward to 2005, which is when the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor went into service. The F-22A has a useful load (max weight minus empty weight) of about 40,000 pounds, which is essentially the same as for the F-111A. In almost all other respects, the planes are miles apart. The F-22A has vastly greater capabilities than the F-111A; so much so, that the two airplanes shouldn't really be compared. But the point is, the F-22, despite being a much more sophisticated and capable  aircraft than the F-111A, has a much simpler human interface (see photo).

What happened between 1964 and 2005? Human factors research happened.

First, human factors experts realized that anything that could be considered a visual distraction is a potential safety hazard. Therefore, consolidate (and hide, if you can) as many doodads as possible. Naturally, the advent of processor-driven electronics made it possible to integrate and automate many of the functions that were previously exposed to crew, thus reducing the overall interface footprint. A good example is Fully Automated Digital Engine Control (FADEC) technology. In the F-111A, pilots had to monitor half a dozen engine gauges showing turbine inlet temperature and other indications of engine status. In a modern jet, a computer monitors and regulates such things. The pilot doesn't need to get involved.

An important feature of modern cockpits (which has little or nothing to do with technology per se) is that important items in the interface (e.g. display screens) are made larger than less-important elements. Human factors experts quickly realized that the worst possible thing to do is simply make all gauges (or groups of gauges) a "standard size" regardless of importance.

Advances in digital display technology made it possible to consolidate data from multiple gauges onto one display surface (which might have several display modes). This also reduces footprint, even though the biggest "gauges" (which are now screens) have actually gotten bigger.

Yet another outcome of human factors research was (is) that color displays are easier for the brain to parse than a wall of black-and-white data. Likewise, graphical visualizations of data (if done correctly) are easier to comprehend than numeric representations.

The overall principle at work is, of course, that of simplification combined with functional organization. To fly an aircraft, the pilot needs to have flight information (airspeed, altitude, rate of climb or descent, angle of bank and/or rate of turn, heading), navigational information (terrain information, aircraft position, some indication of desired course and deviation from desired course, distance to waypoint), and the ability to operate avionics. (Avionics include radios used for communication; transponders to make the aircraft show up on ground radar; navigational receivers, such as GPS, and aids to navigating the glidepath to a landing; weather-avoidance gear; and autopilots.) In a military aircraft, the only major additional functional group is the fire-control (weapons management) system. So in other words, the major functional groups are few in number: They include flight information; navigational information; avionics; and fire control. Within each of these groups, you apply the standard principles of consolidation, appropriate visualization, and size differentiation (important things bigger, less important things smaller).

All of these principles can be adapted to GUI-intensive software. It's up to you (and your human factors experts) to decide how.

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

More Mantas for Software Professionals

See also yesterday's post.


First impressions count.

Being a category leader has no meaning if existing products are crap.

Never aspire to be best-in-category. Define a new category.

Never compare yourself to the competition. Your only competition is yourself.

Never borrow someone else's bar and set it higher. Design your own bar.

Refactor your thinking so you don't have to refactor code.

Good ideas are overrated. Good implementations are not.

Complexity cannot be made pretty.

A pig with lipstick is still a pig.

Excellence cannot be retrofitted.

If something's not right with your engineering culture, customers will notice.

There are no hard problems, only problems that aren't well defined.

Learning is the inevitable outcome of making mistakes, fixing them, and not repeating them.

If you aren't making mistakes, you're not doing it right. 

You can always do better.


If you found this post worthwhile, please tweet it, Digg it, Reddit it, or share the link with a friend. Thanks!

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

New Atlantic column: Gun control is good, but ending the War on Drugs is even better

I have a new column up at the Atlantic, in which I try to give some perspective to the gun control debate that has exploded since the Newtown massacre. Some excerpts:

This is not a column against gun control. Gun control is a good idea. The assault-weapons ban is a good idea. So are background checks, stricter licensing agreements, and greater efforts to keep guns out of the hands of minors. A prohibitive tax on ammunition? There's another good idea finally getting attention it deserves... 

Stringent gun-control measures are unlikely to turn the United States into a peaceful gun-free society like Japan...[T]o become like Japan, banning gun sales wouldn't be enough...if the U.S. banned gun ownership, and confiscated all the guns that people currently own, it would probably be very effective. But this is almost certainly politically infeasible... 

[I]f we really care about those 9,000 souls who are shot to death each year, there is an extremely effective policy that we could enact right now that would probably save many of them.  

I'm talking about ending the drug war... 

[F]ew would argue that the illegal drug trade is a significant cause of murders. This is a straightforward result of America's three-decade-long "drug war." Legal bans on drug sales lead to a vacuum in legal regulation; instead of going to court, drug suppliers settle their disputes by shooting each other. Meanwhile, interdiction efforts raise the price of drugs by curbing supply, making local drug supply monopolies (i.e., gang turf) a rich prize to be fought over. And stuffing our overcrowded prisons full of harmless, hapless drug addicts forces us to give accelerated parole to hardened killers... 

[D]on't expect [gun control] to be a panacea...[W]e need to end the self-destructive, failed drug policies that have turned us into a prison state and turned many of our cities into war zones.

Read the whole thing here!

reade more... Résuméabuiyad