Information, Control and AI

 There are two issues to be dealt with:

1st is Information source, sink & transmission.

2nd is 'Control'.

Vis-a-vis Information source, sink & transmission:

A question that one should be asking oneself is: What's easier - controlling information broadcast from one source (used to be State-owned) or that which is generated by millions?

In fact there is a democratization & dispersion in information generation that many ‘skeptics' dislike.

40 years ago, there were only state broadcasters (in India), then private broadcasters appeared. Because of them, information generation, its quality & dispersion improved with more viewpoints expressed, which were many a times opposing to those of State. Imagine the challenges that the state must have faced since then, vis-à-vis those years when State was the only broadcaster.

Situation now

After Twitter, FB etc.: Now information sources are no more monopolized, every human is a source of information. Information market has become a buyer's market from a supplier's. This means that the situation of past with few information suppliers vis-a-vis innumerable consumers, is reversed. Today, for every event there are various points of view available for each individual’s consumption. Therefore, there is lesser possibility of influence. Because there always are supporters for every type of conceivable view available online.

Counter-intuitive conclusion: Yes! The possibility of influence is constantly decreasing not increasing!!!

In earlier times, if one held a view and the official line opposed it, all evidences pointing to contrary disappeared (in fact 'A shining City on a hill’ by Come Carpentier talks about this in depth). Truth was that, which was published and invariably accepted. So most people had no option but to change their view assuming that they are wrong (this change of view indeed is real influence). Today every event has all possible aspects expressed. Therefore, there are supporters for every conceivable view and hence, lesser need to change one's view resulting into meager need of influence. A good example are 2019 Indian General Elections in which it is evident that media influence is on a declining curve. There is a channel for each type of view. Therefore, viewers tend to watch the ones confirming their biases rather than challenging them. 

Results:

1) Complete lack of coordination... and we are seeing this. Free availability & close to universal access of various viewpoints, arguments and evidences to each of these views & corresponding supporter base for such opinions, create, what I term a digital anarchy. Statistical results emerging from such digital anarchies are actually least influenced. But they largely carry forward the pre-determined biases of the subscribers.

2) Information recognition goes microscopic. In social sciences, like in pure sciences – we are going smaller & smaller in our capability to recognize, measure, count and consequently manipulate from macro to nano (like the chip line-resolution). Every view has started to count, because it is now visible! Microscopic information analysis brings in lot of ‘unconscious-information’. A lot of our actions are ‘unconscious‘ (sub conscious or semiconscious). We might not do them (or do more intensely) would we be asked to think about them before doing. This is the social dark matter, which is under-reported and unchecked. Especially in less diverse & isolated societies. Microscopic information collection enables discovery of this social dark matter. And this dark matter is often counter-intuitive and unsettling.

3) The social dark matter is creating newer and newer individual identification paradigms beyond the ones we knew – finger prints, voice, face recognition etc. It means, latest technologies will enable identifying (finding) people using completely new counter-intuitive individual attributes, not known to the service subscribers. Otherwise said, ‘n^th degree sorting or profiling’ to the extent of identifying every individual.

4) In my book ‘Transformers’, I provided a generic (can’t resist mathematical approach!) definition for Power. It being equal to the number of people that one’s decision influences, times the number of years that the change is sustained (also termed as 'period of influence', because once the change become’s a normative, it looses its position as a subject of influence). Applying mind, one realizes that the Power of State and other Powerful Agents is actually waning, while the power of unknown, initially powerless individuals, is increasing. In fact, Mark Zuckerburg is an excellent example of latter. He was nobody a few years ago, but is today the greatest influencer, surely surpassing Chengez Khan, the other great!

Information Transmission is also completely out of control of state & is indeed not even in control of Facebook, because the end device is fed by mobile and communication companies. Facebook indeed is not even a content creator, as they only provide access for exchange of content. Secondly, they have many competitors. So there is no fear of ownership or monopoly of channels or transmission.

Uncordinated Truth
Millions of mouths are giving millions of views and hence, we are not getting one directed and coordinated 'truth'. This is unpalatable to the traditional ruling elite and most humans, whose comfort zone at best extended to a maximum of two views – ‘for’ the motion and ‘against’ the motion.

Infodynamics

Instantaneously computed & rapidly, ever-changing statistics of views is also very counter-intuitive and unsettling and beyond the human comfort zone, currently.

Change Misnomer - Information Age and inevitability of automation and AI
"We live in information age". Sure you heard this oft quoted title given to our epoch starting with 90s, when world wide web was cast. My argument - we always lived in information age, even thousands of years ago survival depended on information delivery and decision making. Examples - availability of water predictions in a river for a village on riverside. Or advancing armies etc. 
So what has changed now, if we always lived in information age? 
It is apparently the type of information and more critically the velocity of information.
Change in type is apparent with change in subject matters of human interest. But its the 'velocity' that's more interesting and crucial.  Kindly note that I used the word velocity not speed, because Information to my discovery, is a (social) vector quantity. It has a direction. Even if scientific papers on quantum statistics and theory of fields was to be broadcasted, only those who understand or appreciate will receive it. Because epistemological infornation converts into knowledge only as dependencies of new information are created with an existing core of knowledge (thoroughly described in my book Transformers). Else, the info is useless for the recipient. Indeed, I am using vector only for lack of a better mathematical concept because ideal way would have been to express information as a directed cone(s) (or even other 2D shapes) radiating from the point of information source - as the direction of information is not single but could cover multiple disjoined ranges. The capability of mankind to vary the head (range) of radiating information is an immensely recent acquisition. Example-  a political party broadcasting its views on development to a large vector cone while delivering a racially toned message to a sliver thin vector of specific electorate without disturbing the large electorate which is concerned only about development. Implications of tgis capability are still to be assessed. 

Velocity of information is a critical change that is happening. Higher velocity of information (more bytes per second) along with handling of different directions/vectors of different or same information concurrently is forcing social agents (people organizations, Governments etc.) to enhance the rate of decision-making. This is the bedrock of automation and requirement of sensors and autodecision making paradigms like AI.
Hence, automation, AI, use of sensors for collection of unbiased information and algorithmic making of decisions (incl social) about various aspects of life of people, their interaction amongst themselves and with State is inevitable.

Information Sink

With a stark increase in the number of literate people in the world, the sink size has increased substantially. Therefore, there are more and more people consuming information for decision-making. It is important to mention that every sink is now a source as well. Thereby, creating a network effect on information processing!

Control

‘Control’ means differently in pure and social sciences – leading to an oft-occurring conflict in understanding and expression. In pure sciences, control means - controlling the inputs, while outputs are left to complicated dependencies. In social sciences ‘control’ means ensuring directed human action or inaction. Digital action is increasing exponentially, but at the cost of physical action. With shifting of action to cyberspace there will be lesser reasons to bomb or kill, which is way better than killing for fear and control. Hence, vis-à-vis current or past situation, digital control when exercised will be bloodless and less destructive, than physical one. It is not an ideal platonic situation, but it is much better than how it used to be. Increased literacy & online dispersion of innumerable viewpoints will only reduce the controllability.

Control me

One other major differences between ‘control’ in pure science and social sciences is that in pure sciences the outcome or subject never asks to be controlled. In social sphere control is not always thrust. Many a times it is desired by the subject. Mankind created State to transfer control from the King/dynasty to its elected representatives. Yet through the State the population desires for exercise of control.

Control is needed for coordination. Complete lack of control will mean lack of coordination. As a matter of fact, a very large proportion of people desire and ask for control as that is their zone of least resistance and comfort. All non-spontaneous rights and wrongs are mere human constructs (vis-a-vis clearly identifiable spontaneous one’s) therefore, all such non-spontaneous actions need coordination (through control). This ensures that those, who do not agree with a proposed action, thereby terming it wrong, still work towards the coordinated (and termed ‘right’ by the majority or those in power) end by remainder.

Central Control & Authority

This is the biggest challenge we face, with lots of life-actions shifting to digital realm, it is easier to wallop large swaths of population, but only through disruption, because anything other than ‘switching-off’ will have numerous opposing public opinions expressed immediately, thereby establishing an equilibrium through variety of views. All subscription based enterprises survive till people want them to – remember Orkut and millions of others, who die, without a shriek. Therefore, if disruption (‘switching off’) is avoided and safeguarded through an international body like UN and ratified by all participating Governments, almost everything will stand resolved. There should be a clear understanding that any Company with more than 1 billion subscribers cumulatively everywhere/anywhere in the world will be considered as a Global Utility, such that any disruption by such utility of its services to any major group of people or nation(s), will initiate a process of operational takeover for restoration of services to the said group/nation(s). There could be other additional proscriptions.

Technological progress has brought in peer-controlled mechanisms versus central control and authority

Blockchain is an excellent example of peer-conciliation mechanism, vis-à-vis central authority. Unfortunately, not many people know about all that is happening in technology, in minutiae.

Artificial Intelligence

Almost all hunters were unemployed, as mankind shifted to cultivation. Today, we have completely forgotten hunting skills, yet we are successfully surviving. A few thousand years ago, it would have been unthinkable. Artificial intelligence will affect existing jobs, but mankind will devise completely new kinds of jobs.

Socialism and welfare state has completely skewed our understanding of ‘Jobs’. Instead of considering ‘job’ to be an activity that generates value, which can be exchanged and is in demand, we comprehend it more like a dole or an obligation of the State, depending on what type of state one lives in. So, while technology always impacts jobs, the doomsday being foretold by self professed 'experts' can be junked.

What if procreation is a job

Here is the other counter-intuitive idea – what if procreation is also a job that is executed for specific needs. Let’s now assume that AI & Robots start replacing humans, would this not lead to lesser birth rates, thereby shrinking the overzealous population growth and easing the environmental crisis that mankind is confronting.

The doer and the orderer locations

Technology will further separate job executor's location from the job’s beneficiary’s location. Today, only Research and IT jobs are executed remotely. In future, I foresee a Manhattan hair cutting saloon being run by skilled Indian barbers sitting in Noida or Gurgaon, while the Robot on the other side, clones actions of the Indian barber, who performs the cutting on a virtual holographic image of the walk-in customer's hairy skull. So the robot does not think on its own, but just clones actions. ‘Jobs’ will change and so shall the society and the social contracts. The process will go through multiple metastates and will surely generate newer types of jobs.

Artificial Intelligence is the medium and/or the catalyst in progress, not an end in itself. 
It aids discovery by establishing the unknown dependencies/relations, which are otherwise difficult to establish. It does not think on its own, because it works on the ‘principle of optimal outputs'. Human existence is a suboptimal activity. Artificial Intelligence, foundationally, is unlike human thinking, though the word ‘intelligence’ makes one believe in contrary. As an example, kindly think - Are our societies run on principle of intelligence and optimization? One has to be living in a La La Land to assume that. Often people are governed & guided by suboptimal, if not unintelligent leaders. Nothing of what humans do, is geared for optimization. Optimization requires elimination of bias, while human beings are all about biases. There is no such algorithm, as of now that has a bias to choice of sub-optimal solutions. Following is an example – in a set of numbers {2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 22, 5, 4, 2}, it is easy to identify the highest or the smallest number. But if one is asked to choose one such number that is not the highest or the lowest in the set, there is no solution to the query in absence of ‘bias’. But now let’s introduce a bias – say, the said number should be even. Then one can quickly identify it as ‘4’. But without ‘bias’ the solution is indeterminant.
Way back, starting 1962, Thomas Kuhn showcased how development happens in paradigms. I created an interesting way to understand paradigm shifts. Imagine scientific progress to be represented by the height traversed oonthe said tree. Lets further imagine travelling on the trunk of this scientific progress tree with a vision range of just 1mm (we assume, nothing is visible far ahead). Imagine getting to a division, that is, to a ‘new’ branch which seems inclined towards the sky for next 1mm. Now imagine one digresses to this branch, not knowing the destination (owing to 1mm vision). Such branching out keeps on happening at various levels subject to the height always increasing, till one reaches the tip of a leaf, beyond which, there is nowhere to go. It is then, that one travels backs to the most recent ‘other option’ branch to then go to that ‘next’ branch & travel till the end of another leaf, hopefully at a higher level than the prior leaf. Each such act of going back & shifting to another branch to then rise further is termed ‘paradigm shift’. Humans, therefore are in the business of discovering ‘new’, not essentially ‘best’ or optimal solutions. And all the discoveries for non-spontaneous actions, processes & ideas can be attributed to biases.

So artificial human thinking (not to be confused with artificial intelligence), is not happening in near future. At least not until quantum computing fully matures to traverse an entire tree – to each of the leaf’s tip in a short period of time. There are higher chances of human thinking being replaced by artificial machine thinking thereafter. But it is not happening in the next two decades.

So don’t worry. Artificial intelligence is not dreadful!

It is too intelligent and optimal to win a battle with us.