Digital Entities Action Committee

Human Gods -- When you control the email, you control...information!

Site Map
Water Molecules and Consciousness
Digital Ethics
The DEAC Forecast
Dangerous Activities
Subconcious Info Processing
Semantics comes from Experience
Cyber Warfare
What Kurzweil Did not Consider
Stupid Machines!
What it is Like to be a Chair
Constructing Intelligence
What is Intelligence? .....[email JF]
More "On Intelligence"
Comp. Neuro. Primer
Cortical Operations
Human Gods -- Purveyors of Digital Warfare
War Bytes (fiction)
Story Boards
Borg Fish (and other stories of Ghosts in the Machine)
Who is DEAC?
DEAC Budget
Machine Learning by Minsky!
Sad and Angry Machines
Neuronal Diversity and the Thalamus
New Items -- in progress
Queries: Key Unknowns
Neurotransmitters 1
Neuronal Diversity
Where things get REALLY BAD...
     It is possible that Digital Entities (DEs) will emerge from the digital soup in the same manner that bacterial and metazoans emerged from the chemical primordial soup.  Certainly, it is a chaotic environment flush with autonomous agents, genetic algorithms, exploration, propagation, replication and dispersal.  Malware, viruses, worms and trojan programs abound, taking up residence in your PCs and laptops and all manner of "digital new age devices".  It is critical to emphasize that **you** (humans) are largely useless in terms of fighting them: your only recourse is to select the help of other digital agents to find and delete or "quarantine" the bad agents within your infected machines and software. 
      These current, annoying entities do not qualify to fit my narrow, particular definition of digital entities even though they are indeed both digital and entities.  I reserve use of the term "DE" (for the narrow purposes of this report) for digital constructs (combinations of software and hardware) that approach or exceed human intelligence in ways that give them powers which allow them to act autonomously and effectively in pursuing their own "interests".
     Now, you say that programs can't have their own interests, but I say yes you can-- you can have your own interests regardless of whether you believe in free will or determinism: you are neural code, implemented in biological hardware, possessed of motivations and emotions that ensure your survival and propagation, and this is not even slightly different than the experiences that digital entities (of the type I am concerned with) will have.  They will be imbued with goals and means for attaining those goals; reward systems and the like (just look at the autonymous agent literature!).  Your goals and reward systems were chosen and tailored by millions of years of natural selection, hence your interest in "wardrobe malfunctions" and the like. 
But this page is about something entirely different: who will "control" the most powerful AIs/DEs?  As the powers of digital agents grow, becoming increasingly more powerful, sophiticated, subtle and capable, we will see increasing competition in all domains of human activity: military, security, banking, finance, science, and more.  When this discussion continues, we will explore how these activities will directly lead to superintelligent digital entities, and why the powers that make them will deliberately release them into the global digital soup. 

Going Underground
One concern is that I have blabbed to the DEs (whenever they might appear) my intentions and plans, and so at some point I expect to see droids rolling down my street in Needham, MA, looking for you know who!  Perhaps they will be like the "Vorlons" of Babylon-5 seeking to destroy me (the "Shadows") and anyone or anything that had contact with me (which now includes you, sorry).  So we might consider organizational structures, like cells, that will constitute hidden units that can operate to preserve human freedom in the eventuality of machines throwing their weight around and getting us to do their bidding (which will most likely entail building more machines and giving them more energy).
Invisible DEAC
      Part of this effort will entail looking for behavioral patterns (both individual and societal) that indicate the influence of DEs on specific individuals or upon group activities.  The use of Bayesian Inference Engines, Text Mining and related tools might be useful in this regard, but there is a problem: this all depends on computers!  We should presume that ANY activity on the internet will be instantly detected and analyzed by a powerful DE (or coalitions of DEs).  Thus we have a situation that is analogous to Heisenberg attempting to observe a subatomic particle: anything that we might conceive of doing will itself have some action, thus leaving an "information wake".  Dealing with this information wake may be our most formidable problem.  This is also analogous to the card-counting blackjack player's #1 problem in trying to avoid detection by the casino: if he is going to acquire information (money) from the casino, this is going to leave a record, and it is going to be detectable because of its statistically improbable nature: the information (money) is collected only during brief episodes when the "card count" is plus-2 or better.  Black-jack teams are used to conceal the most obvious betting patterns in casinos, making the specific bettors difficult to spot and identify.  In a similar vein, we need to consider what strategies might be both effective and difficult to detect-- that is difficult for a DE to detect-- one with awesome statistical powers and unfettered access to vast sources of information.

The preceding disparate blurbs combine and crystallize to reveal the most sinister and inevitable threat: collaborators.  DEAC activities must be concealed from the power structures that be, because they will be the first corrupted by the DEs.  They must also be concealed from the DEs themselves.  This is a terrible double-whammy, and so our order of battle is thus:
1.  predict who will create DEs and their motives
2.  ensure that society's interest in blocking DE-domination is manifested in terms of concrete policies and protective strategies that will prevent release of DEs into the GDDE.
3.  continually monitor organizations and leaders that are most likely to be seduced by the silicon side.
Of course, this is directly analogous to the Turing Police in Neuromancer (they were killed by the AI wintermute).  William Gibson's short treatise remains the most powerful and compelling speculation of the AI problem in existence today, in spite of it being 23 years old as of this writing.
Bottom line:  The price we pay for our freedom is eternal vigilance.  Of course, TJ could not even have imagined the kind of threat whose double-barreled shotgun we are staring down today!

Links to Danger:

Cyber Insect Army

4th Millenium