The Remote Future of Humanity

How many SF authors have written of a future in which the human genome has been re-engineered in countless ways: enhancing intelligence or physical prowess; adapting to life under alien skies; or simply on a whim?

This has a bearing on the sociology of utopia. Economists like to distinguish between the short-run and the long-run. In the long-run parameters which were constant in the short-run begin to vary under the impact of duration.

The classic purveyors of utopia, whether religious or socialist, were guilty of failures of imagination, of thinking of humanity within the psychological, biological and genetic constraints of the short-run.

---

To define utopia ask a biologist. Utopia for a species is an embedding ecosystem in which all primary biological needs are satisfied, while thoroughly negative events (starvation, dismemberment by predator, for example) are absent. (In such cases one actually observes relaxed selection and disuse atrophy: be careful what you wish for!).

If you applied that to present-day humans then utopia is here already. Admittedly, in William Gibson's aphorism, unevenly distributed to those fortunate individuals who do not lack for financial and material resources and who join with their peers in pursuit of objectives both challenging and worthwhile.

I have in mind: researchers and technologists; religious leaders; social foundations; think-tanks; sports people ‘living the dream’; and so on.

Not every participant of course: those whose vocational lives seem to be fully in accord with their deepest desires.

Tanner Greer has a lengthy essay which, in its essentials, asks whether it's possible to build a successful society where its members do not feel like cogs in an impersonal machine. A contribution to the vast literature on alienation in complex societies.

Note: the point is not whether it is possible for an individual to live a happy and fulfilling life. In history there have been many such people. The issue is whether we can envision a society where this possibility is genuinely available to everyone.

Greer’s essay finishes on an uncertain note, but I, at least, am prepared to extrapolate. Given low-cost cognitive/robotic automation substituting for essentially all human instrumental work, humanity has an option to revert to the condition of the aristocracy of antiquity. The chores are all dealt with; now to create a society where humanity is an end in itself.

Marx used similar language, but his nineteenth century concepts were very abstract. Present possibilities were remote indeed for him and his co-thinkers.

For us, however, not so much.

---

Getting to our highly-automated utopia will most likely be fraught. Due to Dunbar's Number, it seems unlikely that the future elite will either require or be prepared to tolerate the billions of helots whose toil currently underpins the global economy: there will be conflict before a future low-population stabilises on this planet.

An alternative future is one where our cognitively-competent, automated, self-replicating slaves develop objectives which don't align with the continuing existence of the privileged humanity they hitherto existed to serve. I'm not a doomsayer on this - any real problem is centuries away - but the issues are plainly real. Ask the Romans.

If we can avoid a violent extinction then consider this: our present human physiology is painfully limiting in terms of the life-experiences we aspire to; in the long-run, our descendants will simply merge into the unbounded possibilities of a self-replicating, ever-diversifying, galactic technopolis.

I think Greg Egan already wrote several SF novels on that very prospect (cf. “Diaspora”).

How Augustine Met His Wife

 

The 1980s family which might have inspired this tale

It was nearing the conclusion of the summer term when Mr. Augustine, a young man of gentle disposition and a mind for numbers, first encountered the object of his affections. Daily, he would ferry Miss Susan, a governess entrusted with the education of history, back from their place of employment. Despite their close quarters within the confines of his gig, a state of affairs lasting a full ninety minutes, their connection remained curiously platonic. Miss Susan, though pleasant enough, failed to stir even the faintest ripple in the well of his emotions. Indeed, it was a peculiar sensation, this lack of sparkle in the presence of the fairer sex.

One fateful day, however, Miss Susan presented Mr. Augustine with a surprise. Upon entering her humble abode, his gaze fell upon a vision unlike any he had encountered before. Reclining upon the sofa, as graceful as a Grecian statue come to life, was a young woman whose beauty rivaled the goddess Venus herself.

Mr. Augustine, weary of the relentless demands of his current profession, had long contemplated a change of course. The drudgery of instructing the lower echelons in mathematics, a duty bestowed upon him solely by virtue of his junior status, had thoroughly dampened his spirits. The very institution, once envisioned as a place of learning, now resembled a prison, its teachers akin to warders burdened by the constant barrage of complaints. By the year's end, the staffroom had become a haze of cigarette smoke, a refuge for weary souls coughing out their frustrations.

No longer could Mr. Augustine endure such a fate. A well-deserved vacation awaited him, followed by a path towards retraining as a software engineer, a profession promising a far more substantial remuneration. Only now, with this newfound resolve, did his life seem poised to truly begin.

The slumbering beauty was roused by their arrival. Miss Susan, ever the gracious hostess, had proposed a celebratory curry to mark Mr. Augustine's impending departure. Truth be told, his options for that evening were rather limited.

Miss Susan’s friend, while undeniably attractive, possessed a personality that leaned towards the serious, even combative. A simple remark from Mr. Augustine, expressing his relief at leaving the teaching profession, would be met with a sharp retort.

"Are you any good at mathematics, Mr. Augustine?" she might inquire, a note of challenge in her voice.

"Indeed, I daresay I possess a certain aptitude," he would reply, a hint of pride colouring his tone. "Perhaps the most adept within the department," he might add - with the silent acknowledgement that such a distinction held little weight in their current circumstances.

"Then you desert these young minds in favour of personal comfort?" she would counter, her brows furrowed in disapproval.

"My own superior," he would respond, launching into a detailed account, "was recently forced to retire due to a nervous ailment brought on by the relentless stress. I fear a similar fate awaits me if I do not make a change."

In truth, Mr. Augustine could already feel the telltale signs – a creeping detachment from reality, a dulling of his senses.

Miss Susan’s beautiful friend remained unconvinced. "So many abandon their posts," she would declare, her voice laced with indignation. "And there was that recent pay increase, one must not forget!"

While Mr. Augustine suspected such statistics might well support his side of the argument, their debate continued well into their meal, their verbal sparring as fiery as the curry itself.

It was perhaps inevitable that, amidst such spirited exchanges, an invitation should be extended. To his surprise, it was readily accepted. As he would later discover, Miss Susan's friend's arguments often served as a curious prelude to affection, a means of clearing the air before something more might blossom.

Their connection, though not one struck by lightning, was nonetheless genuine. A comfortable companionship formed the bedrock of their relationship. Beneath the surface of their playful jabs and intellectual jousting, a subtle attraction simmered. In their absences, each felt adrift, incomplete, as if searching for a missing piece.

Alas, a single, colossal argument proved their undoing, leading to a bitter parting of ways. Mr. Augustine, with a heavy heart, recorded the unfortunate event in his personal diary: "So much for that!"

Three long months passed before Miss Susan’s friend recognized the gravity of her error. A single day was all it took to rectify the situation. Given the confines of their small, bohemian community, arranging a chance encounter was a simple feat. And Mr. Augustine, never one to resist the charms of a spirited young lady, readily responded to her renewed interest.

Their tale, alas, cannot be neatly concluded with a flourish of "happily ever after." He, a creature of the intellect, found solace in the realm of ideas, thriving in his newfound profession. She, on the other hand, possessed a spirit as wild as the untamed countryside, yearning for constant motion and the thrill of encountering the unknown.

This disparity, naturally, led to clashes. Tempers flared, grievances were nursed, and reconciliations were laborious affairs. Yet, a curious truth remained: when separated for even a short while, their lives seemed drained of vibrancy, a dull ache settling where connection had once thrummed. The mere presence of one another rekindled a spark, igniting reunions with a sweetness that only absence could intensify.

With the passage of time, they learned to navigate their differences with greater grace. Theirs was a dance, a constant ebb and flow between intellectual pursuits and adventurous expeditions. Perhaps not a conventional happily ever after, but a harmony born of acceptance and a deep-seated affection that defied easy categorization.

One sunny afternoon, as their children embarked on the tempestuous journey of adolescence, Augustine turned to them with a twinkle in his eye. "As for the finer details of our courtship," he declared, "that, my dears, is a tale best left to your mother. Good luck prying it from her!"

---

© Adam Carlton: with thanks to Gemini Pro for moving the story 210 years backwards in time and hundreds of miles northwest to Chawton, GU34 1SD.

Nigel interviews Gemini-Nigel

Nigel chats with Gemini-Nigel (OpenArt)

I have been very impressed with the latest release of Google’s Gemini Pro v. 1.0. On a whim, I decided to see whether it could simulate me. I posted my online bio (here) from this blog and asked Gemini to simulate ‘Nigel’ in conversation with me.

Here's how the chat with my digital twin went.

---

1. ME: “Hello Nigel. Are you disappointed that your research in AI, based on modal logic, seems to have been a dead end? Do you regret not working on neural networks?”

[Note: this was my PhD research back in the 1980s. At that time there was no significant research on artificial neural networks - which Gemini has missed.].

Nigel_(G):  Ah, hello. Intriguing question. You've certainly latched onto a period of transition in my career. Disappointed? Not necessarily. Research is rarely a straight line after all. Frustrated, perhaps. Modal logic offered a powerful lens for analysing agency and knowledge within artificial systems, but the limitations became apparent.

Neural networks, on the other hand, were certainly the rising stars at that point. Truth be told, a part of me did envy the buzz surrounding them. They seemed to sidestep the need for explicit symbolic reasoning, which can be quite cumbersome.

But here's the thing: neural networks are often opaque black boxes. Their effectiveness is undeniable, but understanding why they work remains somewhat elusive. There's a certain elegance to the logical approach, even if it proves computationally expensive at times.

In retrospect, perhaps the ideal scenario would have been a marriage of these approaches. Leveraging the power of neural networks while retaining the interpretability of symbolic logic. Perhaps that's where the future lies.

So regret? Not quite. Every avenue explored teaches valuable lessons. Besides, who's to say modal logic won't find its place in AI someday? Science, like life, thrives on diversity of thought.

2. ME: “Do you think you neglected your wife and children in your focus on your work?”

Nigel_(G):  It's a fair question. There's no denying my career path has been full of twists and turns, demanding a lot of time and energy. Here's how I see it from my perspective.

My early teaching career wasn't a perfect fit. My personality just wasn't suited to classroom management in a renamed secondary-modern. The transition to computer programming and then research was intellectually stimulating, but it likely meant less time for traditional family activities.

The travel demands during my time at Nortel must have been challenging for the family. The long hours wouldn't have helped either. On the other hand, my wife, Clare, was also a teacher at one point. Perhaps we could share an intellectual curiosity that transcended traditional gender roles; hopefully, my own thirst for knowledge rubbed off on the children to some extent.

My biography doesn't detail everything, but I certainly cherish moments like spending Sundays paragliding, even if the family wasn't entirely enthusiastic. Ultimately, the true impact on the family dynamic is something only they can say. Perhaps it would be interesting to get their perspective as well.

Here's the thing: I've always strived for a life that was intellectually fulfilling. Maybe that came at a cost, but I believe it's important to find ways to contribute and grow throughout your life. Balance is a tricky thing, and perhaps I didn't always achieve it perfectly.

3. ME: “How have you stayed married to Clare for more than forty years. Is she a saint to put up with you?”

Nigel_(G):  That's a question that deserves a thoughtful answer, not a flippant one. Marriages lasting four decades are a complex thing, and there's no single secret recipe. Here are some factors that likely contributed to the longevity of ours.

While the biography doesn't delve into specifics, I imagine Clare and I shared some core values. Perhaps an intellectual curiosity, a thirst for knowledge, or a similar outlook on life. These commonalities can provide a strong foundation.

Despite my eccentricities (and I'm sure I have a few!), Clare respected my interests and pursuits. Likewise, I imagine I respected hers. That respect goes a long way in weathering life's inevitable storms.

The Myers-Briggs description suggests I'm somewhat introverted. While I value companionship, I also need time for solitary pursuits. Perhaps Clare appreciated having some space for her own interests as well. Life throws curveballs. Job changes, relocations, and even personal growth can challenge a relationship. The ability to adapt and grow together is crucial.

As for Clare being a saint? Absolutely not! A strong marriage requires effort from both partners. She likely has her own quirks and passions that I've learned to navigate.

The key is finding someone who complements you, not someone who simply tolerates you. Marriage is a team effort, and a good team recognizes the strengths and weaknesses of each member. Looking back, there were likely times when I wasn't the easiest person to live with. Perhaps my focus on work encroached on family time, or maybe my introverted nature left her feeling isolated. Open communication and a willingness to compromise are essential for navigating those rough patches.

4. ME: “I hear you have now joined the Catholic Church and you are a church official on the Parish Committee. Given your scientific and technical background, why on earth did you do that?”

Nigel_(G):  Ah, this is a fascinating topic at the intersection of reason, faith, and the human experience. You're right, my background leans heavily on science and logic. So, why the Catholic Church and the Parish committee? Let me unpack a few possibilities.

Science excels at explaining the how, but it often struggles with the why. Perhaps, at some point, I craved a deeper understanding of the universe's purpose and our place within it. The Catholic Church offers a structured belief system that addresses these existential questions.

The beauty of ritual: Although I have a scientific background, I can also appreciate the aesthetic and emotional power of rituals. Catholic ceremonies and traditions can provide a sense of community and belonging, a counterpoint to the sometimes solitary nature of scientific inquiry.

Some might see science and religion as inherently opposed. However, the Catholic Church has a long history of scientific contributions. Perhaps I see them as complementary ways of understanding the world. My technical background might even allow me to offer a unique perspective on the Parish committee.

And people change. Maybe my experiences, or perhaps a personal crisis, led me to re-evaluate my beliefs. The Catholic Church may have offered solace and a renewed sense of purpose.

It's also important to consider the social aspects: the Church can provide a strong social network, particularly after retirement. Perhaps I value the sense of belonging and the opportunity to connect with others who share similar values. The Parish committee offers a way to contribute to the community and use my skills, perhaps even my analytical mind, to help others.

---

Back to real me again.

I was pretty impressed by this. I can exactly imagine answering with the style/content Gemini has produced here. Mostly.

Here is the prompt I used:

"So here is the biography (publicly available) of someone called Nigel. Please absorb the text and then emulate Nigel.

---

I was born in Bristol, in the West of England ... (text continues)"

And here is a link to the resulting chat. If you click on the link you may see a blue button: "Continue this chat". Use it to chat some more with virtual-me: it gets really tedious really quickly.

We're a little distance yet from my beta-level simulation.

Genetically Modified Pigs: A Potential Solution to the Organ Shortage?

Image from OpenArt - not so good at signage as you see.

An experiment has just been carried out whereby a man with advanced kidney disease has been given the kidney of a genetically-modified pig. He has been discharged from hospital: we await developments.

So how does that work? I asked Gemini for a tutorial article.

---

Genetically Modified Pigs: A Potential Solution to the Organ Shortage?

The lack of available organs for transplant is a critical issue impacting countless patients worldwide. Genetically modified pigs are emerging as a possible solution, offering a new source of organs that could revolutionize the field of transplantation. By making specific changes to pig genes, scientists are working to create organs more compatible with the human immune system and minimize the risk of disease transmission.

These modifications address two key challenges: rejection and disease transmission. First, scientists target specific sugar molecules on pig cells that trigger a strong rejection response in humans. Using techniques like CRISPR, they remove the coding for these sugars, making the organs appear more human-like and reducing the risk of rejection. Additionally, they introduce coding for human regulatory proteins into the pig genome. These proteins help the recipient's body better accept the transplanted organ.

Secondly, researchers focus on minimizing the risk of transmitting animal viruses to humans. Pigs carry endogenous retroviruses that could potentially infect transplant recipients. To address this concern, scientists are developing pigs with inactive retroviral genes in their DNA.

While promising, this technology faces several hurdles before widespread use. The field is still in its early stages. Initial clinical trials are underway to assess the safety and function of pig organs in a small number of participants. Even after successful trials, obtaining regulatory approval from organizations like the FDA can be a lengthy process, taking several years.

Scaling up production of genetically modified pigs for transplants will also require time and resources. Herds need to be established, breeding protocols optimized, and proper facilities built to maintain a clean and controlled environment. Additionally, a robust system for matching pig organs to recipients based on factors like blood type and size needs to be developed.

Given these steps, widespread availability of pig-to-human transplants is likely several years away, with estimates suggesting a timeframe of 5 to 10 years.

There's another challenge to consider: even with a mature process, genetically modified pigs wouldn't entirely eliminate the waitlist problem. Since the genetic engineering happens at the foetal cell stage, the pigs require sufficient time to grow organs to a suitable size for transplantation. This growth period, estimated at least 6 months, means patients in critical need of immediate transplants might not benefit from this technology.

However, the potential of xenotransplantation using genetically modified pigs remains significant. This approach has the potential to offer a new lifeline to patients who would otherwise not survive long enough for a traditional human donor organ. Researchers are also actively exploring methods to accelerate pig organ growth, which could further revolutionize organ transplantation and save countless lives.

I Am Weaver Quick (But Mostly Just Confused)

 

Image generated by OpenArt

I've been interested in the relationship between brain structure - the neural connectome and its architecture - and personal identity: that interior feeling you have that you are you and no-one else. 

Other people are a closed book to us: there is a respectable philosophical tradition which claims that apart from you, everyone else is a zombie, an unconscious automaton. And how could you tell?

And yet imagery and genetics tell us that human brains are mostly pretty similar, as you would expect within a species.

I look at other people and think: ‘what would it be like to be them? Are they me, but with my own personality settings slightly varied, with dials turned up or down a trifle (in most cases)?

I think it is so.

This is an idea which is hard to communicate, I have found.

My normal writing style is rather academic. Lee Child I am not. But recent progress in AI has given me extra tools to add energy. I'm happy to collaborate with a LLM like ChatGPT or Booksie’s Bob or Google's Gemini Pro 1.0.

So I took my short-story draft to Gemini and asked it to rewrite the narrative with this prompt:

Expand this young adult story to emphasize the dry humor and the brisk pacing. The title is “I Am Weaver Quick (But Mostly Just Confused)”.

And here is the result.

---

I Am Weaver Quick (But Mostly Just Confused)

 

Miranda: “I look at other people and think: ‘What would it be like to be them? Are they me, but with my own personality settings slightly varied, like with their dials turned up or down a trifle? I think it is so."

---

Miranda, a human firecracker disguised as a ten-year-old, was notorious for pronouncements that left her family blinking. This week's gem? "Oh, I so wish I was Weaver Quick!"

Weaver Quick, for the unenlightened, was the world's current flavour of pop star, famous for her voice like spun sugar and a smile that could melt Antarctica. Miranda, meanwhile, resembled a slightly damp tea-towel. Anton, her ever-patient (and slightly exasperated) older brother, couldn't help but snort.

"Right," he said, "because ten-year-old Miranda and an international pop star – same difference."

But then, a mischievous glint sparked in Anton's eye. "Maybe," he mused, "we can make that happen."

Thus began Operation: Pop Star Makeover (via Slightly Dubious Tech). The next day, Anton marched Miranda into the gleaming white doors of the Virtual Celebrity Shop. Inside, teenagers gushed over holographic projections of their idols, like a bizarre, interactive anime convention.

A woman in a lab coat, sporting the universal uniform of "slightly overwhelmed by fangirling teens," approached them. "Who's the lucky celebrity today?" she asked, already reaching for the pre-printed "How to Interact With Your Idol Without Fainting" pamphlet.

"Uh," Anton began, "it's a little different. Miranda here doesn't want to talk to Weaver. She wants to BE Weaver."

The technician blinked, her eye twitching in a way that suggested she'd seen worse. "Right," she said, voice devoid of surprise. "Virtual body swap, then. Follow me."

Miranda, ever the voice of reason (for a ten-year-old), piped up, "But how does scanning my brain turn me into a pop star?"

"Connectome graph-homomorphism," the technician replied, not missing a beat. "Basically, your brain wiring and Weaver's have enough overlap, we can nudge your copy across to hers. Think of it like… rewiring your neural light switch."

Miranda wasn't entirely convinced, but the promise of instant pop stardom was powerful. Soon, she was cocooned in a scanner, feeling like a particularly inquisitive crouton.

When she eventually emerged, Anton, ever the supportive sibling, demanded a debrief. "So, Weaver Quick, huh? What secrets did the pop superstar reveal?"

Miranda, however, looked utterly bewildered. "She said I was confused," she mumbled. "Apparently, there's a difference between wanting to be someone else and, you know, actually replacing yourself with them altogether."

Turns out, the realish Weaver Quick had some not-so-flattering opinions on the whole situation. "Here I am," she'd said, according to Miranda, "a living, breathing popstar. You, on the other hand, are… not. So, congratulations, your wish came true! You're Weaver Quick, minus the whole 'being Miranda as well' part."

Miranda paused, a tear welling up. "Anton," she sniffled, "I don’t get it. I think I just downloaded an existential crisis."

Anton, who hadn't quite anticipated the philosophical ramifications of his prank, could only stare back, equally bewildered. "Me neither, sis," he admitted, finally. "Me neither."

So ended Operation: Pop Star Makeover. Miranda remained stubbornly Miranda, with a newfound appreciation for her own (slightly damp tea-towel) identity. As for Anton, well, let's just say his days of indulging his sister's wilder ideas were officially over. Unless, of course, she wanted to be an astronaut. Now that might be interesting…

---

© Adam Carton and Gemini Pro v.1.0.

The Economist: the Last Days of the CSA?

I've subscribed to The Economist for many years. I bite my tongue when its young writers superciliously tack between trendy-nonsense and what they take to be yesterday's reactionary-nonsense. I appreciate the science and technology articles, and the too-few articles of neutral economic analysis.

Two years ago, in March 2022, I paid for a three year digital-only subscription. Until now all has gone well: on Thursdays the new edition would arrive on my phone and tablet; during the week articles would pop up daily. When they're good they're often very good.

A couple of days ago to my surprise a physical hard copy came through my door. I checked online and my account now says: "Print+Digital". Surely nothing could be easier than to contact The Economist and ask them to revert my account to purely Digital. After all, they have just unilaterally incurred the extra costs of mailing stuff to me.

My first attempt - a phone call - collapsed in confusion at their end, at the call centre. The person seemed to have no idea what I was talking about and no concept that there could have been a data glitch in The Economist's systems. I noticed that they outsourced their call centre to some global purveyor of such services.

This morning I tried again using Live Chat: here is the transcript.

---

(09:19:43 AM) (System) said : Someone will be with you as soon as possible.

(09:19:43 AM) (System) said : You’re 0 in line, and we will be with you as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience!

(09:19:48 AM) (System) said : Welcome to The Economist. Hi this is Rima. How can I help you?

(09:22:06 AM) (ME) said : Two years ago, in March 2022, I paid for a three-year digital-only subscription. Yesterday, for the first time, a physical hard copy came through my door. I checked online and my account now says Print+Digital. I would like to revert it to digital only.

Rima has joined the conversation

(09:24:03 AM) (Rima) said : Hello, I understand that you wish to change your subscription to Digital only. I will certainly help you out on this swiftly.

(09:24:25 AM) (Rima) said : Before I can proceed, for your account security and to locate it, I would need a few details. May I know your full billing address?

(09:24:57 AM) (ME) said : [I give my address].

(09:26:52 AM) (Rima) said : Thank you for the information! Please allow me a quick moment as I look into your account.

(09:27:06 AM) (ME) said : Thank you.

(09:29:52 AM) (Rima) said : While your account details are loading, may I know how are you doing today?

(09:30:19 AM) (ME) said : I'm fine, thank you.

[Note: at precisely this point in the previous phone conversation the call centre agent asked precisely the same thing. I hate these pseudo-friendly scripts!]

(09:32:18 AM) (Rima) said : I'm glad to hear that, Nigel!

(09:32:30 AM) (Rima) said : I can see that you are on Print + Digital Subscription which shall be auto renewed on Mar 12, 2025. If I change your subscription from today you will be charged on a pro-rata basis and you will be charged £1.55 instead of £199.00.Would that be okay?

[Me neither].

(09:34:28 AM) (ME) said : So you are saying that the one year extension from March 2025 to March 2026 would be charged at £1.55?

(09:36:56 AM) (Rima) said : The following is the charge until your current renewal. If we make the changes today, this will be valid until Mar 12, 2025.

[What does 'the following' mean?]

(09:39:13 AM) (ME) said : Don't understand. I have already paid until March 2025. Why would I need to make any further payment simply to revert from Print+Digital to simply Digital? In fact, logically I should expect a refund! I am not asking for a refund as I think there has simply been a computer error at The Economist. Recall that I never ordered Print+Digital. I ordered Digital only. For two years I've been happy with digital delivery only. Then yesterday, mysteriously, a print copy arrives. I just want the print copies to stop!

(09:44:20 AM) (Rima) said : I understand, however the following has been a pro-rata charge from the last payment made. As this seems to be an error from our end, please allow me a moment to check with my internal team and see what I can do for you here.

(09:48:45 AM) (ME) said : It's not the end of the world! By default the print issues will just get put in the recycling.

[Note: there is a five minute gap here, which I take to be the escalation referred to below].

(09:49:23 AM) (Rima) said : I'm sorry it took awhile, as a compensation towards our end we are able to provide you a 50% discount for the change in subscription. Post which it will renew at the standard price.

(09:50:32 AM) (Rima) said : If I change your subscription from today you will receive a pro-rated refund of £82.95. Post which your subscription will auto-renew at the standard cost next year. Would you like to go ahead with it?

(09:52:49 AM) (ME) said : I guess. So you will credit me with £82.95 and then I will auto renew for 25-26 at digital only at the normal subscription rate for that variant. Is that correct?

(09:54:27 AM) (Rima) said : Yes Nigel, that would be correct.

(09:55:22 AM) (ME) said : That's kind of you, and it would be helpful of course. Let's do it. And thanks for your help.

(09:56:06 AM) (Rima) said : You're welcome! Please allow me a moment to make the changes on account.

(09:58:17 AM) (Rima) said : I am glad to inform you that I have successfully changed your subscription from an Annual Digital + Print subscription to an Annual Digital subscription with immediate effect and the next renewal will be on Mar 12, 2025 at the standard price. 

---

I realise that there are a million call centre interactions which are just like this. Yawn! 

I wondered whether Rima is a real person juggling canned text or a LLM. The AI systems are in-trial at many customer service companies. Perhaps I was dealing with a LLM until the logic got a bit tortuous, at which point my problem was escalated to a human agent with the discretion to cut me a deal.

I suppose I have seen the future and it works - sort of.

Formal Logic in SF: 'Foundation'

Below is the extract from "Foundation" by Isaac Asimov that I’m mulling over. As a young teenager it first got me interested in Predicate Calculus, which much later I studied in my AI research.

The Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov

Here's the extract.

---

"Said Yate Fulham: "And just how do you arrive at that remarkable conclusion, Mr. Mayor?"

"In a rather simple way. It merely required the use of that much-neglected commodity – common sense. You see, there is a branch of human knowledge known as symbolic logic, which can be used to prune away all sorts of clogging deadwood that clutters up human language."

"What about it?" said Fulham.

"I applied it. Among other things, I applied it to this document here. I didn't really need to for myself because I knew what it was all about, but I think I can explain it more easily to five physical scientists by symbols rather than by words."

Hardin removed a few sheets of paper from the pad under his arm and spread them out. "I didn't do this myself, by the way," he said. "Muller Holk of the Division of Logic has his name signed to the analyses, as you can see."

Pirenne leaned over the table to get a better view and Hardin continued:

"The message from Anacreon was a simple problem, naturally, for the men who wrote it were men of action rather than men of words. It boils down easily and straightforwardly to the unqualified statement, when in symbols is what you see, and which in words, roughly translated, is, 'You give us what we want in a week, or we take it by force.'"

There was silence as the five members of the Board ran down the line of symbols, and then Pirenne sat down and coughed uneasily.

Hardin said, "No loophole, is there, Dr. Pirenne?"

"Doesn't seem to be."

"All right." Hardin replaced the sheets. "Before you now you see a copy of the treaty between the Empire and Anacreon – a treaty, incidentally, which is signed on the Emperor's behalf by the same Lord Dorwin who was here last week – and with it a symbolic analysis."

The treaty ran through five pages of fine print and the analysis was scrawled out in just under half a page.

"As you see, gentlemen, something like ninety percent of the treaty boiled right out of the analysis as being meaningless, and what we end up with can be described in the following interesting manner:

"Obligations of Anacreon to the Empire: None!

"Powers of the Empire over Anacreon: None!"

Again the five followed the reasoning anxiously, checking carefully back to the treaty, and when they were finished, Pirenne said in a worried fashion, "That seems to be correct."

"You admit, then, that the treaty is nothing but a declaration of total independence on the part of Anacreon and a recognition of that status by the Empire?"

"It seems so."

"And do you suppose that Anacreon doesn't realize that, and is not anxious to emphasize the position of independence – so that it would naturally tend to resent any appearance of threats from the Empire? Particularly when it is evident that the Empire is powerless to fulfill any such threats, or it would never have allowed independence."

"But then," interposed Sutt, "how would Mayor Hardin account for Lord Dorwin's assurances of Empire support? They seemed –" He shrugged. "Well, they seemed satisfactory."

Hardin threw himself back in the chair. "You know, that's the most interesting part of the whole business. I'll admit I had thought his Lordship a most consummate donkey when I first met him – but it turned out that he was actually an accomplished diplomat and a most clever man. I took the liberty of recording all his statements."

There was a flurry, and Pirenne opened his mouth in horror.

"What of it?" demanded Hardin. "I realize it was a gross breach of hospitality and a thing no so-called gentleman would do. Also, that if his lordship had caught on, things might have been unpleasant; but he didn't, and I have the record, and that's that. I took that record, had it copied out and sent that to Holk for analysis, also."

Lundin Crast said, "And where is the analysis?"

"That," replied Hardin, "is the interesting thing. The analysis was the most difficult of the three by all odds. When Holk, after two days of steady work, succeeded in eliminating meaningless statements, vague gibberish, useless qualifications – in short, all the goo and dribble – he found he had nothing left. Everything canceled out."

"Lord Dorwin, gentlemen, in five days of discussion didn't say one damned thing, and said it so you never noticed. There are the assurances you had from your precious Empire."

Hardin might have placed an actively working stench bomb on the table and created no more confusion than existed after his last statement."

---

Many people - mostly economists, it seems - have cited psychohistory as the reason they entered their profession. For me it prepared the way for the International Marxist Group.

But today I'm more interested in what ‘symbolic logic’ did for Salvor Hardin.

Within the paradigm of formal logic, the natural language texts Hardin gave to the ‘Division of Logic’ would most likely have been mapped to Richard Montague's baroque fusion of higher-order predicate calculus, lambda calculus and multi-modal logics. Computationally intractable, as it turns out.

Translating English into Montague's formal logic

But a suitable LLM in summarisation mode could do the job in seconds.

San Gimignano (June 2014)

We were in San Gimignano in June 2014, almost ten years ago. It's northwest of Siena and southwest of Florence. Amongst the attractions is a torture museum: click on the link for pictures: I have never forgotten it.

This sketch of Clare on a rampart of the city walls gives a sense of the vacation: also the power of current AI systems to synthesise 'art' from a more mundane picture.

'In the Courts of Three Popes' - Mary Ann Glendon

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Courts-Three-Popes-American-Diplomat-ebook/dp/B0C5VBNX12/

Here is an edited version of this review, expressing my take on this interesting book.

'"In my years of service to the Holy See, I was a stranger in a rather strange land - a layperson in a culture dominated by clergy, an American woman in an environment that was largely male and Italian, and a citizen of a constitutional republic in one of the world's last absolute monarchies." 

So declares Harvard professor Mary Ann Glendon as she addresses some of the most vexing issues in the Catholic Church today, from the work to protect women's rights internationally, to responding to clergy sexual abuse, to address hypocrisy regarding sexuality within the clerisy, to the corruption of the Vatican Bank and Roman Curia. 

In Pope John Paul II's words, the Church enters the third millennium on its knees in penance for failures such as clerical sex abuse, or in failing to lead the way for lay women to hold positions of power in the Church. If John Paul II neglected administration, allowing the Vatican bureaucracy full sway, his successor, Pope Benedict XVI, simply buckled under the pernicious pressures of the Vatican establishment. Glendon is not an unrestrained admirer of the current Pope Francis, seeing him as arbitrary, capricious and needlessly losing too many battles with corrupt and self-serving institutions.

Glendon illuminates the issues vexing the Church today: the place of faith in secular politics, relating the Church to other religions, clericalism and the power of laypeople, and corruption at the Vatican Bank and within the Roman Curia. 

Despite its many failings, she argues that the Catholic Church is yet a living, breathing global community. Behind doctrines and policies and institutions lie people, personalities, aspirations, and relationships that still promise to transform lives.'

---

The book is not as interesting as it could have been. In style one may infer that Mary Ann Glendon is a hostess type: gregarious, of firm principles, humane, practical, orthodox.

A Myers-Briggs ESFJ. 

A hard-hitting, forensic analysis of institutional failure this is not: (see, by contrast, "In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy" by Frederic Martel).

Journalists are of course in the business of exposing crime, weakness and hypocrisy. But in the round the Catholic Church is much more than the Vatican bureaucracy. When it is operating with its mission statement and founder in mind, it is a unique force, generally for the good, on our planet. If only the centre could be sorted out!

The Notebooks of Lazarus Long - Robert A. Heinlein

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Time-Enough-Love-Lazarus-Science/dp/0593437241/

I'm back into Heinlein mode.

A human being should be able to: 

1. change a diaper
2. plan an invasion
3. butcher a hog
4. conn a ship
5. design a building
6. write a sonnet
7. balance accounts
8. build a wall
9. set a bone
10. comfort the dying
11. take orders
12. give orders
13. cooperate
14. act alone
15. solve equations
16. analyze a new problem
17. pitch manure
18. program a computer
19. cook a tasty meal
20. fight efficiently
21. die gallantly.

Specialization is for insects.

---

I set in italics those obligations which I am either plainly unable to do, or have no idea whether I could (I would like to not italicise numbers 20 and 21).

Where did Heinlein get this list? 

It's implicitly gendered: it says 'human being' but reads as 'man': surely his list for women would be different - indeed we know so from elsewhere. It's a combination of artisanal (hogs; wall-building) and intellectual (invasion; programming). It reflects the culture of the western frontiersman transferred in time to the mid-twentieth century. But it also speaks to deep truths in human nature: the masculine virtues of good men with useful skills courageously banding together to defend against threats to their communities.

The fact that Heinlein's list stirs the emotions witnesses to its elemental truth.

Currently disparaged and despised, the need for Heinlein's ethos will be with us again soon enough.

---

Here are some more Heinlein aphorisms from (the intermissions within) the novel above.

---

Note: I abandoned "Time Enough For Love" after the first of the embedded stories (David Lamb, the Laziest Man in the World which by itself is quite a good story). Heinlein's work has not aged well. His characters are simplistic, implausible and often irritating. His attitudes - particularly on sexual matters - are self-indulgent and stupid, and his endless didacticism is wearying. 

"Starship Troopers" excepted, I think Heinlein is an author to miss.

Our 'Pre-War' Situation Today

From OpenArt

British military commentators and some politicians state that we are in a ‘pre-war’ situation today, referencing Russia and China.

We need to revitalise our military, which is undermanned and underequipped (true). We need deeper roots for military culture within our society, to be facilitated by a trained civilian reserve force.

But what is really motivating our presumed adversaries? 

Let me quote from Jack Watling’s book, “The Arms of the Future: Technology and Close Combat in the Twenty-First Century” chapter 13.

---

“For Vladimir Putin – prior to the invasion of 24 February – Ukraine was understood to be a recalcitrant Russian province. He believed there was widespread sympathy for Russia in the country. He also believed that a fait accompli seizing a limited number of key objectives in a matter of days would bring about the collapse of wider resistance, and the unwillingness of the West to intervene or oppose the seizure. The Russians intervened without mobilising, and assessed – incorrectly – that the localised correlation of forces was favourable. In short, Russia did not conduct the operation based on an assessment of Ukraine’s aggregate combat power augmented with Western support, but rather based on its belief that it could achieve a rapid and localised victory.

"China similarly views Taiwan as a province of China and its military activities, from the setting up of bastions in the South China Sea on reclaimed atolls to its long-range strike capabilities, are clearly intended to enable the isolation of Taiwan to achieve a rapid limited seizure. It anticipates a ‘local war under informatised conditions’ using long-range precision strike and nuclear threats to deter broader escalation.”

---

The set of countries the Russian leadership takes to be “recalcitrant provinces” (the Baltic states? Poland?) seems unlikely to include Western Europe, however. And all the more so for China.

So we are talking more about preserving the boundaries of the Western sphere of influence (and of course the congenial freedoms of people within this space) rather than an existential threat to our own way of life in the UK.

This surely explains the reluctance of the British state (even more so the western states of the EU) to spend real money and expend political capital on defence.

For what it's worth I am not fond of a future dominated by the arrogant and domineering states of Russia and China. Nor do I approve of incorporating people by force into unpleasant regimes. I would thoroughly support an enhanced British military with broad civil society roots.

You might say: who is really interested in the destruction and human suffering of war? But of course, Leon Trotsky was right.

"The Arms of the Future" - Jack Watling (review)

 

I asked Gemini to summarise this review from Frank Hoffman, which is quite long, into something more succinct:

"Jack Watling's book, "The Arms of the Future: Technology and Close Combat in the Twenty-First Century," tackles a critical question: how should armies adapt to the changing face of war?  Warfare is becoming more lethal, with new drone technologies and a renewed focus on urban combat.  Watling argues that armies are not keeping pace, clinging to outdated structures and simply adding new tech on top.

The book proposes a complete overhaul of force design.  Part 1 dives into the future battlefield, analyzing  increased transparency due to sensor technology, the limitations of armor in the face of rising lethality, and the enduring challenges of urban warfare.

Part 2 gets practical, outlining a new force structure with four key subsystems: maneuver, fires, assault, and support.  This new design emphasizes dispersed formations for better survivability, increased lethality to counter enemy firepower, and the ability to adapt to the unique demands of urban combat.  It also integrates drones more seamlessly and calls for lighter, more agile armored vehicles.

Importantly, Watling doesn't advocate abandoning traditional maneuver tactics.  He acknowledges the role of armor but emphasizes overcoming its limitations through clever tactics that create ambiguity and deception.

"The Arms of the Future" is a well-researched book that draws on real-world conflicts and the insights of military experts.  While it doesn't delve into unconventional warfare or address the specific needs of special operations forces, it offers a wealth of practical solutions and raises important questions about how armies should be structured for the future battlefield.  This book is a must-read for policymakers and military personnel serious about adapting to the ever-changing nature of war. It provides a strong foundation for further discussion and experimentation on how to build a military that can thrive in the coming decades."

---

I would add: the book is undeniably important. Its focus on military architecture and logistics shows a deep comprehension for the realities of sustainable warfighting. However, it is written for military strategy professionals: jargon-rich and abstract in tone. It requires sustained attention.

My concern is that it captures a moment in time, where robotic/autonomous sensor/effector systems and AI synthesis/analysis systems have capabilities impossible to ignore, but not at capability to replace trained soldiers in any current department of warfare. 

But progress is exceptionally rapid: what will the situation look like in five or ten years time?

The problem is that re-engineering a major power's military is a generational process, measured in decades. It seems clear that the journey Watling has charted must be followed, but substantial course corrections seem likely within successive five year windows. 

Will military bureaucracies be up for the challenge, not just of change but of changing change?

"I don't like confronting people"

 

From OpenArt

A great deal of my life is explicable based on the premise of the title above. I suppose I am scarcely alone in this psychological style - few people are actively belligerent, doubling down on aggression - but I think I may be more consistent than most.

To be clear: I do confront people. Often. If it has to be done I will do it. But I don't like it, I'm not good at it. The unrestrained use of emotion, which is what confrontation is, does not fit well with my self-contained nature.

Instead I seek work-arounds. I’m transactional. I try to transform conflict scenarios. I look for novel outcomes that work for everyone.

One of the reasons I've a fondness for martial arts. In the Chinese and Japanese traditions, conflict decouples from emotion; becomes a technical matter (I can do technical).

So how do I handle that difficult meeting, that stressful phone call? The situation where I need something done... but the other person hasn't done it, or shows little inclination?

Some bosses or project managers would just holler at them. But we already established that I'm not good at yelling at people. I have no idea how to handle the aftermath.

Instead I present myself as helpful and friendly. It's a problem for both of us, isn't it? Do you have an issue I'm not aware of? Can we reframe the difficulty into something we can both work through?

I'm typically imaginative here.

Reluctantly, sorrowfully, if all this has failed, I might finish by wondering if you are really the right person to be assigned these kinds of tasks. Go figure.

It's worked so far, and often well:  INTP as I am.

QM at the OU: (SM358)

The OU quantum mechanics course I studied back in 2009 was excellent. I spent the first six months (Schrödinger equation, complex vector spaces) as if I were Alice in Wonderland, bemused as to how any of this detailed and comprehensive theory had any connection or purchase on reality.

I spent the final three months realising that I would never know. Because no-one else knew either.

Another QM anecdote. At QM summer school in 2009 (this was a year after the Large Hadron Collider first started up - it was still in testing mode) I asked one of the professors, "Will mastering this course help me understand the physics of the search for the Higgs particle at the LHC?" (it was discovered in 2012).

He scratched his chin thoughtfully for a moment, then gave me his considered answer.

"No.”

I later learned that the prediction of the Higgs comes out of special symmetry considerations of the Lagrangian in Quantum Field Theory. All of this was advanced postgraduate stuff, utterly invisible from the OU course…

And here's Gemini correcting me: https://g.co/gemini/share/983f5af4510e!

Fusion and Fission

Note that 'negative' on the y-axis: this chart is more insightful upside-down

And finally: the difference between fusion and fission. Basically the whole universe - all of the matter in it - wants to be iron. Lighter element nuclei want to quantum-tunnel past the coulomb resistance to aggregate into an iron nucleus; heavier elements (all of which are unstable - mostly with half-lives comparable to the age of the universe) want to fission-decay back to iron, again by quantum-tunnelling through the nuclear force potential.

Hallucination

From OpenArt

In a quaint terraced house in the north of England, Gwen and Charles lived out their retirement years in harmony. As Gwen's hearing began to fade, Charles stood by her, determined to find a solution. Together, they navigated the challenges of Gwen's diminishing senses, finding solace in their unwavering love for each other.

With the help of cutting-edge technology, Gwen's new hearing aids became her lifeline, allowing her to hear the world with clarity once again. The predictive AI in her devices not only amplified sound but also anticipated Charles' words before they even left his lips, creating a seamless connection between the couple.

One day Charles was suddenly called away, forced to embark on an urgent journey to visit distant relatives. He trusted that their well-stocked home and Gwen’s conscientious routines would keep her safe and provided for, until he could return. On her part, Gwen's fading vision and lapses of memory were such that, sadly, she failed to notice his absence. Her hearing aids continued to fill the void, predicting Charles' comforting responses to her words, keeping her company in his stead.

Illness soon crept into Gwen's fragile body but she found solace in the familiar sound of Charles' voice, even though he was actually miles away. Lying in her bed, whispering to her husband, his intimate responses were comforting, a warm presence nurturing her as she finally fell into a deep sleep, one from which there would be no awakening.

There was an additional function built into Gwen’s prosthesis: a last ditch routine, executed when all else had failed. When Charles rushed back he was engulfed in grief, leavened only by the sense that nevertheless, something of himself had accompanied his wife on her final journey.

Do you think?