̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Science fiction

Mind Over Chatter: What did the future look like in the past?

ns480 — Thu, 27 May 2021 13:14:33 +0000

Season 2, episode 2

We all have theories about what the future might look like. But what did the future look like in the past? And how have the advent of new technologies altered how people viewed the future?

In this episode of Mind Over Chatter, we talked with curator of modern sciences and historian of Victorian science Dr Joshua Nall, professor of Digital Humanities and director of Cambridge Digital Humanities Professor Caroline Bassett, and Junior Research Fellow in the history of artificial intelligence, Dr Jonnie Penn in our attempt to understand how the future was thought of in the past.

Along the way we discussed utopias and dystopias, the long history of science fiction, and how the future might come back to haunt us!

Subscribe to Mind Over Chatter

Key Points

[02:15] - How did new science and technology (railways, telegraphic communication, mass printing) transform the 19th Century.

[05:00] - Futures and utopias delivered by technology as opposed to magic.

[09:30] - Charles Babbage, Ada Lovelace, computers and the idea of the mind as a factory.

[15:40] - Recap of the first part of the conversation

[24:45] - Mary Shelley and Frankenstein as an example of fiction grappling with a response to the feeling of chaos resulting from new technologies

[33:50] - Dominant beliefs and values in the 19th century that showed up in science fiction and actual scientific theories

[41:35] - Recap of second part of conversation

[50:05] - When and why did AI become scary or threatening? And the cyclical nature of unresolved fears around technology.

[54:28] - Current futures of AI and technology and the problematic idea of technology as being free and limitless versus the world ending

[56:10] - What’s coming up in technology in the next 100-ish years?

[1:03:28] - Recap of the last part of the conversation

[21:38] - How are new ideas about the future influencing the way people think about artificial intelligence and sci-fi in the 1900’s?

Mind Over Chatter: ̽��ֱ��Cambridge ̽��ֱ�� Podcast

Science fiction vs science fact: World’s leading AI experts come to Cambridge

sjr81 — Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:22:27 +0000

̽��ֱ��two-day conference (July 13-14) at Jesus College is the first major event held by the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence (CFI) since its globally-publicised launch by Stephen Hawking and other AI luminaries in October 2016.

Bringing together policy makers and philosophers, as well as leading figures from science and technology, speakers include Astronomer Royal Martin Rees, Matt Hancock (Minister for Digital and Culture), Baroness Onora O'Neill and Francesca Rossi (IBM).

Dr Stephen Cave, Executive Director of CFI, said: “Rarely has a technology arrived with such a rich history of myth, storytelling and hype as AI. ̽��ֱ��first day of our conference will ask how films, literature and the arts generally have shaped our expectations, fears and even the technology itself.

“Meanwhile, the second day will ask how and when we can trust the intelligent machines on which we increasingly depend – and whether those machines are changing how we trust each other."

Programme highlights of the conference include:

Sci-Fi Dreams: How visions of the future are shaping development of intelligent technology
Truth Through Fiction: How the arts and media help us explore the challenges and opportunities of AI
Metal people: How we perceive intelligent robots – and why
Trust, Security and the Law: Assuring safety in the age of artificial intelligence
Trust and Understanding: Uncertainty, complexity and the ‘black box’

Professor Huw Price, Academic Director of the Centre, and Bertrand Russell Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge, said: “During two packed days in Cambridge we’ll be bringing together some of the world’s most important voices in the study and development of the technologies on which all our futures will depend.

“Intelligent machines offer huge benefits in many fields, but we will only realise these benefits if we know we can trust them – and maintain trust in each other and our institutions as AI transforms the world around us.”

Other conference speakers include Berkeley AI pioneer Professor Stuart Russell, academic and broadcaster Dr Sarah Dillon, and Sir David Spiegelhalter, Cambridge’s Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk. An AI-themed art exhibition is also being held to coincide with the Jesus College event.

CFI brings together four of the world’s foremost universities (Cambridge, Berkeley, Imperial College and Oxford) to explore the implications of AI for human civilisation. Researchers will work with policy-makers and industry to investigate topics such as the regulation of autonomous weaponry, and the implications of AI for democracy.

Many researchers take seriously the possibility that intelligence equal to our own will be created in computers within this century. Freed of biological constraints, such as limited memory and slow biochemical processing speeds, machines may eventually become more broadly intelligent than we are – with profound implications for us all.

Launching the £10m centre last year, Professor Hawking said: “Success in creating AI could be the biggest event in the history of civilisation but it could also be the last – unless we learn how to avoid the risks. Alongside the benefits, AI will also bring dangers like powerful autonomous weapons or new ways for the few to oppress the many.

“We cannot predict what might be achieved when our own minds are amplified by AI. ̽��ֱ��rise of powerful AI will either be the best or the worst thing to happen to humanity. We do not yet know which.”

Professor Maggie Boden, External Advisor to the Centre, whose pioneering work on AI has been translated into 20 languages, said: “ ̽��ֱ��practical solutions of AI can help us to tackle important social problems and advance the science of mind and life in fundamental ways. But it has limitations which could present grave dangers. CFI aims to guide the development of AI in human-friendly ways.”

Dr Cave added: “We've chosen the topic of myths and trust for our first annual conference because they cut across so many of the challenges and opportunities raised by AI. As well as world-leading experts, we hope to bring together a wide range of perspectives to discuss these topics, including from industry, policy and the arts. ̽��ֱ��challenge of transitioning to a world shared with intelligent machines is one that we all face together.”

̽��ֱ��first day of the conference is in partnership with the Royal Society, while the second is in partnership with Jesus College's Intellectual Forum. ̽��ֱ��conference is being generously sponsored by Accenture and PwC.

Further details and ticketing information can be found here.

Some of the world’s leading thinkers and practitioners in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) will gather in Cambridge this week to look at everything from the influence of science fiction on our dreams of the future, to ‘trust in the age of intelligent machines’.

Rarely has a technology arrived with such a rich history of myth, storytelling and hype as AI.

Dr Stephen Cave

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

How real is the science in Star Wars?

sc604 — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:21:51 +0000

Warning: contains mild spoilers.

In any science or engineering lab, in any part of the world, there is one subject that is certain to have come up at some point over tea, coffee, or lunch: how do you build a lightsaber? It’s true: ask any of your friends in those fields and they will talk endlessly about how they think it can be built. (I personally subscribe to a plasma containment philosophy, while a friend thinks he has come up with a waveguided laser design – a true ‘light’ saber if you will). We are all, at our hearts, geeks and Star Wars fans.

It’s said that great science fiction has a basis in good science, but it is also true that good science can be inspired by great science fiction. At the heart of the Star Wars series lies a concept that owes as much to mysticism as science. I am, of course, referring to the Force. Disregarding ̽��ֱ��Phantom Menace’s ill-advised attempt to explain the Force (Midi-chlorians? Why?), can we explain any of its seemingly magical properties with good hard science?

̽��ֱ��Force Awakens, the latest instalment of the Star Wars series (officially Episode VII) opens with a very striking demonstration of the Force when our villain, Kylo Ren, stops a blaster shot in mid-air. Those who have seen the original trilogy will be familiar with Darth Vader performing a similar feat. While Lord Vader may simply be wearing good armour with a high melting temperature or is very efficiently dissipating heat, Ren takes this to a new level. But how would you stop a blast in mid-air?

Plasma containment is something that we can do today with very powerful magnetic fields, suggesting that Ren could simply be exhibiting Magneto-like manifestations of power. But here’s the catch: when that magnetic field is released, the plasma would simply dissipate as it will no longer carry any forward momentum. Instead, we see the blaster shot continue forward as before.

̽��ֱ��next possibility then, is that he stopped or slowed down time. For this to happen, Ren must create a large gravity well at the centre of the plasma, i.e. a great mass that is also too small for us to see. A quick calculation: assuming a time dilation factor of 30,000:1 and a distance of 1 m between the centre and where everyone’s standing – gives us a mass of roughly 6.7 x 10²⁶ kg (about 100 times the mass of the Earth)! But this raises several important issues: 1) time would slow down less the further away you are, making for an odd scene for the Stormtroopers in the background: 2) the gravitational effect on the planet would be enormous; and 3) why would the First Order need to build a new ‘Death Star’ in the first place if Ren can simply create a black hole with his mind?

By now, I think I’ve angered enough general relativity experts with my loose interpretation of equations to safely say that perhaps there are some wonders in Star Wars that we don’t need to explain.

Science aside, ̽��ֱ��Force Awakens has managed to recapture the spirit of the original in a way that the prequel trilogy never could. From start to finish there is a sense of excitement, with the old cast lending presence without overshadowing our new heroes. Far from being mere carbon copies of Han, Luke, and Leia, the new trinity (Rey, Finn and Poe Dameron) add life to series, helping ̽��ֱ��Force Awakens escape the trash compactor that was the prequels (Episode III was almost ok … almost).

J.J. Abrams weaves a tale that says to the fans, this is for you and we’re going to do it right. Without revealing the plot, it’s enough to say that the film tips its hat to the original Star Wars, laying a solid foundation for the new trilogy. ̽��ֱ��film, simply put, is a good old-fashioned ride through the galaxy that captured the imagination of so many of our younger selves, and is well set to inspire the generation to come.

In the end, everything else aside, the feeling of childhood excitement as the trumpets blast off and the title scrolls across the stars is an experience in and of itself. For any fans of the saga, that alone is worth the ticket.

̽��ֱ��anticipation is over: ̽��ֱ��Force Awakens is with us. To a self-confessed geek like Karen Yu from the Institute for Manufacturing, this is like all of her Christmases coming at once. It also raises some very important questions: what is the Force, how do you make a lightsaber – and does the new film finally put to rest the ghost of ̽��ֱ��Phantom Menace?

It’s said that great science fiction has a basis in good science, but it is also true that good science can be inspired by great science fiction.

Karen Yu

̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

TIE fighters over King's College

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Novel Thoughts #3: Karen Yu on George Lucas' Star Wars

lw355 — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 11:19:27 +0000

Karen Yu’s growing love of science as a young girl was galvanised by reading the novelisation of the Star Wars movies (Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker by George Lucas). Her desire to build her own fusion reactor eventually morphed into a PhD in industrial photonics, using lasers for nanoscale manufacturing (if not for lightsabers), at Cambridge’s Department of Engineering.

Here she talks about this favourite book as part of ‘Novel Thoughts’, a series exploring the literary reading habits of eight Cambridge scientists. From illustrated children’s books to Thomas Hardy, from Star Wars to Middlemarch, we find out what fiction has meant to each of the scientists and peek inside the covers of the books that have played a major role in their lives.

‘Novel Thoughts’ was inspired by research at the ̽��ֱ�� of St Andrews by Dr Sarah Dillon (now a lecturer in the Faculty of English at Cambridge) who interviewed 20 scientists for the ‘What Scientists Read’ project. She found that reading fiction can help scientists to see the bigger picture and be reminded of the complex richness of human experience. Novels can show the real stories behind the science, or trigger a desire in a young reader to change lives through scientific discovery. They can open up new worlds, or encourage a different approach to familiar tasks.

View the whole series: Novel Thoughts: What Cambridge scientists read.

Read about Novel Thoughts.

Is there a novel that has inspired you? Let us know! #novelthoughts

New film series Novel Thoughts reveals the reading habits of eight Cambridge scientists and peeks inside the covers of the books that have played a major role in their lives. In the third film, Karen Yu talks about how the novelisation of Star Wars sparked her interest in lasers and nanoscale manufacturing.

Novel Thoughts #3: Karen Yu on George Lucas' Star Wars

̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, Nick Saffell

Karen Yu

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

EX-TRA-PO-LATE! Moral philosophy and the Daleks

bjb42 — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:01:03 +0000

It shouldn’t work, but somehow it does. Ever since Doctor Who first aired in 1963, the series has been internationally recognisable thanks to one of the most ridiculous space-creatures ever conceived; a master race of intergalactic pepperpots, armed with a sink plunger and an egg whisk, who (according to popular mythology), are hell-bent on conquering anywhere, provided it doesn’t involve stairs.

But don’t let that fool you. For more than 45 years, the Doctor’s arch-enemies, the Daleks, have been striking fear into young viewers with their chilling war-cry of “Exterminate!”. Like the Doctor himself, they have become an icon of British culture. For many, hiding behind the sofa when they appear is virtually a rite of passage.

Now, with the new season of Doctor Who nearly upon us, a Cambridge ̽��ֱ�� academic has turned his mind to what makes the Daleks so terrifying. Writing in a new paper, Dr Robin Bunce – normally a researcher in intellectual history – explores why these unlikeliest of sci-fi foes bettered the rest, and became the most menacing alien ever to invade the small screen.

His answer has nothing to do with their often-cited, non-human appearance, nor their weird, electronic voices. In fact, Dr Bunce believes that the Daleks succeed because they offer us a moral lesson in what it means to be human in the first place. They terrify us because the evil they represent is a more precise definition than that of philosophers stretching from Socrates to Kant. They are chilling, he argues, because they are a vision of what we ourselves might become.

“ ̽��ֱ��reason the Daleks are evil is because we recognise that they were once better,” Dr Bunce explained. “They are the nightmare future we dread.”

“According to their back-story, once they were capable of genuine emotion and real moral good. Now they are sexless, heartless brains, shut up in machines incapable of intimacy, who have forgotten what it means to laugh and no longer think of themselves as individuals. We recognise the Daleks as evil because they have lost all that we hold most dear.”

̽��ֱ��Daleks are perhaps Doctor Who’s greatest success. After their first appearance, they boosted ratings and turned the show into a national phenomenon. “Dalekmania” became a common term and “Dalek” itself now commands its own entry in the Oxford English Dictionary.

Almost half a century later, their popularity shows little sign of subsiding. A 2008 survey by the National Trust found that while only 53% of children could identify an oak leaf, nine out of 10 could identify a Dalek. In 2010, readers of the science fiction magazine SFX voted the Dalek as the all-time greatest monster, beating both Godzilla and Gollum from ̽��ֱ��Lord Of ̽��ֱ��Rings.

Dr Bunce, a bye-fellow at St Edmund’s College, Cambridge, decided to explore what it is that makes these villains so villainous in the first place. He returned to the original 1963 script for “ ̽��ֱ��Daleks”, in which they first appeared, which was written by their creator, Terry Nation. In the story, the Doctor and his companions arrive on a post-apocalyptic planet, Skaro. They encounter both Daleks and the more peaceful Thals.

His paper concludes that the Daleks are a more powerful representation of evil than most of their extra-terrestrial competitors. ̽��ֱ��fact that they are so morally repugnant is, he suggests, what makes them both frightening for viewers and (as a result) an enduring success. This stems from a very modern take on the idea of evil.

Nation’s script stresses the Daleks’ lack of humanity as the essence of their evil nature. This in itself is nothing new – since time immemorial evil people have been described as animals, because animals are not rational. Socrates had a similar view, arguing that reason and knowledge make humans good.

Daleks are different, however, because they are more rational than humans, but also far more evil. Instead of losing their capacity for rational thought, they have lost their ability to feel. As the plot of ‘ ̽��ֱ��Daleks’ unfolds, we discover that after an apocalyptic “Neutronic war”, they retreated into metal shells in which their emotions withered. ̽��ֱ��fact that they were once better, Bunce says, makes them horrifying: “We dread becoming like them.”

For viewers in 1963, living shortly after the Cuban Missile Crisis, some of the connotations in Nation’s original script would have been more relevant than they are today. ̽��ֱ��surface of Skaro resembles contemporary ideas about how Earth might look after a nuclear war. ̽��ֱ��“Neutronic War” refers to the spectre of the neutron bomb – which could emit more radiation than an atomic bomb, but with a lower blast. As a result, it was more selective in wiping out humans and animal life, but not buildings and infrastructure. ̽��ֱ��Daleks represented the consequences of these very real nightmares at the time.

In the 21^st century, Bunce suggests that they embody a more general fear, about the triumph of technology and science over humanity. Once creatures like us, they have mutated into something far more sinister. Inside their metal shells, they have oversized brains representing the dominance of scientific reason, at the expense of shrivelled bodies. This fear about what we might become, through scientific advancement, has existed since Victorian times. Like the Daleks, it shows little sign of abating today.

Bunce considers the Daleks a lesson in moral philosophy: “ ̽��ֱ��final lesson is that moral progress is achieved by enlarging the moral imagination, not by increasing our knowledge or becoming more rational,” he said.

“Empathy is the key. We are more likely to act well when we understand that our enemy, however different they may seem, is part of a community who will grieve if they are harmed. ̽��ֱ��Thals are good because they love each other. ̽��ֱ��Daleks don’t and that’s why they’re evil.”

A peculiar breed of evil, in fact, which has also made them a terrific success.

̽��ֱ��study appears in the book, Doctor Who and Philosophy, which is published by Open Court Books: http://www.opencourtbooks.com/books_n/doctor_who.htm

They’ve had viewers cowering behind the sofa since ‘Doctor Who’ began – but what exactly is it that makes people so frightened of the Daleks? A new study by a Cambridge researcher claims to have the answer.

̽��ֱ��reason the Daleks are evil is because we recognise that they were once better. They are the nightmare future we dread.

Dr Robin Bunce

M. Seckington from Flickr

Dalek

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes