Self-replicating systems, slide show presentations on micro-processing speed, and debate over Moores Law's application to computer operating systems are not usually the subjects that draw overflow crowds on a sunny afternoon. Silicon Valley, however, is not a usual place. And these are not usual times.
So no one was too surprised Saturday when a forum on the threats of technological innovation -- entitled Will Spiritual Robots Replace Humanity by 2100? -- got a mob reception at Stanford University.
On an otherwise pristine afternoon, what some estimated as well over a thousand people crushed inside a far-too-small auditorium to hear Sun Microsystems chief scientist Bill Joy, robotics researcher Hans Moravec, author and inventor Ray Kurzweil, and a panel of science luminaries debate whether humanity's technological prowess is planting the seed of our own demise.
Fuzzy overhead projectors and semi-audible speeches from men in wrinkled button-down shirts aside, it was heady stuff.
"It's the tech equivalent of a rock show," said John Meisell, software development head at iFilm, who was relatively unfazed at not finding a seat. He was accompanied by a friend who flew in from Los Angeles for the symposium and was equally unsurprised by the turnout, although he declined to give his name, saying it would be "way too embarrassing."
The source of the hoopla? An e-mail announcement that made the rounds of technophile news groups, promising a debate on how the confluence of revolutionary research in artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, virtual reality, genetic programming, quantum computing, and other emerging areas promise to profoundly alter the very nature of humanity. The gathering set out to investigate the ethical downside of all this progress.
The contention: that the sweeping pace of technological advancement, in academia, the military, and the corporate world, opens up a new wave of moral questions. Not least of those is whether certain lines of scientific inquiry should be relinquished as too dangerous to pursue.
At least that was the Joy's point. The Sun co-founder, who recently published his views on why emerging lines of scientific inquiry -- in particular, nanotechnology manipulation of matter at the atomic level -- carry the potential for massive destruction.
Computer scientist and nanotechnology expert Ralph Merkle compared the debate to controversy that emerged more than half a century ago when the scientific community first grappled with the advent of nuclear technology.
Merkle said, over Joy's objections, that it was too early to tell whether nanotechnology would emerge as technology best geared for offense, as in the case of nukes, or as a defensive application.
Perhaps the seriousness of the scientific contemplation was best illustrated by what passed for comic relief later in the forum, with discussion about how Moores Law applies to computer operating systems.
"The size seems to be Moores Law. Its function is fixed," Joy said at one point, drawing howls from the crowd.
On a reassuring note, panelists generally rejected the notion that humanity was on the brink of creating an organism more intelligent and geared for survival than ourselves.
What engineered creations do not possess, Merkle pointed out, is the ability to adapt to situations, to apply theoretical thinking and survival instincts, and to act independently. A jet plane, for example, can fly faster than any bird, but would never develop the ability to forage for its own fuel, he said.
At the same time, the humans gathered at the symposium displayed survival instincts of their own in the lecture hall, which at points resembled a sardine can.
"Some guy passed out up there. That's when I decided to call it quits," said Brady Beaubien, a Stanford student who escaped the press of human bodies in the auditorium for a temporary glimpse of sun. Beaubien said he was planning to try and snag a seat at the next break, to hear the next lineup of speakers.
"Science fiction is saturated with ideas about robots replicating like human beings, and that's what this is all about. It's one of the first academic discussions about science fiction," he said.
And after all, who lets a few technical glitches get in the way of technological progress?
"I kind of figured with all the great technical minds here they wouldn't be able to figure out how big a building to have," said Mark Ettlin, who heard about the talk through a mailing list, but couldn't find standing room to view it from.
Why the Future Doeesn't Need Us (Wired magazine)
