The title of the post is perhaps a little misleading in one way, I really don’t think Elon Musk coded his AI, but I do think both he and George Hotz set the features, relationship and prioritisation around the work for their AI’s and in Georges case also built it.
In thinking about the design an artificial intelligence too many people think about the inputs and not the logic first. The critical path in AI design is
what are the features of the AI that make it intelligent beyond a binary interaction and where are these interactions focused
Karl Smith, Founder at UbiNET
Geohot took the classic hacker approach in relation to immediacy in defining his features, taking the problem statement to ‘how to teach a car to drive’ instead of ‘how to understand the world in which a car moves’. These are fundamentally different approaches to the same question producing radically different solutions.
Tesla and Elon Musk
The Tesla solution is an ecosystem approach, from friend who have them the end to end experience of buying, getting and using a Tesla is orchestrated in much the same logic as the AI is designed. The Tesla AI maps the world and creates not just an in the present experience but a sense of knowing relative environment and future risk. This is much the same way as drivers make constant assessment of context based factors in their driving responses. However this way of building AI is extraordinary expensive not just in the initial build but also in the maintenance with constant updates.
The George Hotz solution is at the other end of the spectrum, its focusing on actually learning to drive and making the AI responsive to environmental change rather that mapping the world. In the film below George makes a statement
Drive naturally like a human not some engineers idea of safety
at 4.50 onwards which I used in 2016 when I spoke at SXSW in Austin, USA about Cognition Clash in the Internet of Things, that is fundamental in building Artificial Intelligence that is adaptive rather than limited by human perceptions on how we think we do things.
Karl Smith is a Founder and Director of The Human-Centered Design Society which is directly involved in central government policy in The House of Commons and The House of Lords through a number of committees including Associate Parliamentary Group for Design and Innovation. The British Computer Society has acknowledged him for his contribution to User Experience as a discipline with a Fellowship – FBCS.
There is a continuous drive for human to be more like machines, but the problem is they are not. No matter how well a business or product message is crafted everyone that hears it, hears it differently. They hear it according to their experiences, their knowledge and this is why mass market media exists in the hope of shooting wide and attracting some part of peoples attentions and thinking patterns.
Humans should be Logical, but they are not
In this generation AI will have a huge impact, however machines work in an absolute form of Socratic Logic which is not how humans think. Science has a huge responsibility here, as it has pushed an absolute notion of things and people. Machines can’t rebel over this imposition but humans can and do.
Socratic Logic, is used to program machines and is based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions. It often involves a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themselves in some way, thus weakening the defender’s point.
Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a threefold manner thesis, antithesis, synthesis while there appears to be a huge debate over the origins of this logical form I first read it in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel work and adopted it there. I use Hegelian Logic in understanding human behaviour, customer journeys, customer experience and future proofing digital and engagement strategy.
Humans start with a proposition called a Thesis
The Thesis is the idea or concept, for example people should choose our company because they get the best service.
Hegelian Logic users establish a negation of that thesis called the antithesis
The Antithesis is the opposite idea or concept, for example people don’t choose our company because they get the worst service.
Hegelian Logic users define a synthesis whereby the two conflicting ideas are reconciled to form a new proposition
The Synthesis is the new proposition, for example people should choose our company because we give them the service they desire.
So that is a good play on using the method, but why is it important?
How can Hegelian Logic change Business and Customer interactions, expectation and value stream engagement?
Hegelian Logic should be applied to everything.
For example there is a little known activity in data analytics call outlier removal. An outlier is data that does not fit the expected or desired outcome because data analytics uses Socratic Logic it is fine to remove these out of the main thesis data. If a Business was to apply Hegelian Logic to customer experience data they would find very different and valuable insights into behaviour that both lags behind a target state but that also leads into the next level of engagement and value. This highly valuable data is routinely removed because it does not fit the Socratic Logic methods used as industry practice.
Instead of finding out what has happened in business why not find out where the market is going based on actual data already within business systems? Effort vs. Reward many companies are unsure of how to take advantage of the data they already have and are expecting AI to make that step for them. Unfortunately as long as data cleansing removes Outliers, AI will never access Antithesis data and never give true insights or reach it true value.
I tend to think of myself as a futurist, I immediately see the possibilities of technologies as part of a much larger ecosystem than the one it is intended for.
I look for ways to test and assess “How we might Live” with the technology and how it will adapt our lives, our cultures and move humanity onwards to greater things.
In our modern societies we have relieved ourselves of the burdens of the industrial age and are in the process of doing the same to the digital age. We had digitized the same old processes, making them easier to do, involving less time so we could use that time on other things, but we had not thought to remove them. That is the next stage in human and machine evolution, removing pointless interactions and processes.
“we used to wait until the washing machine broke down, to arrange a service engineer, then we took out a service contract so they would call us, with our IoT machine, it calls the engineer, or shop and they just charge our account when we get the service or comestibles we need to do our washing, but we still need to check we have not been over charged”
We Keep Moving Forward
Modern convince has only changed the stress points in our lives, from analog, to digital and from servant, to master and onward to accountant. However the wider ecosystem changes that are coming, may mean that washing clothes becomes a meaningless process as well. We need to be aware when we build dead end processes and be prepared to throw them away with their subsystems when they become redundant.
There is much talk about digital ecosystems and benefits of IoT and artificial intelligence, but little about the living experience it will create, the social and political upheavals it will cause except in the extreme destruction of humanity and machines as overlords aspect.
However our societies are balanced on several key behaviours that can be changed or in fact removed in a Smart Living scenario.
Smart Living – Wealth
Establishing a means to gain wealth is a clear goal in human existence, regardless if that wealth is the ability to purchase or to be healthy, wealth is essential. Our current society enables wealth acquisition through speculation, work, connections or product distribution, new types of wealth are also on the horizon (which I will cover in another post).
The wide distribution of blockchain technologies afford the ability to remove several of key aspects of speculation. Speculation works through special knowledge, insights of availability, location, size and a choice to sell or buy. However with blockchain only the choice to sell or buy is an unknown factor, everything else is visible. Not only will blockchain reduce and remove hidden wealth it could destroy its value, as moving and reselling by taking advantage of another persons lack of knowledge will no longer be possible.
You might say that the new dynamic of wealth will be Transparency rather than Secrecy. In fact accessing a transparent wealth system from non attributable assets will not be possible as they will be consider tainted or fake, hence they lose their value.
Smart Living – Work
In a smart world do we work? Ideas are still needed but committees about ideas are not, if like the idea we can test buy, by printing it at home. Since it’s creativity and inspiration to be creative that we crave knowledge and creations become the central focus of work, teamwork does not require physical co-location only a communication method. With Smart working, textures, smells, colours. sounds, people can all be delivered virtually. This would mean no more offices, centralised property in a city would no longer be a focus and would cease to have value.
The nature of world will revert to a more feudal barter system where our services are available as a group (forum or company) or as in individual.
Smart Living – Transport
The big question is where are we going and why? Will humans still want to visit the world or will they have the world in their home?
If work is not the priority is mass transportation a need. If shops are virtual again the question is where are we going and why?
Smart Living – Home
We are looking at a revolution in the the focus on human lives and the home is the major battle ground for Smart Living. As the workplace was for Digital Living a way to create better control and work during previous down times, the home will become a place to enjoy, between working moments.
And what happens to everyone else who can’t transition between Digital Living into Smart Living, because of the loss of freedoms, due to not having the skills to function in Smart Living or just not being invited?
The will be and has always been other cultures co-existing the problem even with Digital Living is the marketing makes it desirable to people who can’t by skill or education or work have it. Their addition to society is not respected or valued. The odd thing about Smart Living is that it makes people with manual skills the same value as creative people, because they do things rather than move things around.
You might say that “Smart Living is the end of Management” in all its structures as devices become self managed and humans no longer need it.