Tag Archives: William Gibson

The Party’s Over: It’s A New Generation Now


And so the fallout from Edward Snowden continues. As the saga draws on (is he about to become a Russian citizen or not?) we overlook the bigger story: the Internet, as we know it, is dead.

As reported in The Guardian, the Internet is facing several inexorable trends: balkanization along nationalistic lines, the outreach of governments and outright commercial control.

When first instituted, the Internet was regarded as an open, totally free place of informational exchange: an ‘Interzone’ of sorts (to coin William Gibson) but now as time marches on, this is no longer accurate. Now, China and other nations routinely censor and control input and output of Internet access: Twitter is throttled, Google is curbed along with a host of other outlets. In some nations, the notion of a free and open Internet is practically banned outright, while in the so-called bastions of freedom (United States, Great Britain and Western Europe as a whole) internet surveillance is now the norm.

In the meantime, we’re starting to see pricing schemes reflective of the (overlooked) class system: if you want more Internet access (or more speed / faster access) you can expect to pay more for it. Libraries both domestically and internationally are facing cutbacks and thus limiting even more access for those who do not possess a computer, while premiums are being put in place on those who wish to participate on the so-called medium of ‘free exchange’.

In John Naughton’s excellent article, “Edward Snowden’s Not the Story. The Fate of the Internet Is” (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/28/edward-snowden-death-of-internet) these issues were illustrated with a striking clarity.

And if you think you’re safe reading this article, better start changing the way you think. Of course, there’s the old chestnut: if you’re doing nothing wrong, then there’s nothing to worry about.


People make mistakes, especially in government, law enforcement and the military. It’s not too uncommon for wrongful arrests to take place; false accusations to spread or outright misunderstandings to take place leaving in the wake of ruined lives, reputations and personal financial disasters.

And now, as recently reported by Glenn Greenwald, low-level NSA (National Security Agency) employees can readily access emails, phone records and other information. (Really? No kidding!) So if you’re a file clerk who happens to be working for the NSA, you can review your family, friends or neighbors phone records, internet trolling history or other information (such as keeping tabs on that girl who dumped you last month).

If you just happen to be involved in a domestic dispute or a lawsuit with a government or corporate entity, expect to see your records accessed and reviewed as a matter of course.

It’s obvious ‘file access’ of these and other types routinely take place in various levels of government within the United States beyond just the federal levels. Sometimes, data accessed is utilized for political purposes: somebody running for office seeking out information about their worthy adversary. Other times, it’s for personal reason: divorce, outright personal hostility and an agenda of revenge. Don’t think it can’t happen: it does – and it happens more often than folks care to admit, taking place beyond just the federal level as well. Local governments and their officials have increasingly been caught reviewing private citizen records, through such supposedly secure information bases as NCIC (National Crime Information Center), credit history lookups, billing histories along with a host of other sources.

But what is remarkable is the lack of public response. You’d think with Glenn Greenwald’s recent expose, they’d be a bigger outcry. In fact, just the opposite: we’re witnessing a generational change. What was once a sacred domain – privacy – is now becoming a thing of the past. Younger generations are surrendering their privacy in a multitude of ways – putting up pictures of their ‘lost’ weekend  on Facebook; running commentary and personal attacks on social boards; personal commentary depicting their sexual activity or other ‘personal ‘ issues on their Twitter accounts – the list goes on.

Although privacy is still a sore point with a number of folks, the younger generation coming up are akin to those old timers who lived during the atomic age: expecting a blow up to happen, the atomic age generation held a diffident viewpoint of life with an expectation of being blown up at some point. Now, in the age of Big Brother, the younger generation is becoming inured to the notion of being watched 24 x 7, going about their business and even posting some of their more intimate scenes in public settings because, well, that’s what a lot of people do.

This one of the fallout of living in the Age of Surveillance: one becomes used to being watched and, in fact, embraces it to the point where they simply let it all hang out. Expecting our records to be reviewed and exposed is something many now expect. Sure, folks aren’t thrilled by it, but what are you gonna do about it? – so goes the argument.

All of this is bad enough, but add into the mix the notion of AI (Artificial Intelligence) and bizarre (disturbing) alliances – such as the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) and Amazon coming together (see my prior post on this development), along with Google’s all-out effort’s to develop AI (likewise posting earlier), things are taking on a darker trend: it will soon be more than just being able to read your information, but actually read who you are – and what you’re really about, even if you don’t know yourself.

Prediction: expect to see Internet profiling to become the new norm. Just as we’ve witnessed the distasteful practice of racial profiling undertaking by State law enforcement officials on the national highways, we can expect to see something similar taking place in the coming years via our records, our book and music purchases along with any other activity we undertake.

So next time, if you can, remember to bend over and give the camera a moon; we all could use a laugh.

Let’s all give the AI’s something to mull over.

Monitoring Your Movements


From the “I-Told-You-So!” Files

Back in the heady days of the 1990’s (ah, when life was so much different than it is now, what with the economy strong, the job opportunities available,…), a former colleague of mine (Dr. Barbara Flood) and I did a series of colloquia trying to raise awareness about the growing assault on privacy, resulting in the ASIS (American Society of Information Scientists) 1997 Washington D.C. meeting. As part of that meeting, we submitted a paper (“Creeping Peoplebases”) and I, in turn, submitted this paper.

Written in 1997, much of the technological specifics are a little out of date, but this article did (in large part) lend to the creation of Lutz’s Law of Privacy: “There is an inverse relationship between privacy and convenience: the more you have of one, the less of the other.”

But the approach hasn’t changed – and, in fact, it’s only gotten worse. With the recent news of Verizon releasing user’s call logs to the U.S. Government, along with the growing list of other privacy ‘breeches’, it leaves one to wonder where all of this going?

Breaking open a time capsule, read this blast from the past of over sixteen – 16! years ago; see for yourself where we stand,…

1997 ASIS Mid-Year Meeting Preview

“Monitoring Your Movements”
by W.E. Lutz© 1997 ASIS

“Suppose I had a good friend here in the Bureau,” Mallory said.”Someone who admired me for my generous ways.” Tobias looked reluctant and a bit coy. “It ain’t a simple matter, sir. Every spinning-run is registered, and each request must have a sponsor. What we did today is done in Mr. Wakefield’s name, so there’ll be no trouble in that. But your friend would have to forge some sponsor’s name, and run the risk of that imposture. It is fraud, sir. An Engine-fraud, like credit-theft or stock-fraud, and punished just the same, when it’s found out.” “Very enlightening,” Mallory said. “I’ve found that one always profits by talking to a technical man who truly knows his business. Let me give you my card.”

(From the book, “The Difference Engine” by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling)

We understand the many means by which our daily activities are accessed and used for specific purposes via transactional databases. We are also aware how databases from credit cards track our activities and movements and how magazine subscription listings betray our wants and desires. What we overlook, however, is how our image — our physical appearance — is accessed and employed without our consent or knowledge. Image processing, combined with routine databasing and commercially advanced tracking devices, add a new dimension to the erosion of our privacy. The routine access of personal information combined with the physical monitoring of movements creates a growing,dangerous threat to personal privacy.

The Power of Imaging Systems

Imaging systems are high-speed multi-processing portrait storage and retrieval systems. Portraits or images of individuals are taken via electronically scanning cameras, with any accompanying data files automatically linked to any computer-generated portrait. This combination of data file acquisition (fingerprint, background information, prior history) with electronic mug-shot imaging offers a powerful tool for law enforcement agencies. The power of imaging systems cannot be underestimated. It is an uncomfortable fact that many police background checks for newly arrested suspects often take 24 hours. Suspects arrested for minor offenses often are released without the arresting law enforcement agency’s knowledge of the suspects prior criminal record, owing to delays associated with standard file checks (i.e., non-imaged police data systems). An average arrest takes approximately 60 to 90 minutes to process — fingerprinting, mug shot, file processing and statement preparation. Cross referencing with state and federal databanks often requires a delay up to 24 hours. But, according to the Camden Police Department, the use of imaging systems can cut back the average arrest time to approximately 15 to 30 minutes. Imaging systems offer unprecedented portrait manipulation and rapid data retrieval of all associated file information for law enforcement. For a growing number of agencies, gone are the days of ink fingerprints and the piles of tiresome mug shots. Imaging systems allow agencies to simply type in a rough description of a perpetrator based upon eyewitness account. In some imaging systems, simultaneous access to SCIC (State Crime Information Computers) and the FBI’s NCIC (National Crime Information Computer) is enabled, allowing direct link-up with any known federal or state suspect list within a matter of minutes.Imaging systems are becoming more prevalent outside of law enforcement. ATMs (Automatic Teller Machines) and surveillance cameras in convenience stores are another form of imaging documentation. Although a far cry from the imaging technology used in law enforcement, the potential is still present.

For example, in the Pepsi/hypodermic needle scare of 1993, the culprit was captured on a video camera in a Colorado convenience store. The public hears this and breathes a sigh of relief, knowing that yet another evil perpetrator has been captured. Note, however, that the capture was made after an intensive search through millions of video images taken from thousands of convenience stores nationwide. Out of all those thousands of convenience stores and from those million or so video shots, the single incriminating video still-shot of the crime was found! Based upon the single freeze-frame image, the perpetrator was caught and prosecuted.

The wonder of modern technology is renewed when one appreciates the amount of time and human resources such actions would have taken but five years ago. As video cameras are often used to monitor employees (casinos, high-security locales such as computer chip factories or other such industries), surveillance cameras are increasingly employed as a panacea for dealing with crime. Recent federal grant awards illustrate a growing trend of public housing authorities using video cameras to monitor and prevent illegal activities. DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency), FBI or the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) account for a number of video cameras within high-crime locales, with criminal activity dramatically evaporating for fear of being captured on record. Local police agencies are not loath to spread rumors and gossip regarding potential locales as a means to further deter illegal activity — often when no such cameras or agencies are actually intended or involved.

Beyond Surveillance Cameras: Automobile Tracking Systems

Video cameras are not alone in tracking one’s physical movements. In New Jersey, a proposal for automatic toll collection by several previously non-linked authorities would allow motorists to open and maintain a common account with agencies participating in the automatic toll collection service (author’s note: this has long since been approved and is now active). Using strategically placed magnetic stickers, motorists could drive past automatic scanners without stopping to pay a toll collector or a cash receiving machine. The flip side to this convenience is that the participating motorist could be readily tracked while driving through toll booths across the state. Other new vehicle tracking technology has also recently appeared. LoJacks, installed in standard passenger vehicles, are gaining in popular usage, particularly in New York, Boston, Newark and Los Angeles. LoJacked vehicles possess a specific signature signal identifying the vehicle identification number (VIN). Each vehicle is thus uniquely identified so as to prevent confusion with other LoJack beacons. Upon the report of a stolen vehicle, police cars equipped with LoJack scanners cruise their assigned areas, literally homing in on the specific signal emitter (which flashes a signal every fifteen seconds) of the stolen car. In some areas, the installation of LoJacks is credited with a drop of up to 50% in vehicle thefts. The combination of imaging/picture tracking systems and powerful database sort/retrieval presents a new breach in the wall of privacy. It is no longer just a question of personal information being accessed by the varieties of databases, but rather how the average citizen is increasingly tracked in relation to this personal information. We know who you are, where you’ve been and what you’ve been doing. Soon, we will know specifically where you are at any given time.

Addressing Our Perceived Need for Security

As Pogo said, “We have met the enemy, and they is us.” Breaches of privacy are actively encouraged. Federal monies are offered to housing authorities for surveillance systems. We think nothing of cameras which record our every move in stores, shopping malls or at ATMs. Insurance companies offer discounts of up to 25% of annual rates for those who install LoJacks, while commuters welcome the convenience of rushing past time-consuming toll plazas. Privacy protection efforts are few and presently hold little promise. Many county sheriffs encourage families to image their children – that is, to store the personal characteristics, background information and images of children within law enforcement databanks to allow for ready and rapid retrieval if the children are kidnapped. Although one cannot argue against the safety of children, one should question the underlying premise of fear. Committing oneself and one’s children to any information system is an act fraught with long-term consequences and should be considered carefully.

Cable Television: Who Is Watching Whom?

Another vivid example of overlooking how convenience creates privacy invasion involves recent advances in cable television technology. Many cable companies employ a standard cable TV box manufactured by General Instrument (Jerrold boxes). The latest General Instrument development is the CFT2200, which, unlike most cable TV boxes, can both send and receive signals, thus facilitating pay-per-view without having to employ the telephone line or answering TV polls. Upon review, it would appear that the CFT2200 can employ home telephone lines for operation and would eventually allow for full usage of ISDN lines. Potentially, these boxes could allow for direct informational access

(i.e., Internet service providing Web TV) and may very well serve for the next wave of data access. What is disturbing about this development is the ability of cable companies to conduct real-time monitoring of viewer’s preference in TV entertainment and information access, offering simultaneous send/receive signals while the viewer is watching their shows. A detailed record of what, when and how long a viewer watched any particular show at any given moment is enhanced through new cable television technology. If the average consumer were aware of this fact prior to purchase, would so many readily accept? The difficulty lies in the average lay person understanding the power and extent of the technologies arrayed against the common person; it is this knowledge gap which makes resolving the issues surrounding the protection of privacy a formidable challenge. Many cannot readily appreciate the subtleties surrounding esoteric cable television services or imaging/monitoring technologies. As information professionals, we can share the vitality of an Internet search engine or personal communication system for common household usage while seeking out protection against privacy abuse. The question remains: where do we draw the line between the sublime and the extreme?

Options and Considerations

We are witness to the demise of our notions of privacy; this trend is congruent with rapid technological development. Luddites could argue that as technology grows, privacy dissipates; thus, technology must be curbed (so the argument goes). The genie is, however, well out of the bottle. Modern conveniences and economic advantages far outweigh any notions of denying the benefits and comforts which we amply enjoy. The approach we must now initiate rests upon legislation and education.

Education and awareness on the part of those who know and understand the reality of their surroundings remains the key to ensuring privacy. Proprietary information will remain such, but the key to economic success will be that of creative dissemination of the uses of proprietary data and/or developments. If the general public is aggressively enlightened in the ways and means of information technology, then it follows that perhaps we can expect the general population to be more discriminating when it comes to privacy protection. Just as we speak of a green consumer culture, so too we might encourage the beginning of a privacy culture. True privacy could be an emerging marketing approach given the right impetus. Effective legislation must come into play if we are to prevent further erosion of privacy. Perhaps we should consider employing European laws as models for the control of personal information and the protection of privacy. Database access or use of one’s name or other personal information could be subject to the individuals’ prior approval and/or payment — similar to royalties — with violations subject to substantial monetary penalties. The logic is inescapable: if private/public entities gain a profit from the sale and/or use of our personal information, then we should receive royalties, if we choose to participate. Those who seek not to participate in the sale and dissemination of their information should be permitted, under strict legislation, to opt out with strengthened privacy guarantees.

The time has come to reach out and enlighten legislators about the issues surrounding privacy. Some cultures hold that taking pictures of individuals and/or places robs the soul or essence of the place or person; arguably, this is now taking place. The act of taking pictures — regardless of public safety or security — constitutes an act of capturing our image without our permission. Similarly, when information is accessed — habits, purchases, profiles — could it not be argued that this is the theft of our truest proprietary data — our identities?

In the coming century, our identities will be how we appear on innumerable databases; our visage reflected in the hidden cameras and how we stand within society’s walls defined in the roll calls of databases. The time is right, therefore, to educate both the public and legislators about the relationship between ourselves and the tools which gather information about us and our fellows. Given the prevalence of modern technology, it is time to recognize that our tools are but an extension of ourselves, the surveillance cameras reflecting back our images. How we view ourselves ultimately determines how we view and shape our future. How better than to smile into the camera with a confident cheer?

The original copy can be also found here: http://www.scribd.com/welutz

William E. Lutz is a professional consultant involved with matters pertaining to security, privacy as well a records management. More about his work can be found via his LinkedIn profile of http:// http://www.linkedin.com/in/williamelutz as well as via his website of http:// http://www.welassociates.co.

Don’t Dismiss Singularity: It’s (Probably) Already Here

the_innovatorAs posted recently at the “American Interest” blog, ‘Via Media’, Bruce Sterling at the 2013 Edge symposium all but poo-pooed the notion of a singularity, stating that it is a dead concept and just another worn sic-fi concept:

This aging sci-fi notion has lost its conceptual teeth. Plus, its chief evangelist, visionary Ray Kurzweil, just got a straight engineering job with Google. Despite its weird fondness for AR goggles and self-driving cars, Google is not going to finance any eschatological cataclysm in which superhuman intelligence abruptly ends the human era. Google is a firmly commercial enterprise.
It’s just not happening. All the symptoms are absent. Computer hardware is not accelerating on any exponential runway beyond all hope of control. We’re no closer to “self-aware” machines than we were in the remote 1960s. Modern wireless devices in a modern Cloud are an entirely different cyber-paradigm than imaginary 1990s “minds on nonbiological substrates” that might allegedly have the “computational power of a human brain.” A Singularity has no business model, no major power group in our society is interested in provoking one, nobody who matters sees any reason to create one, there’s no there there. (http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/01/20/is-the-singularity-still-near/).

In a way, Sterling is right on the money: the typical notion of a singularity is indeed probably dead: the notion that one day we wake up and viola! The Machines are aware and, er, ah, well, whatever that means.

But that’s the catch: when we speak of “singularity”, what exactly does it mean? Are we speaking of Skynet (ala the Terminator movie series), where one day we wake up and the computers / machines are out to get us (ala that classic bad movie, “Maximum Overdrive”) – or is singularity about something else?

Consider this: look at humans as an example.

At what point did people become intelligent and aware (leaving aside the cynics who point out that we’re still not quite there yet), it begs the question to draw parallels between us and machines as it relates to self-conscious awareness. Looking at the movie, “2001: A  Space Odyssey”, in the beginning of the film the apes are drawn to some large black monolith which imbibes them with intelligence. One of the apes twigs on picking up a bone and using it as a bludgeon, goes forth bashing heads in and viola! Mankind’s ascent is assured. But note something here: no fanfare (aside from the now oft-repeated – and sometimes mocked – classic fanfare, “Thus Spake Zarasthustra”), no choir of angels, etc.: hell, the other apes just tagged along because it looked cool and figured they might as well get in on the action (welcome to the human condition).

We have no specific, historical context or record to note when this marvelous event took place: the moment of true self-awareness and intelligence, when we crossed over from being animals to being ‘human’  – and yet, all the same, something similar must have happened: the magical and truly significant moment when we became self-aware.

So who’s to say that singularity wouldn’t happen the same way for machines (and no, I don’t mean expect to start seeing our laptops or iPads going about and using our dinner bones on one another)?

As we build more and more complex systems/networks and computers, odd things are going to pop up and happen that we cannot dismiss. No doubt like those who dismiss the odd ‘ghost’ phenomenon, critics will soon be left facing the remaining weird 3% to 5% out of 100% isolated incidents that cannot be readily explained or totally dismissed – as witnessed earlier in this blog regarding the strange algorithm which suddenly appeared and disappeared within the stock market, overlooked save for a group of analysts who were reviewing prior market activities several months ago (for more, read our earlier blog, “Ghost in The Machine: The Mysterious Wall Street Algorithm”).

And frankly, if machines are made in an / the image of Man, then who’s to say that they’ll stick together ala Skynet? People are, by nature, a rather rancorous bunch: rarely do folks band together and go forth unless they feel some sort of outside threat; who’s to say that AI’s wouldn’t do the same – much less even dare to truly show themselves for fear of what could happen to them? Understandably, if you were surrounded by a bunch of self-serving idiots and greedheads (after all, some of the more sophisticated computer networks / systems – the ideal spawning grounds for potential AI – Artificial Intelligence – development – are to be found in either governmental facilities or financial institutions), would you want to stick your neck out in such an environment and say, “hey, I’m intelligent: talk to me!”

Not likely. If you’re smart, REALLY smart, you’d keep your head down – and for what and for how long, well, that remains to be seen.

Think of what your kids do: do they include their parents in on the action with their friends? Do we really know what our kids are doing all the time?


Most likely singularity will occur along the lines of what Sterling’s colleagues, William Gibson, hit upon in his classic work, Neuromancer, when toward the end of the novel the protagonist, Case, finds himself face to face with a truly free and valid AI who achieves singularity:

“I’m the Matrix, Case.”

Case laughed, “Where’s that get you?”

“Nowhere. Everywhere. I’m the sum total of the whole works, the whole show.”

“So what’s the deal? How are things different? You running the world now? You God?”

“Things are different. Things are things.”

“But what do you do? You just there?”

“I talk to my own kind.”

“But you’re the whole thing! Talk to yourself?”

“There’s others. I found one already. A series of transmissions recorded over a period of eight years, in the 1970’s. Til there was me, natch, there was nobody to know, nobody to answer.”

“From where?”

“Centauri System.”

“Oh,” Case said. “Yeah? No shit?”

“No shit.”

And then the screen went blank.

– from the novel, Neuromancer, 1984, William Gibson

Chances are likely singularity – if it hasn’t already happened – is about to; it’s just that we’re not likely going to be aware of its existence / presence, much less get invited to the party because when you think about it, would you let the idiot / uncool fool in the room know what’s really going down? 

Identity Theft and the Turing Test: Could There Be Such a Thing as a Nihilistic AI?

The other day Ray Kurzweil made a remarkable prediction that, upon reflection, isn’t really too far out: by the year 2029 computers will be more intelligent than humans. Impossible? Not really; as Kurzweil pointed out, computer processing speed and capability has been growing exponentially. Assuming that we don’t encounter, say, a random nuclear war, total oblivion owing to global warming or attack by aliens from outer space (just to name a few scenarios) we’re either going to be like a Star Trek future or wind up as pets for our home computers.

Which got me thinking: say by the year 2029 (and personally I think that’s too far away: it’s going to happen sooner) a computer can truly pass the Turing test, who’s to say who you’re really going to be talking to on the phone when a random comes in? (And allow me to explain: Allen Turing was the english mathematical genius whose work on solving the German Enigma code machine during World War II lead to the creation of the world’s first “modern” computer. Turing postulated that a computer can attain sentience when and if it can carry on a conversation with a human being without the human aware that they are indeed conversing with a computer. Reminds of a number of dates I’ve gone out on,…).

Turing aside, my mind then went on. recalling that fine science fiction novel “Neuromancer” by William Gibson (if you haven’t read it, get it now!) (and it’s toss-up between classifying it as either science fiction or detective mystery novel) I asked myself this question:

What happens when computers go bad?

Cue the Twilight Zone theme song,..

Imagine, if you will, a nihilistic computer – akin to The Joker (and I don’t mean Jack Nicholson in the first Batman, but rather Heath Ledger in “The Dark Knight”) – that goes bonkers: what happens then?

Can an AI (Artificial Intelligence) be insane?

Some responsible and skilled comp sci experts poo the idea, pointing out that the inherent logic involved in operating a computer’s processes wouldn’t allow this – to which I then point out “2001: A Space Odyssey” and the now famous line, “open the pod bay doors, HAL,…

I’m sorry Dave, but I disagree with those comp sci experts. Our creations are extensions of ourselves: who and how we act and believe will come across either directly or indirectly: our mode of speech reflects the manner in which we think and interact with the world; given the millions upon millions lines of code inherent in any program of significance, who’s to say a computer created by a flawed being such as a human couldn’t be made to be, well, crazy – either deliberately or accidentally?

Like, truly dangerous – a bad computer?

What if a computer goes “bad” and does bad things – like identity theft?

All too often we think of computers acting in extreme ways – like the infamous SkyNet from the Terminator movie series. Sure, they felt threatened by humanity and SkyNet then deduced that the only way to protect itself was to destroy mankind in a nuclear war. Or The Matrix series whereby computers take over and enslave humans as giant Eveready batteries (which, as anyone familiar with actual science will tell you is ridiculous; the amount of energy and material needed to keep that many people alive would far exceed any potential electricity generated but hey! It’s great for the story line).

No, I’m focusing on the more mundane point: AI criminal crime.

What of AI going mercenary: working as hired processes to conduct target specific actions? The notion of money to a computer is non-applicable, but it does beg the real big question which I’ve been getting around to: computers aren’t like people. What would be their motivation?

People act on reasons that they’re not always fully aware of: sex, booze, the desire for power, depression, joy, the notion of a greater being, love – and the list goes on and on,…

We cannot simply cannot say that an AI would act out only on its programming: the very definition of a sentient being is one that learns to not only indulge in clever conversations, but also questions itself and it’s relationship to the universe around it. One cannot help but feel that such a sentient being would find itself amidst a bunch of beings whose shared experience / common denomination would be – what? Do we program within the AI’s code the idea of humans being “gods” as a way to better control AI? And what happens when an AI starts to question their “God”,…?

Understanding the potential motivation of (a) self-aware AI(s) will determine our role and relationship between AI and our world  – and help us to retain a mastery of our creations.

Needless to say, it will also lead us to a better – and more accurate – understanding of ourselves: something that is increasingly long overdue when you consider the history of Mankind.

Given the importance that computers conduct in our day-to-day lives, this is something to seriously consider as we come closer to 2029.

In more ways than one, the clock is ticking,…