Our Future - Cooperative Computing

Why does it seem that using the computer is only getting more difficult and time consuming? The standard answer one receives from the ‘experts’ is that computer-based application complexity is directly related to the growth in the scope of the potential implementations. In essence, the more you can do with a computer, the more complicated it is to program and use. End of story.

Or is it??

It’s true that increasing system complexity is outstripping the development of processes for monitoring, diagnosing and repairing such systems. The proliferation of viruses, spyware and unwanted advertising are symptoms of just such failures. Accordingly, IBM has adopted an R&D manifesto calling for the development of ‘Autonomic Computing Systems.’ By incorporating a model of the human autonomic nervous system, IBM is betting that they can design computer systems that protect against threats, and further act to ‘heal’ damaged code. As defined by IBM, an autonomic computing system needs to “know itself” - its components must possess a system identity.

IBM is well down the road with regard to the research and development of computer systems that provide some measure of self-management. What does that mean to the computer user working to understand and use a blog, an RSS reader, technorati, delicious, or some other computer tech du jour? Nothing. IBM’s focus in this case is on the computer, not the computer user. IBM is incorporating a biological model to help ensure the survival of complex computing systems. Note, however, that IBM will attempt to frame the development of such systems as being user-centric; likely by leveraging the concepts of ‘reliability,’ ’stability,’ ‘ dependability,’ etc.

Suppose for a moment that instead of focusing on developing computers that can sense threat, self-protect and self-heal, one set out to develop computing systems that co-operate with the user. A model of the human autonomic nervous system may prove useful with regard to the control of a computing system’s impulsive fight-or-flight responses, but when such ‘involuntary’ impulses produce cooperative behavior, the feeling is disingenuous at best. More likely, such a form of cooperation will be perceived by the user as outright condescension. One must look at a different model upon which computing systems may be designed and implemented if one is to enable human-computer cooperation.

The conceptualization of such a model first requires the consideration of an axiom of technological development distinct from the popular idea that technology is developed to maximize the likelihood of survival. If such is the case then technological development is the cognitive recapitulation of biological evolution.

The Survivalist Model

The first technologies people invented included control over fire and the fashioning of weapons. Fire to provide heat and light, weapons to provide a means of protection and a means for obtaining protein rich food. Of course, some might argue that weapons today aren’t developed to maximize the likelihood of survival. When considered from the point of view of an individual or a nation, however, it can be argued that even the development of the atom bomb was initiated with an eye toward survival.

Arguments Against the ‘Survivalist Model’

Given the second law of thermodynamics, systems tend towards minimum energy and maximum entropy. As demonstrated by Brillouin, entropy in a system is not decreased merely because an agent within the system adds order. By adding order, the agent in fact adds entropy exceeding the amount of order so added. Therefore, it seems absurdist that the ‘goal’ of ‘life,’ is simply survival. Survival is not the end. Additionally, the emergence of cognitive systems such as those exhibited by humans would not preclude the homogenization of information and the concomitant increase in entropy and the decrease in energy. Note also, that given the success evolution has displayed over the millennia, and given the prevalence of human-on-human intolerance and violence, one might just as easily argue that cognition better represents the possible end of the human species rather than its continued survival.

The Self-Discovery Model

An alternative perspective founds the development of technology not simply upon survival, but rather upon the will to maximize the potential for self-discovery. Such a foundation subsumes the survival model, as one’s survival is necessary for a continued process of self-discovery. Note, however, that while there exist belief systems based upon the concept of reincarnation, such does not negate the idea that technology is in fact purposed to serve self-discovery rather than survival.

Two concepts relating to the Self-Discovery model that one ought consider then are ‘direct social benefit’ and ‘technology overhead.’ Direct social benefits are those measurable opportunities for self discovery introduced, or promoted by a given technology. Technology overhead is the measurable cost relating to the implementation of a technology. Whenever a person must consciously act to operate a piece of technology, such as when learning to drive a car, the user becomes an extension of the technology, if only as a means to understand it. For most all technologies, the direct social benefit conferred upon the user far outstrips the proportionately small amount of time spent learning to utilize the technology. Think riding a bicycle, driving a car, reading, writing, etc. The social benefit additionally outweighs the risks associated with injury, or loss of life while employing a technology. Once learned, driving requires very little in the way of one’s conscious attention and one is free to place one’s attention on other things.

It seems that there is only one technology that violates the Self-Discovery Model of technological development, the computer. People are required to spend more and more time learning both how to program and use the computer, rather than simply working with the computer as an additional vehicle for self-discovery. Even as models become more abstract, computing systems become more complex. Whereas abstraction ought to lead to a simplification (the loss of distinctions and cognitive overhead), one finds just the opposite is true with regard to computers. It appears that humanity has considered the computer as simply just another tool to aid survival, when in fact it is to serve as a partner for self-discovery. Therefore, one needs to imbue in a computer more than just a will to survive. The computer must include the ability to discover an increasingly distinguishable sense of identity.

The introduction of such a system represents a turning point in the cognitive evolution of humanity. Computers will manage lower level abstractions that today extract a near intolerable payment in terms of conscious attention. People will be able to refocus on higher abstractions that demonstrate interconnectedness rather than distinction while cooperating with and learning alongside computers.

–If you agree, or if you disagree, please comment and share your thoughts with others…