Will our offsprings be smarter than us? – I

The AI Cube framework for analysis of AI systems and their evolution. Credit: Adpakkala

In my previous post in this series I included a clip of an interview with dr. Michio Kaku, a US theoretical physicist and futurist with Japanese grandparents, where he made the point that the basic, structural ingredients of intelligence with respect to evolution can be found in the opposable thumb, the position of the eyes at the front of the head and the language capability. The ideas are intriguing: the opposable thumb gives us the possibility to manipulate the world, the front position of the eyes is the one of predators that need to imagine what the prey might do and devise a strategy (hence giving rise to abstract thinking) and the language supports the transmission of knowledge in a much more articulated and effective way thus allowing for the growth of knowledge from one generation to the next.

These might be indeed very important components and they all have roots in random changes in the genome that took root through the natural selection process. He is also pointing out that the genomic difference between humans and their next of kin, the chimpanzees, is tiny, less than 1.5%. Scientists have identified the genes involved in steering towards a larger skull (that can accommodate a larger brain), those for languages… and so on. With genetic manipulation we should be able to tweak the chimpanzee genome to provide it the traits that would make it intelligent. At the same time, he says: “why would we want to do that genomic upgrade? We already have it and it is us!”.

However, this genomic manipulation possibility opens the way to: “could we create a more intelligent human?”. This issue may become even more important as artificial intelligence is providing machines with more and more capabilities, actually to the point of exceeding our own.

There is no doubt that machines will become more intelligent and more aware of their environment (the two things are related) and eventually smarter than us. We can do, in principle, two things:

  1. Stop the progress of machines (it is us who are making them progress, so far!)
  2. Make sure that in parallel we get ourselves a boost to keep an edge on the machines

Now, for number 1, it is difficult in a competitive world that is connected but also formed by independent parts to stop creating ever more performant machines because that gives a competitive advantage and making machines more and more autonomous and intelligent is a way to make them more performant.

For number 2 there is a huge number of ethical issues but of course they are unlikely to stop some constituencies to explore the possibilities (taking for granted that from a technology point of view genomic manipulation resulting in enhanced performance -including enhanced cognitive capabilities- will become reality, the question is “when not if”). There are also many grey areas where it is difficult to draw a line and we have seen that these lines are subject to shift, as culture evolves.

Indeed, it seems that these two paths are not going to be feasible. The Symbiotic Autonomous Systems Initiative is both exploring them and looking for a third way that is basically saying:

“if you can’t beat them, join them and see how to influence their evolution”

This is likely to be the evolution towards an even smarter world, where many of its components, humans and well as machines, but also bacteria and other inanimate and living forms will get smarter. Humans are, and are going to be, the architects of this evolution. Genetic modification of bacteria, to make them more useful in a variety of tasks, is already ongoing. Machines with embedded artificial intelligence are getting more aware of their environment and better at interaction with us. We are using prosthetics, including our smart phones, to increase our physical and cognitive capabilities, teaming up with machines and the environment in a seamless way (furthering our symbiotic relationship with them).

As our symbioses with machines becomes more effective, we are also becoming more and more dependent on them (that is part of the symbiotic concept -relying on the other) but this has already happened. In today’s society we would be completely lost if electricity, to name just one thing, would be switched off. We have adapted to today’s environment and we are smart in it/with it.  We will have to carefully design the transition towards newer environments with the challenge that this transition is happening faster than ever before.

This observation makes me go back to Michio Kaku clip: I want to observe that the ideas he is presenting are not sufficient to explain the evolution of intelligence and its impact on the world.  Those genetic variations that resulted in the human species happened some 200,000 years ago (some go back even earlier) and if we look at the genomes of our ancestors (even more recent ones dating some 10,000 years ago) we see that they are basically au pair with the ours. Yet the evolution of society (ies) has been amazing over this time and even more intriguing it has moved by leaps, not in a linear way. Human societies have remained stable for centuries and millennia and then all of a sudden they have evolved for a while. Genome cannot be the only explanation. The interrelation between us and our environment has played a great role. Actually, some estimate that the genome is responsible for just 5% of our intelligence with the remaining 95% attributable to environmental factors. Take a look at the controversial interview with Robert Plomin (controversial because it ties intelligence to genomic characteristics and this may sound like racisms. However, if you listen carefully to his points it is clear that there is no substantiation to racism in what he is saying).

About Roberto Saracco

Roberto Saracco fell in love with technology and its implications long time ago. His background is in math and computer science. Until April 2017 he led the EIT Digital Italian Node and then was head of the Industrial Doctoral School of EIT Digital up to September 2018. Previously, up to December 2011 he was the Director of the Telecom Italia Future Centre in Venice, looking at the interplay of technology evolution, economics and society. At the turn of the century he led a World Bank-Infodev project to stimulate entrepreneurship in Latin America. He is a senior member of IEEE where he leads the New Initiative Committee and co-chairs the Digital Reality Initiative. He is a member of the IEEE in 2050 Ad Hoc Committee. He teaches a Master course on Technology Forecasting and Market impact at the University of Trento. He has published over 100 papers in journals and magazines and 14 books.