IEEE Future Directions
Related Articles
Area 7 – Machine Swarms
Artificial intelligence and advances in processing, including neuromorphic computing, are opening the door to machine awareness. Machines that understand what is going on, why it is happening and what is the purpose. The question whether a machine that is aware is also perceiving itself as an entity or even more it has feelings is quite open. Anyhow, the question has two sides: how the machines will transform their behavior through awareness and how we will interact with machines that are aware.
Q 7.1
Nanotechnologies and nanocomponents seem to create swarms naturally. In the next two decades, will we be able to create a science of swarm design that would be able to mimic swarms in Nature?
Unanimous agreement of the expert that this will be achieved.
Q 7.2
More complex entities, designed to support self-organization, will potentially create swarms. Will swarms be generated in a bottom up way as well (like locusts that in certain conditions give rise to swarms)?
Unanimous agreement of the expert that this will be achieved.
The pervasive presence of Internet of Things, the initial opening of 5G and more in 6G to self-organising networks, are starting points for the bottom up creation of swarms.
Q 7.3
Will the existence of multitude of robots lead to the autonomous creation of swarms (although unlike swarms described in 7.2, there will be an explicit design leading to aggregation)?
A majority of experts feel that the growing presence of more and more sophisticated robots, context aware, will inevitably lead to the emergence of swarm behaviour, whilst a minority does not see this as a possibility, mostly because the numbers will not be sufficient (local density) to generate swarm behaviour. It is more likely that the growing awareness will lead towards the explicit set up of cooperation strategies among machines.
It has been noted, however, that with pervasive IoTs there will be a push towards design that can generate swarm behaviour with respect to certain aspects, as an example in communications behaviour where each IoT will autonomously and implicitly take advantage of other IoTs generating a dynamical swarm-like communications fabric. This might be embedded in the 6G.
Q 7.4
To what extent can a swarm be influenced as a whole? How can that influence be executed?
The opinions of the experts are spread, almost evenly, on three approaches, although all foresee the possibility of creating swarms that can be influenced:
- influence by design, i.e. coding in each participant to the swarm the “rules of engagement” that given a sufficient number of participants leads to a swarm formation and once that happens the swarm can be sensitive to external situations leading to influence the swarm behaviour.
- by considering the swarm human-like awareness. That would lead to a behaviour that like humans can be influenced from ambient changes.
- by setting boundary conditions whereby operations leading to stepping on the boundary condition is impossible and leads to a behaviour change in the swarm.
Clearly the third type of influence would result in a much better, a priory control of the swarm behaviour and in principle provides a much better control. As downside it limits the evolution of the swarm and its possibility to succeed in presence of ambient evolution not foreseen at design time.
Q 7.5
What kind of standardization may be needed in the area of swarms?
Experts have split almost in half, one half calling for regulation the other for technical standards.
Standards will be highly needed to create the basic communications protocols, in the basic principles of engagement rules, purpose bounding, self replicating limits and redundant override methods.
Q 7.6
Assuming 7.5, what will be the accountability of self-created swarms?
The majority of experts consider that human accountability will be required, however this might become more and more difficult to enforce, given the variety of relations involved and the difficulty in assessing, and relating, a specific behaviour to a specific human relation.
It may be more likely that a continuous process of regulation and technical standard tuning will be required as unexpected, undesirable effects surface.
A new science/approach to regulation and technical standards to simulate their effect may be required and this may be a new area of research.
The collective responsibility will have to be tied to the engagement rules. However, it will be difficult to pinpoint accountability to a single entity. On the other hand, malicious hacking will become an issue, since they will attempt to change the rules of engagement to change the swarm behaviour.
Assuming any need for standards for swarms is justified, accountability would have to be handled/contained via the standard. Unconstrained, swarms may have the property of emergent behaviour, which complicated accountability. So, it would seem that a standard would limit or eliminate the potential for emergence, which is why this seems counter-intuitive, as emergence in swarms as a desirable property and not one to be controlled.
Q 7.7
Swarms will create a dynamic context in which humans (and other lifeforms) may be present. Should we expect swarms to become symbiotic with lifeforms—and in particular, with humans?
The majority of experts foresee some sort of symbioses possible, and happening, between a swarm and a human. A minority does not consider this possible. Clearly there are new issues to consider when dealing with the symbioses, like:
- would a symbioses create a unique aggregation or could be a multi-party symbioses, i.e. one swarm entering into a symbiotic process with several humans at the same time?
- could a symbioses become stable or would it be dynamically evolving as boundary conditions changes?
Q 7.8
Will military applications lead the evolution of swarms, or could other areas, such as manufacturing, surveillance or healthcare, take the lead in the coming two decades?
The majority of experts see military leading the evolution of swarms, however a few experts point out that in the 2040 timeframe the healthcare sector may take the lead, or at least become a very important player in swarm evolution.
In general, it is the military that spearheads innovation because it is better funded, then, it is medicine, for the same reason, but at a lower budgetary level. Education, unfortunately will continue to be short rifted, behind ever more assertions to the contrary, but what is really interesting is that money may not be critically dominant anymore, even as more and more innovations will spring out of nowhere, because of a much better distribution of knowledge and tools.
