| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
|
Thursday, September 8, 2016
Foresight Signals: Star Trek at 50, the Economics of the Singularity, and More
Saturday, September 3, 2016
From Science Fiction to Science Factualized: Star Trek at 50, the Economics of the Singularity, and More
Vol.
2, No. 11 | September 2016 | AAI
Foresight
Star Trek at 50: The Future Is Human
On September 8, 1966, Gene Roddenberry's television series Star Trek boldly led the human imagination where it had never gone before. Rather than enumerate the series' many technological and social forecasts and inspirations, we'll take a look at what stirred Roddenberry's creative juices. (For the former angle, check out Fortune's coverage, perhaps by accessing it on your as-predicted handheld computer.)
In his presentation at the World Future Society's 1984 conference, longtime member Roddenberry spoke on “the literary image of the future.” He said that as a dramatist his function was to create alternative realities, but that his concern always was with people. “It seems to me that futurists to often wander too far away from considerations of people, as if somehow assuming that science's 'realities' represent the full horizon,” he said.
 |
| Leonard Nimoy, Robert Wise, Gene Roddenberry, DeForest Kelley and William Shatner on the set of Star Trek The Motion Picture in 1978. Credit: Tom Simpson / Flickr |
Fiction and drama enable the creative artist to find new perspectives on the human reality; just as Lewis Carroll used a white rabbit, Roddenberry used aliens, such as the half-human, half-Vulcan Mr. Spock. To create this new character, Roddenberry began by interviewing him, letting the character evolve until Spock ultimately began asking his own questions and answering with the logic we came to know and love.
Twenty years after so creating Spock, Roddenberry was visited by another new alien character, called Gaan, a marine-based life-form from a methane sea planet, whose profession was scholar. “It is in areas of futurism that dialogue with him has become so valuable to me that for almost a year now I have been attempting to bypass the dialogue level by practicing the trick of actually thinking like Gaan,” he told the 1984 conference attendees. “Those capable of using an extraterrestrial's eyes as an exercise, as a challenge, as an exciting game, improve on their ability to estimate where today may be taking us.”
The exercise of creating Gaan for a novel led Roddenberry to reflect on other “alien” questions humans needed to ask back in the mid-1980s—questions that yet need consideration today:
- If automation puts half our workforce on the street (and we dare not call that impossible), what of the police? If they are overworked and outnumbered, how do we increase their numbers, their legal powers? …
- If disorder threatens our cities, should we consider travel passes that limit which vehicles can travel through which areas? …
- Can our political system survive television's “Hollywood” method of casting candidates and presenting issues?
- Is there a self-ordained “messiah” in our future? Are there indications of a public hunger for this? Is there a very obvious trend toward more and more simplistic answers to life's problems?
Gaan, and likely Roddenberry as well, was hopeful about humanity's prospects: “I look forward to the day when these humans, who are so much more than they yet believe they are, will at last understand that the Cosmos outside and the Cosmos inside themselves are one and the same.”
Reference: “Mr. Spock and Gaan: Alien Perspectives on the Future,” The Futurist, February 1985.
Signals: extraterrestrial intelligence; Gene Roddenberry; science fiction; Star Trek: World Future Society
A Singularity Economy—If Uploads Come First
By Randall Mayes
The Singularity—a point in time in the future where machine intelligence exceeds that of humans—is a popular topic of discussion among futurists. For uncertain reasons, the literature is dominated by discussions of the likelihood of artificial general intelligence (AGI) and it possibly functioning without humans in control.The Singularity could follow other paths, such as mind uploading. AI researchers are also investigating human-machine interfaces. The convergence of numerous technologies could produce a synthetic neocortex linked to a human brain and connected to the cloud.
It is possible that artificial brains may actually develop first. However, this assumes that Moore's law will continue at least several decades into the future and that algorithms can exceed human capabilities without researchers understanding completely how the brain works.
After nine years as an AI researcher and programmer for Lockheed and NASA, Robin Hanson, now an economics professor at George Mason University, became skeptical of a master algorithm that will combine the speed of supercomputers with the cognitive skills of humans. As a result, in 1994, he wrote If Uploads Come First.
In a culmination of over twenty years of research, Hanson’s new book, The Age of Em: Work, Love, and Life When Robots Rule the Earth (Oxford University Press, 2016), provides an unprecedented look into what the world may look like when run by uploaded minds.
Whole-brain emulations, or ems, are fully functional models of human brains copied and stored in robots or, as Hanson visualizes, in android bodies in virtual reality. He envisions using the brains of several hundred hard-working and smart people with personalities that are likely to follow new norms. Instead of food, these ems would require plenty of electricity for cooling and power to run hardware. Ultimately, he projects ems could think a thousand times faster than a typical human.
Hanson further envisions trillions of these ems in high-rise buildings, so productive they would create a fourth human era—an economy that doubles every month. For comparison purposes, he calculated that, in the first three human eras, the foraging economy doubled every quarter million years, the farming economy doubled every thousand years, and the current industrial economy has doubled every 15 years.
Before the em scenario transcends sci-fi to reality, it will require the development of superfast computers, nondestructive brain scans, and models of human brain cells in order to process their features and connections. Mapping the brain is very complex, and it is uncertain at present how deep in the brain-signaling processes scientists will need to understand. Mind-loading researchers estimate that this path to the Singularity will take anywhere from two decades to a century to develop.
Hanson’s economic model assumes the forces of supply and demand. So, current ethical standards could also delay the development of uploaded human minds. Em research on lab animals will not translate into results useful in humans. Unfortunately, em research will require that intelligent individuals be willing to sacrifice their earthly life, since human brains would not survive the current scanning processes.
The Age of Em is imaginative and provides a thought-provoking discussion of the social implications of an em economy. For more insight on how ems may function in virtual reality and how the lack of understanding of consciousness will impact the development of uploaded minds, see my in depth discussion with Hanson for TechCast Global.
Randall Mayes is a technology analyst and author of Revolutions: Paving the Way for the Bioeconomy (Logos Press, 2012). He may be contacted at randy.mayes@duke.edu.
Signals: artificial general intelligence, economics, neuroscience, robotics
Blog Report: Foresight in the Public Sector
In the past five years, two groups of futurists working in the public sector have formed to share intelligence and experience in working with their respective agencies. In 2011 the Public Sector Foresight Network formed, open to anyone globally working in government, and in 2013 the Federal Foresight Community of Interest formed to unite those working in various branches of the U.S. federal government.These two networks agreed to join forces, meeting jointly on July 22, 2016, to facilitate the exchange of diverse views and best practices by U.S. and international foresight officials. Foresight Signals' special correspondent Lane Jennings was on hand to report on the presentations by Clem Bezold, Nancy Donovan, James-Christian Blockwood, Jason Stiles, Joe Moore, John Basso, Joe Greenblott, Peter Padbury, Ibon Zugasti, M. Gotzone Sagardui, Juan Ibarreche, Tracey Wait, Chris Mihm, and Catarina Tully.
“The meeting highlighted the extensive and evolving foresight efforts in Spain, Canada, U.S. federal agencies, and globally (particularly around the Sustainable Development Goals),” Jennings reports.
Read “Sharing Foresight Knowledge and Experience” by Lane Jennings on the Foresight Signals blog (posted August 27, 2016).
Mack Report: VR and AI Development
In his latest post for the AAI Foresight blog, managing principal Timothy C. Mack writes that “science fiction and other popular media have so raised expectations” about virtual reality “that people are always disappointed, because they all think that fully functional VR is already here.”Mack notes that virtual reaility is making an impact in storytelling, simulator games, and training, however. “Deep human impulses are released in gaming,” he writes. “Many experienced players even provoke their opponents to play more emotionally and thus make mistakes. While fun can be transformational—physically, emotionally, and cognitively—there is seldom complete transfer of skills in gaming or simulations. A good example is a firefighter simulation in a burning building, which does not adequately prepare one for the heat, choking gases, and real danger. And so outcomes and success levels are different for each person.”
Read “VR and AI Development” by Timothy C. Mack, Foresight Signals blog (posted August 22, 2016).
__________
Send
us your signals!
News about your work and other tips are welcome, as is feedback on
Foresight
Signals.
Contact
Cynthia
G. Wagner,
consulting editor.
Feel
free to share Foresight Signals with your networks and to submit any
stories, tips, or “signals” of trends emerging on the horizon
that we can share with other stakeholders and the foresight
community.
__________
©
2016 AAI
Foresight
Foresight
Signals is a publication of AAI
Foresight
1619
Main Street, #1172
Freeland, WA 98249
Managing
Principal: Timothy C. Mack
tcmack333@gmail.com
| 202-431-1652
Webmaster and IT
Consultant: Tom Warner
Consulting Editor:
Cynthia G. Wagner
Designer:
Lisa Mathias
Saturday, August 27, 2016
Sharing Foresight Knowledge and Experience
By Lane Jennings
Sharing Foresight Knowledge and Experience:
A Report on the 2016 Meeting of the Public Sector Foresight Network and the Federal Foresight Community of Interest
Interest in how
government looks at the future is undergoing a renaissance in
governments around the world, and the role of networks in
facilitating the exchange of information is critical. The integration
of networks is particularly important in order to leverage knowledge.
Two government
foresight networks were formed in recent years in response to growing
interest in developing a critical mass of those working in government
on foresight in the U.S. and around the world. In 2011, futurist Dr.
Clem Bezold of the Institute for Alternative Futures (IAF) and
Nancy Donovan of the U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) convened a government foresight breakfast in Vancouver, Canada,
which has since evolved into annual day-long meetings and the
creation of an international Public Sector Foresight Network (PSFN)
open to those in and working with government on foresight issues. In
2013, James-Christian Blockwood, then with the U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA), organized the Federal Foresight Community
of Interest (FFCoI), which has since conducted quarterly meetings
drawing officials from over 50 U.S. federal agencies. Both networks
decided to combine forces to organize a joint meeting in 2016 in
order to facilitate the exchange of diverse views and best practices
by U.S. and international foresight officials.
On July 22, these
two government foresight networks met for a groundbreaking joint
meeting in Washington, D.C., to share knowledge on best practices in
identifying emerging trends and to discuss issues such as how
foresight can be incorporated into decision making. With close to 100
registered, members of the international PSFN and the U.S. FFCoI
discussed issues on how emerging trends can be incorporated into
government planning and policies. Countries represented included
Canada, China, Korea, Singapore, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the
United States, including attendees from over 25 U.S. federal
agencies.
Held at the U.S.
Bureau of Prisons, the July 22 meeting opened with remarks by Bezold
and Donovan speaking for PSFN, along with Jason Stiles
of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and Joe Moore from VA on
behalf of the FFCoI.
The first speaker,
John Basso from the VA, outlined what turned out to be the
overriding message of the day: that, to be effective, foresight
practitioners must understand the goals and values of government and
business leaders and be prepared to couch their proposals in terms
those leaders could relate to and understand. Using examples from
government agencies whose attempts at foresight produced differing
results, Basso demonstrated how sustaining foresight is only possible
when deep scanning is not simply performed by outside “experts”
who come in, write up their report, and leave again, but when the
importance of foresight is embraced by management and its value is
demonstrated to staff throughout an entire organization so that it
becomes an integral part of ongoing operations.
Stephen Sanford
of GAO followed up by pointing out key attributes of successful
foresight programs. These included:
* convincing
stakeholders at all levels, from funders and administrators to
department staff and those they serve—the general public—that
foresight is not a fad but a fundamental element in effective policy;
* developing
persuasive narratives based on existing institutional goals and
values to indicate how foresight can enhance outcomes;
* busting silos
and engaging all levels of staff by forming hybrid teams to develop
and integrate design strategies; and
* rapidly
prototyping so as to make results visible to stakeholders within a
reasonable time.
Joe Greenblott
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) then described how
a one-year strategic foresight pilot project conducted by his agency
built upon lessons learned from past foresight projects by directly
involving representatives from across EPA, engaging agency experts
and managers throughout the project, and focusing on emerging
challenges and opportunities for which actionable recommendations
could be developed. Noting that OMB
Curricular A-11
(Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget) now encourages
agencies to integrate strategic foresight into the strategic planning
and review process, Greenblott went on to describe how his agency
first set up an 18-member “Lookout Panel” to assure broad agency
involvement in the foresight process, with panel members committing
up to 10 percent of their time to participate in the project. Over
the course of the pilot, the panel members participated in training
on strategic foresight methods, scanned media for evidence of
emerging issues likely to impact EPA operations, held strategic
discussions with thought leaders within and outside of EPA, and
communicated their findings to leadership.
Peter Padbury
of Policy Horizons Canada, a foresight center in the Canadian
government, spoke about emerging challenges in his country in the
2015-2030 time frame and the progress of foresight efforts currently
under way to assess these. Policy Horizons serves the senior
management community by identifying emerging issues and policy
challenges that could impact the country in the 10- to 15-year time
frame. Most of Policy Horizons’ studies explore Canadian issues in
a global context. He emphasized the value of surfacing and working
directly with the mental models held by the various stakeholders as a
tool to understand the system and how it could evolve under different
conditions. Where possible it is particularly useful to understand
the mental models of key decision makers as they are more likely to
pay attention to the study to see what you have done with their
model. Also, instead of merely warning of perceived dangers, Padbury
stressed the value of presenting upcoming policy challenges in terms
of the new opportunities they might present. He also emphasized that
surfacing and testing the core assumptions buried in new policy
proposals is a very useful exercise that can provide a context for
new policy development.
Padbury outlined
some of the early findings from an ongoing study on the emerging
economy. A number of new technologies (including AI, data analytics,
sensors, robotics, the Internet of Things, blockchain, synthetic
biology, etc.) are the infrastructure for a new digital global
economy that will dramatically change the nature of manufacturing,
services, and natural resources exploitation. It will likely enable
the rise of virtual corporations (platforms) that use all-digital
value chains to connect virtual workers, AI, and other resources on
an as-needed basis to deliver customized goods and services to people
anywhere in the world. There are many potential surprises. For
example, a number of goods and services will be much cheaper or
nearly free, he said. This could lead to an era where “consumer
welfare” is increasing in some desirable ways, but we confront a
long period of deflation during the transition years. The emergence
of this global digital economy, he asserted, may radically alter the
traditional roles of government institutions at every level, making
some traditional instruments (such as taxation, trade barriers, and
employment standards) largely ineffective.
The next three
speakers, Ibon Zugasti from Prospektiker, the foresight unit
of the Basque worker-owned conglomerate Mondragon, and M. Gotzone
Sagardui and Juan Ibarreche from the employment agency of
the government in the Basque region of Spain, reported on a study of
employment scenarios to 2030 adapted to the Basque region from the
Millennium Project's 2050 Work &Technology Study. For the Basque
region, forecasts were developed for 2030. These forecasts identified
disruptions but saw lower worker displacement for the region than did
the Millennium Project study, as well as a different pattern of
technologies that would displace jobs. Sagardui noted that the 2030
study reinforced Basque employment and guaranteed-income policy. She
presented the consistent successes achieved over the past 25 years by
programs tailored to the specific needs of citizens in their local
region to reduce poverty and unemployment to levels far below those
of Spain as a whole or even the average levels of the entire EU. With
some 2.1 million native inhabitants, the Basque region occupies a
mountainous area on the border between northern Spain and southern
France and includes the important port and manufacturing center of
Bilbao. Beginning with surveys and in-depth interviews, Basque
officials identified the principal desires of their citizens, and
instituted long-term programs of employment and income support that
reduced unemployment levels from 16 percent in 1984 to 5.9 percent in
2014. While overall poverty levels in Spain as a whole remain around
9 percent, in the Basque region they are only about 3 percent, having
the same Gini index of income equality as Sweden. Acknowledging the
advantages of a relatively small but culturally coherent area like
the Basque region, these speakers argued that establishing carefully
selected and widely supported goals based on research techniques and
using modified assumptions reflecting conditions specific to their
own region have been largely responsible for the successes achieved.
James-Christian
Blockwood of GAO, appearing in his role as a member of the
National Academy of Public Administration’s Panel on Strategic
Foresight, spoke about the special challenge of preparing foresight
recommendations for presidential transition teams. The panel’s
three recommendations are, first, to set up a task force on current
problems with long-range implications that will be prepared to
recommend policies appropriate for beginning to address these within
the first 100 days of the new administration; second, to better
integrate foresight into government agencies at all levels; and
third, to assure that existing foresight networks can be drawn on to
aid in decision making. These are ambitious recommendations, but ably
supported by the OMB’s regulations promoting foresight in
government decision making and management. Additional details on the
mission of NAPA and its panel on strategic foresight are available
online at
http://www.napat16.org/t16-panels/bringing-strategic-foresight-to-bear-in-program-planning-and-management.html.
Tracey Wait
of Policy Horizons Canada then reported on the role of foresight
activity in support of Canadian government at the national level.
Policy Horizons works to increase the foresight capacity of Canadian
agencies, co-creates knowledge through foresight across the public
service, and issues reports (such as the one presented by Peter
Padbury above). By focusing on emerging challenges and opportunities
in the 10- to 15-year time frame, Policy Horizons can provide a
context to help make short- and medium-term planning more robust and
strategic. In both countries, the role of foresight teams is to
gather information, engage in the policy dialogue, and offer advice
recognizing that there is no guarantee that their findings or
recommendations will be accepted and implemented.
Chris Mihm,
also from GAO but speaking personally, addressed the significance
of the recently adopted 17 Strategic Development Goals (SDGs) to
guide and inspire national and international efforts to improve
living conditions for people around the world. Unlike previous
guidelines aimed primarily at bringing developing nations closer to
the norms already common among the wealthy nations of the Northern
Hemisphere, the SDGs apply equally to nations North and South, and
challenge them to achieve measurable improvements from current levels
in all areas within the next 15 years. While no sanctions or
penalties for failure are included, Mihm sees good reason to hope
that an overwhelming majority of the world’s governments will adopt
new strategies to improve the measurement and reporting of conditions
affecting all segments of their populations and make significant
efforts to improve quality of life and opportunities for
self-betterment in every region and at every level of society.
Catarina Tully
from the School of International Futures, former strategy project
director at the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and former
adviser to the prime minister, followed up by assessing the potential
impact of the UN’s SDGs to empower and inspire ordinary citizens
and promote what she termed “frugal foresight” (i.e., more
cost-effective efforts by government agencies to improve people’s
quality of life). Foresight efforts by government have often faltered
in the past because they failed to make a credible case for success
when presented to the general public. The democratic process,
involving frequent elections, makes long-term thinking difficult and
tends to discourage elected officials from making use of foresight
studies. Tully’s goal is to change how existing governments view
their function and to encourage them to legislate less and interact
more directly with people at all levels. She cited Finland, Israel,
and Costa Rica as nations that have achieved progress by moving in
this direction. While conceding that goals alone are not sufficient,
and that factors such as extremist violence and widespread corruption
pose significant roadblocks to progress, Tully expressed confidence
that the next 18 months will prove a crucial period and establish the
viability of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
To round out the
meeting, Jason Stiles (BOP) invited participants to propose
topics that might be addressed at future meetings or suggest
alternative ways to meet and share opinions as a group. Among the
suggestions offered were:
* meeting more
often via the Internet;
* assessing the
results of past foresight efforts in greater detail. It was pointed
out that convincing leaders and the general public that foresight was
a useful exercise would be far easier if it were possible to cite
specific beneficial outcomes from a variety of past experiences;
* focusing on how
to address indicators far enough in advance so that potential crises
might be avoided instead of merely reacted to;
* having more
presenters at one time, perhaps by holding poster sessions;
* looking at how
experiential gaming can be utilized in foresight exercises;
* examining how
the growing crisis of legitimacy and disaffection with government and
institutions may impact foresight efforts; and
* seeking some way
to address belief issues in foresight—i.e., strengthening helpful
beliefs and uprooting or downplaying bad ones.
The meeting
highlighted the extensive and evolving foresight efforts in Spain,
Canada, U.S. federal agencies, and globally (particularly around the
Sustainable Development Goals). The meeting itself clearly left
participants with a favorable impression of the organizers, the
speakers, and the level of comments and questions offered by members
of the audience.
Lane Jennings
is former managing editor of World Future Review and currently
serves on its editorial board.
Acknowledgments:
AAI Foresight thanks Clem Bezold, Nancy Donovan, and participants in
the meeting for their contributions to, and review of, this report.
For more information, contact Bezold at cbezold@altfutures.org or
Donovan at nancyjmdonovan@gmail.com.
Copyright 2016 AAI Foresight.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
VR and AI Development
By Timothy
C. Mack
The
trouble with virtual reality (VR) is that science fiction and other
popular media have so raised expectations that people are always
disappointed, because they all think that fully functional VR is
already here. But what VR is really good at is storytelling,
simulator games, and training of all sorts.
This
is to distinguished virtual from augmented reality (AR), which is
also in development. However, nobody has unrealistic expectations
about AR, which strongly challenges present assumptions that it will
be very disruptive. There continues to be a dichotomy between
physically visiting a place or event and virtually doing so. There
are so many physical aspects to actual presence—smell, taste,
touch—that only very limited opportunities to simulate them are now
possible (such as haptic gloves). One of the most appealing aspects
of real presence is serendipity: the unexpected event or outcome.
Deep
human impulses are released in gaming. Many experienced players even
provoke their opponents to play more emotionally and thus make
mistakes. While fun can be transformational—physically,
emotionally, and cognitively—there is seldom complete transfer of
skills in gaming or simulations. A good example is a firefighter
simulation in a burning building, which does not adequately prepare
one for the heat, choking gases, and real danger. And so outcomes and
success levels are different for each person.
 |
| VR simulations for training still may not prepare firefighters for the real thing. Credit: Skeeze/Pixabay |
One
of the challenges in VR game design is determing what assumptions the
designer can make about players' prior knowledge. Also, in the United
States, there is less independent game playing; rather, gaming is
usually on multiplayer online settings with a single screen for each
player.
Online
gaming (streaming) is becoming more of a spectator sport, but live
spectator sports will endure—even broadcast spectator sports that
offer no audience controls. Holographic technology is improving
rapidly, however, moving toward completely immersive experiences. And
this holographic view is unsually unique to each viewer, depending on
where they are standing in the available viewing space, enabling
multiple players/viewers to share different viewpoints and values.
Will
new technologies allow for virtual visits to national parks and
experiences of events that allow for greater levels of participation
and observation detail? Interactive playing rather than participating
in live games and events could lead to changes in attitude and even
in thinking about a subject. Many games are actually on a continuum
between gaming and reality.
Gaming
in the workplace is growing, but it is not always digital. Games such
as Escape
Route
(Locked Room Puzzles) now popular in employee development are often
more exercises for observation, analysis, and team building. It
consists of half a dozen people in a physically confined space, given
clues for escape with the goal of developing a successful team
approach to solve the problem. But one outcome can be a “trough of
despair” where people stop responding to the game structure and
innovative behavior declines. Because no one game works for everyone,
it raises the questions of why people play any specific game at all.
This requires understanding your community of players.
It
is clear that games can communicate complex ideas to their players in
ways that seem intuitive. Games can communicate meaning. New York
University's Game Center and University of Southern California's
Annenberg Innovation Lab are working in this arena. One important
thing that games offer to their players is engagement. In order for
this engagement to develop, the game must invite iteration—repetition
builds engagement over time. But it is very difficult to anticipate
how all players will respond to any specific game, and not everyone
seeks empowerment. That lack of control can be the novel and
intriguing experience. And role playing can provide all sorts of new
experiences
At
Google, researchers are working on natural language solutions,
leading to new machine learning frameworks, including deep learning
projects such as Tensorflow. The whole deep learning area is moving
ahead quite quickly, as computing power advances. Besides Google,
Facebook and Microsoft are committing large resources, and a number
of smaller companies are also involved.
Machine-learning
tools drive advances in robotic movement controls and energy
management, which are two of the most difficult challenges at
present. Virtual models developed to build robotic systems often were
poorly conceived or even wrong—they did not work in practice. There
was not enough real-world input into building those systems, and the
outputs were often full of digital noise. For example, task-training
data is often too scarce to inform task design.
Another
real challenge is crafting strategies for interpreting emotional
interaction—and reading opponents in game playing. This research is
being led by Google Deep Mind (renamed after Deep Mind Technologies
in UK was acquired by Google). Graphic processing units are often
more effective than CPUs to communicate problem solving strategies,
and the majority of present AI work relates to assisting humans
rather than beating humans at games. This is not artificial but
augmented intelligence.
Many
are concerned about black box intelligence with full agency and
independence—so some are designing and bulding attention-tracking
tools allowing us to see what was incorporated in an AI decision.
This will help us better understand the decision steps involved and
replicate them—and help us understand mistakes, as well.
It
is nearly impossible to look out 20 years in AI research because
change is happening so fast. Even 10 years out is too far ahead to be
accurate. But one thing that will happen is that the Internet of
Things will continue to improve its understanding of users through
enabled devices, as well as their desires and patterns of behavior.
And deep-learning tools will inform research in areas such as
biology, medicine, and energy development.
Timothy C. Mack is managing principal of AAI Foresight.
Image
credit: Skeeze/Pixabay
Saturday, August 6, 2016
Foresight Signals: Futurists March on Washington: WFS, PSFN, APF, WFR, and more
Vol.
2, No. 10 | August 2016 | AAI
Foresight
As partisan politics
and its inherent short-termism vacated Washington, D.C., for the
summer, futurists found an opportune time and place for thinking
together about thinking ahead.
The
main attraction for this brief Summer of Futuring was the World
Future Society's
summit (July 22-24), with approximately 530 total attendees. Also
conferring in D.C. were the Public
Sector Foresight Network,
the Association
of Professional Futurists,
and members of the editorial board of World
Future Review,
the
publication formerly serving professional members of the World Future
Society and now edited by James
Dator for
Sage Publications. Other venerable futures institutions on the scene
included The
Millennium Project,
led by Jerome
C. Glenn,
and TechCast
Global,
led by
William Halal.
 |
| Julie Friedman Steele with Kimbal Musk. Photo by C.G. Wagner |
Worldfuture
2016 marked the World
Future Society's 50th anniversary with the introduction of board
chair Julie
Friedman Steele.as
the new (interim) executive director. Steele made herself visible and
accessible to conference goers throughout the event, serving as host
and principal discussant for all the keynote presentations: space
entrepreneur Bob
Richards,
co-founder and CEO of Moon
Express;
poet Sekou
Andrews;
restauratur and food activist Kimbal
Musk;
animal rights leader Wayne
Pacelle,
president and CEO of the Humane
Society of the United States;
and MacArthur Foundation managing director Cecilia
Conrad,
who described the 100&Change
grant initiative.
In
the “box of chocolates” that is the WFS conference, sometimes you
really do know what you're going to get. Attendees flocked to such
popular speakers as the family of Future
Hunters,
Edie
Weiner, Jared Weiner, and
Erica
Orange;
techno-philosopher and futurist Gray
Scott
of Serious
Wonder;
and deans of the Futures School, Kedge
partners Frank
Spencer
and Yvette
Montero Salvatico.
One predictable
aspect of the conference was the frustration generated by multiple
sessions being scheduled concurrently, and the tightly packed meeting
rooms were also hard to discreetly escape to sample other sessions.
 |
| The "unconference" in action. Photo by C.G. Wagner |
An innovative
solution to the concurrent session scheduling problem was the
introduction of an “unconference” format—essentially a cross
between poster sessions and roundtable discussions, wherein
presenters had their own tables for 90 minutes and could chat more
informally with a small group of participants.
Session
Sampler
Twenty-One
Trends for the Twenty-First Century:
Gary
Marx,
president of the Center
for Public Outreach,
based his presentation on his new book
of the same title, which surveys broad trends in demography,
technology, the environment, the economy, and global relations, as
well as how these trends will be affected by big data, geriatrics,
neuroscience, nano/biotech, security, robotics, the share economy,
the gig economy, DIY, the Internet of Things, drones, and more. Many
opportunities may be found at the convergence of two or more trends,
he said.
The
Learning Revolution:
Parminder
K. Jassal
of the ACT
Foundation
and
Katherine Prince and
Jason
Swanson
of KnowledgeWorks
presented a variety of emerging paradigms for learning and education.
For example, individuals could use the blockchain technology
underlying Bitcoins to keep track of their learning experiences and
submit their achievements to school systems for credit or to
employers as a credential for employment. The blockchain will keep
track of classroom experiences as well as on-the-job experiences that
qualify for learning. This is a step away from central control of
education toward individualized learning, the speakers claimed.
The
Age of Illumination: The Coming Revolution in Discovery, Innovation,
and Productivity:
Deborah
Wince-Smith,
president and CEO of the U.S.
Council on Competitiveness,
outlined the variety of ways in which the new technologies will
unleash new powers in the future—and unleash tsunamis of data that
will double every two years. Increasingly cheap mobile computing
empowers us to handle this flood of data, she said, transforming
retailing, public health, agriculture, and disaster response.
The
Future of Work:
Journalist, HR consultant, and lifelong futurist Alexandra
Levit
offered an overview of trends shaping the future of work
relationships. The declining birthrate in the developed world is
leading to talent shortages that will lead to the “rise of the
seniors, take two,” she said. It will also require the large cohort
of millennials to move into leadership positions a decade earlier
than their elders did. Levit also disputed the notion that job losses
are due to automation; rather, new technologies have generated more
opportunities. The social media manager, for instance, is a category
that didn't exist 20 years ago. Look for more occupations requiring
human skills, such as interpreting big data.
Emotional
Machines:
On the subject of human-computer relations, Richard
Yonck
of Intelligent
Future Consulting reminded attendees that “emotion was our
first interface,” and to work effectively with our technological
partners, we need to make our machines more like ourselves than the
other way around.
Public
foresight programs:
Several speakers offered overviews of their initiatives in applying
futurism in public agencies, including Aaron
Bazin and
Mehmet
Kinaci
on NATO's Framework
for Future Alliance Operations;
Steven
Gale on
the U.S. Agency for International Development's Global
Development Lab;
Byeongwon
Park on
the Center for Strategic Foresight at South
Korea's Science
and Technology Policy Institute;
Peter
Padbury
on Policy
Horizons Canada;
Prabhat
Ranjan
on India's Technology
Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council;
Leon
Fuerth, director
of the Project
on Forward Engagement
(and former national security adviser to Al Gore); the U.S. Marine
Corps Warfighting Lab's Futures Directorate,
represented by Patrick
Kirchner, Jesse Cook,
and James
Trahan;
and Kira
Hutchinson on
the U.S.
Army's Mad Scientist initiative to
explore the operational environment of 2030-2050.
 |
| Photo by C.G. Wagner |
The
future of WFS: Two
back-to-back sessions gave attendees an overview of the private
member network
that replaces The
Futurist magazine
as the organization's principal membership benefit. While moderator
and board member Deborah
Peacock
tried to steer the discussion toward chapter development,
participants at the first of the two mirror sessions pressed for more
details on the benefits WFS is now offering. Many expressed concern
about the lack of a publication to distribute to prospective members
as a recruitment tool, noting that The
Futurist had
always been an "ambassador” for the Society.
Peacock
emphasized that the suspension of the magazine was a financial
decision and that the new WFS—whose membership now numbers “almost
3,000,” according to membership concierge Abby Tang—is
very much in a formative stage. Peacock encouraged all members
to provide feedback and ideas.
Note:
Shortly after the conference, WFS announced a fundraising campaign to
pursue a number of member-generated ideas, including “bring
back The
Futurist.”
Public
Sector Foresight Network
Also
drawing nearly 100 foresight professionals to D.C. was a meeting July
22 that joined the international Public Sector Foresight Network
(PSFN) and the U.S.
Federal Foresight Community of Interest (FFCoI). The goal of the
joint meeting was to “share knowledge on best practices in
identifying emerging trends and discuss issues such as how foresight
can be incorporated into decision making,” according to PSFN
co-founder Nancy
Donovan
of the U.S. Government Accountability Office. “Both networks
decided to combine forces to organize a joint meeting in 2016 in
order to facilitate the exchange of diverse views and best practices
by U.S. and international foresight officials.”
The
participants shared their experiences bringing foresight work to
their government agencies, including a strategic foresight project
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a work technology study
for the Basque Country, and work toward formulating an aspirational
component for meeting Sustainable Development Goals.
A
more detailed report on the meeting prepared by Lane
Jennings
will be posted on the AAI Foresight Signals blog.
Association of Professional Futurists
Also
meeting ahead of the WFS conference July 22 were members of
Association of Professional Futurists, who held their annual
professional development program. Although AAI Foresight did not
attend personally, we enjoyed following the event on Twitter (and
hearing the praises of attendees reporting back to us during the WFS
conference).
A
few tweets:
Andy
Hines @futurist_Ahines: @profuturists
Opening session on "purpose" followed w/ Jim Dator's
amazing futurist journey; always fascinating to learn why we do
futures!
Maree
Conway @MareeConway: Recurring
theme at APF #pro2016 is need to have people and their needs at
centre of our work; appeared in many ways today #4futr
Jennifer
McDougall @mcdougalljennie: Can design thinking make you a more
innovative and effective futurist? #prodev16
APF
@profuturists: Breakout sessions: identifying needs over wants,
values & beliefs, responding to feedback #ProDev16 #4futr
APF
@profuturists: Breakout sessions: consulting through multiple
perspectives & operating environments #ProDev16 #4futr
APF
@profuturists: Breakout sessions: content must prompt inquiry,
curiosity and response. Medium is (still) message #ProDev16 #4futr
incognito
sum @incognitosum: Futures & futurists can't be separated from
theories of social change @jimdator speaking at @profuturists
#ProDev16
Maree
Conway @MareeConway: Talking about prediction - big data helps you
predict the future for the next 30 seconds Jim Data #prodev16
Christopher
Bishop @chrisbishop: #prodev16 #4futr @profuturist put #futurist on
your passport so you can have a teachable moment with a border
guard/customs official
APF
@profuturists: It is always the duty of futurists to think about
what's next, to be able to talk about what could be vs what's
expected @jimdator #ProDev16
Marti
Ryan @martifuturist: @pinnovation "Strategic planning is a waste
of time in an era of disruption. Use strategy as a process of
learning" #prodev16
Marti
Ryan @martifuturist: Super grateful for the opp to bump brains w
@profuturists #prodev16. The energy, thinking, leading &
creativity continue to inspire me.
World Future Review Editorial Board
Several
members of WFR's
editorial board also met informally over breakfast during the WFS
conference: Antonio
Alonso Concheiro, Guillermina
Baena Paz, Guillermina Benavides Rincon, Clem Bezold, Stuart Candy,
Jay Gary, Jerry Glenn, Fabienne Goux-Baudiment, Sirkka Heinonen,
Andrew Hines, Lane Jennings, Claire Nelson, and Wendy
Schultz.
Editor
Jim Dator
solicited ideas and fielded concerns from participants over the
logistics of publishing the journal independently of WFS and in
digital form only. He announced that
the title of the journal would soon be changed to World
Futures
Review
to emphasize the multiplicity of futures studies, and to indicate
that the publication was no longer affiliated with the World Future
Society.
Dator
explained that
SAGE’s strategy of bundling online subscriptions to social science
journals (of which WFR
is one) made past and current issues available through several
thousand university library systems worldwide, and that the publisher
had no objection to authors using their articles in books or for
other purposes provided they did not simply copy the text exactly as
it had appeared online.
Suggestions
for changes and improvements in the journal were many but uniformly
positive. Everyone present applauded Dator’s achievement in getting
the journal back on schedule, and agreed with his goal of featuring
articles about the field of futures studies itself and not possible
futures for society or some specific aspect of it.
One
goal that several of those present stressed was to get WFR
recognized as an accredited journal, which would allow articles
published there to count toward academic tenure. Exactly how this
might be achieved is not clear, but the topic will certainly be
pursued in future discussions.
Acknowledgments
Thank
you to Clem Bezold, James Dator, Nancy Donovan, Jay Herson, and Lane
Jennings for their contributions to this report. --CGW
__________
Send
us your signals!
News about your work and other tips are welcome, as is feedback on
Foresight
Signals.
Contact
Cynthia
G. Wagner,
consulting editor.
Feel
free to share Foresight Signals with your networks and to submit any
stories, tips, or “signals” of trends emerging on the horizon
that we can share with other stakeholders and the foresight
community.
__________
©
2016 AAI
Foresight
Foresight
Signals is a publication of AAI
Foresight
1619 Main Street,
#1172
Freeland, WA 98249
Managing Principal:
Timothy C. Mack
tcmack333@gmail.com
| 202-431-1652
Webmaster and IT
Consultant: Tom Warner
Consulting Editor:
Cynthia G. Wagner
Designer:
Lisa Mathias
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)