A.I. a threat to humanity?

Stephen Hawking recently was commenting on the subject of artificial intelligence and made a startling statement  “it could be the greatest thing ever in humanity, but also the last”. Considering that Stephen Hawking is considered by many to be the smartest person on the planet, not to mention he resided in the same chair at Cambridge University that Sir Isaac Newton once sat, we probably should at least pay him the courtesy of listening and discussing what he has to say on the subject.  We are entering a period where the concept of A.I. is not far out fantasy , no longer the realm of film and fiction.  Breakthroughs are being made at breath-taking speeds.  I would not suggest it will be a reality in the next 5 years,  though we are seeing technology accelerate with faster and more often.  Technology  breakthroughs are occurring that are changing how we work and play.  We are already seeing the concept of robotics entering the workforce. The robots today are still very process oriented, but we are seeing robots that can gather information and make decisions based on that information. A case in point would be the Rumba robotic vacuum cleaner by iRobot. Every house is different in its layout, yet eth Rumba adjuts to those differences.  As things move forward frightening prognosis begin to surface about humanities future.  Evan Tesla Motor’s billionaire founder Elon Musk has chimed in on the subject stating it could be a potential threat to humanity.  Going so far as to say,”We are summoning the Demon”. It is worth discussing, in fact it would be dangerous not to. As Dante said, “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who did nothing during a time of moral crisis”.  To be silent on AI would be to reserve one’s place with Lucifer.

There are mainstream companies like Google, Twitter, Amazon and Facebook who are leading the way in this category, perhaps not directly but indirectly.   If you look at basic search, so much of what you are searching is made available before you have even finished typing what your search request is going to be.  They are harnessing the data that we provide and creating complex algorithms to help meet our immediate needs and maximize our time while maybe shoving us a little in the direction marketers would like us to go.  Another company is Amazon as it looks to what today is simple robotics technology to automate the warehouse.  But they are thinking much broader.  They want search to be optimized for the individual so that it can help decide for you.  These examples to some may not seem relevant, but what is happening in the internet is a baby step towards the grand design if A.I..  Fundamentally as AI develops a large part will be about taking large sets of data, analyzing and coming to some form of judgement.  Today that data is being driven by the internet and the aforementioned companies are leading the way in collecting that data. Tomorrow that data gathered will create actionable outcomes that will be carried out by intelligent machines, not humans.

John Maynard Keynes, the great economist, coined the phrase, “Technological Unemployment” back in the thirties.  Realizing even then as we get more efficient in manufacturing with automation we are taking away jobs.  Today we are entering a new realm of “technological unemployment”.  With A.I. we can envision certain industries being reduced.  One article even noted, we may not need lawyers.  How can that be anything but good?  But to date the role of robotics and perceived A.I. has been reserved for low skill labor, many jobs in manufacturing.  The blue-collar world.  What we can see moving forward is a world where the creation of these new intelligent devices will start replacing jobs in the white-collar world.  Keep in mind all that information made available online will be available to these new breed of machines as they will all be connected devices, connected to the internet, to the cloud. This will be a completely new phenom, one that has not been widely discussed, let alone prepared for.

One of the key points Mr Hawking’s makes is about control.  It can be nice in a world where someone or some group can play god with robotic gadgets.  Make them kind, make them useful.  However it is a difficult task if not impossible to put limits on technological advancement.  We want to push forward as fast as we can making major breakthroughs, but as is often the case we make these breakthroughs without understanding the consequences.  Ultimately when you are talking about artificial intelligence you are discussing the possibility of creating something that is capable of reason.  That can act on its own.  And probably most importantly can make its own decisions.  That ability to look at some situation or some one and based on the information it possesses decide its fate.  It would go beyond hand to robotic hand combat, but in usual Hawking’s fashion he has a sense of humor about that scenario as well.  Recently he was on John Oliver’s show, Oliver asked, “Why would I not want to fight a robot” and in Hawking’s deadpan fashion, “you would lose”.  But that is simply the physical aspect of a robot.  What will the reasoning component of the robot decide?

A part of A.I. is creating intelligence and eventually perfecting the human mind.  I am not sure the consequences of that is fully understand, if it were to be perfected what we would really be giving these synthetic humans would be the right of self-determination. The very right to judge. Time and time again in film we see the scenario of judgement placed on mankind.  Actually it is usually a James Cameron film.  It seems that in the end  it never rules in the human race’s favor.  I would like to believe we are better than that.  However given what we are given in our media, we seem hell-bent of a diet of crime, violence, death and destruction.  Elon Musk in a recent quote spoke of how A.I. if used to get rid of Spam, may decide the easiest path is to ge rid of those who create it, humans.  You can see the danger here could be a simple mistake in a line of code or as we may refer to it, “a bug”.

For those who saw the Spielberg movie “A.I.” a central theme was what if you create something and give it the ability to learn and feel.  To care. Can we envision a robot with a soul?  That is something rarely discussed.  It would be a handy feature to have.  If a robot with AI had to make a decision on the human race based on the facts alone, it may make a very quick decision.  However if it was capable of emotions it may have sympathy.  It may even rationalize that most humans are actually kind and caring.  A much nobler achievement.  That is the beauty of science and technology, we are challenged to push boundaries to push limits.  But in trying to recreate humans are we replacing humans?  Our souls, our spirituality are what make us human, it is what makes us unique.

Finally there is the morality question.  To create and determine life. Do we have the right?  Will what we create have the right?  What will AI decide?  It begins to sound like James Cameron’s “Terminator”.  However in our lust for competitive advantage, increased revenues and profits, an opportunity to dominate an industry, the questions of morality of the human cost may never be asked.  It is within that discussion that we can see a way forward.  I  believe science hates the discussion as morality seems to be more of a spiritual discussion, but ultimately it is the vast plain where the two must meet to determine their ultimate fate.  That is what separates us, the eternal conflict of our existence, humanity.

The famed computer scientist, John McCarthy, who coined the term Artificial Intelligence defines it as, “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines”.  All the focus is on the word intelligent, the other words are disciplines but intelligence is a very human word.  The latter part, “machines” is very cold and uninspiring.  Machines are thought to be without feeling, without emotion. They are exact, and when working properly, never-failing.  They are everything we are not.  Elon Musk also pointed out recently that things are advancing far quicker than most people realize.  I will add that Newt Gingrich (yes that one) said once, “In the first 25 yrs of the 21st Century we will pass everything done in the 20th Century “.  As we watch we can see that is all but too prophetic. I will add the next ten years following the first 25, will technological advancement will crush everything done in the first 25. Beyond that?  No need to worry, we will not be around to witness it.

Good Night and Good Luck

Hans Henrik Hoffmann November 3, 2014



Microsoft Bing since its launch has been considered the primary competitor to the behemoth known as Google search. It is a valiant effort in a very lucrative market space. However despite the immense opportunity,the term success has so far eluded Microsoft Bing.  When you look at Search Engine market share the numbers continue to improve for Bing as it hit over 17% in April, however the revenues have so far failed to materialize.  In Q2 of Fy13 for Microsoft’s Online Services Division lost money, $283 million.  In Q1 Google generated over $11 billion in revenue.  Granted Microsoft’s OSD is not just Bing, but all the other online services such as MSN and Outlook Mail.  The flip side of course is we really don’t know how Bing as a stand alone business is doing, despite the market share increases.

The history of Bing some may say is one of failed opportunity.  I am not so sure it is so much that as it is understanding online reality.  Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer often have said they blew it on search and I have often said they would never have figured it out.  Even if they had I am not so sure they would have been willing to take the financial risk to challenge Google at the time (remember we are going back to the 2002/2003 time frame) .  In his short stint at Microsoft Ray Ozzie provided the best analysis of Google.  He stated that they were using their immense revenues to fund software development projects that would compete against Microsoft. It was an indirect model, where ad revenues funded software engineering.  As has been shown Google has a lot of revenue to fund these projects.  It was difficult for Microsoft to grasp as they for so long have lived off of volume license revenues.

In the past decade it took a long time for Bing to come to the forefront.  First Microsoft toyed around with  Live search.  It was not a well named product.  Certainly not as fun as saying, “Google”.  But globally it did ok and when you looked at the top 100 websites, Live did appear in the top twenty.  It just did not have an ad word business model set up that could compete with what Google was doing.  Microsoft was slow in understanding the competitive threat that Google posed, if not holistically, at least opportunistically.  My view is Microsoft viewed it as another software market to conquer rather than the threat it was to existing businesses, namely Microsoft Office and Microsoft Windows.   This is just another market space in which we are entitled to own.

As things progressed so did Microsoft’s desperation ending in an audacious bid to acquire its competitor Yahoo.  Luckily for Microsoft and many grad schools across America this would end in the ego of Yahoo founder Jerry Yang as he made every attempt to kill  the deal. In the end this may have worked out for the benefit of Microsoft as they entered onto a partnership rather than spending $40 billion on an acquisition that may have been doomed to fail. While Jerry Yang seemingly failed business 101 which is to increase shareholder value, not decrease it.  He is now a case study for business graduate school history.

What has happened as these events have unfolded  is that Google has systematically found other business opportunities to augment and promote its search business and increase revenues.  Namely using the mobile phenomena to launch Android.  This has led to great headway in the mobile phone business and the tablet.  In 2013 it is projected that there will be 800 million Android devices sold.  None of these devices will have Bing as the default search engine.  In addition there will be 300 million iOS devices sold in 2013, again none will have Bung as the default search engine.  I only wrote this to share with Steve  as he seems to be unaware of this fact, but hey, he is a numbers guy.

So what does Bing do?  For starters that Apple iOS number is key.  One of Steve Jobs last talks to the Apple faithful at their corporate headquarters was about the evils of its key competitor Google.  There is no question that there is no love lost between the two.  Apple has tried to compete with Google head to head.  The failed Apple Maps comes to mind.  In my opinion a rare case of me saying, “Whose stupid idea at Apple was this?”  Google owns that space and barring some catastrophe, I do not see them losing in that space.  So with all that hate and failure what if Bing was the default search engine for Apple iOS?  Instantly Bing would have access to 300 million users.  Granted this would be a bizarre twist of fate, but Microsoft is not in a position of power in this space and Apple would like nothing better than to hurt Google.  If Bing can meet Apple’s high quality standards they could have a very compelling play in this space and be considered attractive to Apple.

There is also a bigger question of “if Not Microsoft than who?”.  Competition  that is not challenged is a threat to the greater benefit of society.  They can dictate terms, which is never a good thing.  When we look at companies that are able to challenge Google there are few with the cash reserves to do it.  One of the few would be Microsoft.  And frankly they owe it to us all.  Fundamentally competition is a good thing and maybe Bing is competing, it’s just that Google is pushing their game to a higher place.  If that is true than Bing needs to set a higher bar, not just compete at parity.  Faster more accurate search is nice, but we are reaching a point where for the end-user it is becoming increasingly difficult. to distinguish in milliseconds.

Another factor is much of Bing’s success is tied to other products like Windows 8, Surface and Windows Phone.  To successfully get people to switch alla Coke versus Pepsi, is not so easy as there is a lot more tied to it than just switching a can. The effort Microsoft must put in will take years, which in technology is worlds away.    So far it has been slow in coming and market share has increased at a snail’s pace.  This may drain Microsoft’s cash reserves but the reward is high Once yo have been great there is always a thirst to be great again and I think that more than anything drives Microsoft.  To get there search will be a key cog in the engine.  Information rules the world and if Bing is not successful Google very well could rule that world.  Bing is in a tough place but it is a fight worth fighting.

Good Night and Good Luck

Hans Henrik Hoffmann July 10, 2013


In 2007 this video began to go viral in the tech sector discussing the future of media and the role of a potential giant Googlezon. The potential merger of two giants of the internet age, Google and Amazon.  If you watch the video it’s interesting to listen to what a potential future with these combined giants of the internet age could potentially accomplish.   The video is very heavy in its tone and its predictions.  As is always the case the future always looks dark and scary. It is also interesting to ponder that what is discussed is not really that far-fetched but closer to reality than one could have imagined.  A future where machines play an increasing role it helping define who we are.

The main theme of the video is the algorithms  used by Google and Amazon can be used to customize any information to a specific individual.  That your daily news could be customized for you, without any human intervention.  The search engines could literally browse the world-wide web and stitch the content together to provide you with your daily news, with your daily view of the world.  In a world where so much of our information is consumed in a very narrow arena dependent on our tastes and political agenda I am not sure this has not already happened. But the notion that the content we desire can be created and pushed to us would take this to a new level.  Our own MSNBC as liberal as we want it or our own Fox News as right-wing as we want it.  It raises other concerns regarding the accuracy of the news information that we would receive.  In a society that already seems on edge with anger, is this a welcome development?

Social media will also play a role, though the video is interesting in its notable absences of Facebook (Apple is not really a part of this either, but the video was created in 2007, the year the iPhone launched).  Instead focusing on Friendster. Microsoft is mentioned as purchasing companies to stay a float in this arena and this has played true. It bought aQuantive and attempted to purchase Yahoo.  None so far has succeeded.  Social Media continues to play a large role in shaping and creating our online presence .  A presence that players like Google, Amazon and Facebook are only to happy to manipulate to better serve and better profit from their customers.  As the video aptly points out search is all about mapping users search patterns to meet customer preferences  in whatever it is they are looking for, whether it be news, music, or online shopping.  Today online stores based on user data can do user based pricing, knowing your shopping behavior and what you are willing to pay, a price can go up or down.  Gone are the days of a “price tag”.

The newspaper we have known for sometime is dying.  That the New York times would emerge as the last vestige of the traditional paper is not surprising, since they are one of the largest papers in circulation in the  United States.  I can only add that being a current subscriber to my local newspapers, The Seattle Times, I can only decry the lack of newsworthy content in the paper as I have watched through the years the paper dwindle while the costs have only gone up.   I like the idea of a paper as it requires me to spread out the paper and dedicate time to reading the news.  This  differs from the news on the internet, thought much more current, I find like many things in technology it is not dedicated time, but passing time while I multi-task across the web. The video ends with the prediction that New York Times will go offline and be available only top those wishing to pay a premium or to older generations.  This is not that far-fetched.  But I believe the end of the traditional newspaper in print form is inevitable at this point.  This is not news to anyone.

If you look at Amazon and Google today they are enormous giants in their respective arenas, arenas that seem to be converging with each passing second.  That being said the idea of these two companies merging at this point seems a stretch as their respective market caps are $111 billion for Amazon and $230 billion for Google.  It would be a huge merger.  In addition Amazon and Google are becoming competitors in some areas.  In tablets (though Amazon does use the Google Android OS for its Kindle Fire) and reports suggest down the road that Amazon will release its own SmartPhone.  Big mergers are challenging, but at this point n time given both companies track record of success this I believe would be an unwelcome merger not just for the market place, but society as a whole.  Probably the biggest flaw here is with tech giants like these the people at the top have colossal egos.

It is the “impact on society” comment that I spend the most time thinking about.  Technology is creating changes in society at break neck speeds.  If you think over the last ten years all that has happened, it has come quickly .  We had search and then we had a verb called Google.  We had friends then we had Facebook.  We had read printed books for centuries than all of sudden they were digital.  Alexander Graham Bell did not know about the iPhone when he created the first phone system in the United States.  Nor did Craig McCaw envision the mobile internet, but Apple followed up the iPhone with the iPad.  These significant cultural changes all happened in a tidal wave of excitement over the last ten years.  The next ten years will hold even greater change as we close in on the speed of light in how are daily lives change.

Will there be one or two companies that get out ahead of these changes, like the GoogleZon video predicted?  There will always be companies that manage to take a large lead in the tech sector.  Some stay and some disappear.  There was a time AOL was the king of internet access.  Lotus123 were the spreadsheet kings if you want to go way back.  However in the end it always comes down to a company having a strong leadership with a strong vision of the future.  In today’s world I think that vision has to start with understanding the younger generations as they adopt technology first to meet their lifestyle needs.  If you think about the great changes in the last decade it has been social media, smartphones, and search or the 3 S’ as I call them.  Looking forward despite it’s bad IPO I see Facebook playing a large role in the future primarily because starting at the top with Mark Zuckerberg they have the type of leader that understands the role technology plays to the younger audiences.  I also see that at Google with Sergei Brin and Larry Page.  Taking chances without a care for the results.Only focused on the future role if technology.

In the end will this take us down a path as ominous as predicted in the GoogleZon video?  There is no doubt technology has and will have a positive role to play in our lives that will save us and our country money (I am thinking healthcare when I think of the country).  It will make our days more efficient.  It will make businesses more efficient. However in a world where information is at our fingertips how that information is used and manipulated can have very negative results in how our society functions.  It is happening now and in ways that five years ago were not imaginable. When you view the video you get a sense of Big Brother being upon us.  That Orwell’s future is becoming reality, but it was not the communists that created Big Brother.  We created it all on our own entrepreneurial spirit.

Good Night and Good Luck

Hans Henrik Hoffmann December 28, 2012