by Vic Grout
All three of them, under any other circumstances, would have laughed at this point, hearing this explanation from most people. But Andy wasn’t ‘most people’: they all had the greatest of respect for him. Although far from convinced, their minds were open enough not to dismiss the concept out of hand. It was very unfamiliar territory for them but each of them thought in their own way, ‘well, who can say?’ Aisha was probably the most doubtful but Bob and Jenny had never been ‘proper scientists’ (as they often put it) and were generally prepared to consider most things viable – even the ‘wacky stuff’.
“So, is there some sort of split in AA now?” suggested Jenny, intrigued by the concept.
“Hardly,” admitted Andy. “It’s all a bit too one-sided to be considered a split, I suppose. There aren’t many groups left like the one I found. Most of AA is going along the modern lines now. ‘Forget the Big Book’. ‘Forget the programme and the steps’. ‘Forget God’. ‘Just spread the love and pass the biscuits’ and everything will be OK. Actually, that works if you’ve just got a bit of a drink problem, or you’re going through a ‘phase’ but it doesn’t work for an out-and-out alcoholic.” The smile faded from his lips for the first time. “And I guess that’s why, on the whole, AA isn’t getting real alcoholics sober any more.”
An observation like that was not going to go unchallenged in such company. Aisha was the first in.
“And is that a fact?”
“Aye,” answered Andy sadly. “In the early days, AA’s success rate was supposed to be about seventy-five percent in sobering up drunks like me. Even taking a pessimistic view of the numbers – documented figures, it couldn’t have been less than fifty percent. Nowadays – and a good few studies have been done on this too, a real alcoholic has less than a five percent chance of recovery in AA. And that’s not much better than any other approach: signing the pledge, moving house, changing your job or simply going it alone. There was actually a time when AA was seen as the model for a new society: if everyone started adopting twelve-step principles and following God’s way, it was going to save us all. Now more and more people seem to need the real AA these days – the alcoholism problem’s getting worse – but proper AA is disappearing fast. It’s getting harder to find the ‘real deal’ any more.” They could see his thoughts drift momentarily, then he sniggered a little derisively. “Maybe that’s just another possible solution to the Fermi Paradox!”
Jenny nodded a degree of partial recognition – but still seemed doubtful about the connection. The other two were clearly completely baffled. So Andy continued, smiling apologetically.
“Sorry, I’m kind of paid to come up with daft stuff like that, I suppose! Making weird connections. The Fermi Paradox; it’s really a question. Why haven’t we seen any signs of life from elsewhere in the universe? If there’s an infinite number of galaxies out there, and an infinite number of planets then there must still be something like an infinite number of them that could support life. Where is it? Why haven’t we seen it? Many of these solar systems have been around a lot longer than ours. Why has there been no contact? Seriously, it’s a valid question. More importantly, it must have a valid answer. It’s not some abstract hypothetical conundrum. So, what is the answer? The problem is, any answer that you can come up with tends to seem a bit unlikely. And there probably aren’t that many possible answers. But one of them has to be true! Which one?”
“How about that there just isn’t any?” offered Bob.
“Aye, that’s the obvious one,” agreed Andy. “Perhaps we’re genuinely alone. Maybe we’re unique in the universe. But, from a purely scientific standpoint, wouldn’t that seem a bit unlikely? That this wee insignificant planet, in a backwater galaxy, is the one and only place in the whole universe where this incredible thing called life happened? Wouldn’t that make us rather special? Almost chosen? Actually, of course, that’s the solution that makes religious nutters like me feel comfortable, but it’s hard to sell to serious scientists!”
“OK, what else then?” pressed Jenny. “I guess saying that it just hasn’t happened yet or it’s just a matter of time before it happens, or we’re actually the most advanced civilisation of all the inhabited planets is pretty improbable if there are so many of them. What else?”
“Exactly!” agreed Andy. “There really aren’t that many possible solutions, or at least different types of solution, and they’re all dubious. But it has to be one of them. Another answer would be that the universe isn’t really infinite so nor is the potential number of life-bearing planets. But even if it weren’t, there’d still be a huge number to choose from, so surely we’d still expect to see something? As Arthur C. Clarke said, ‘Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.’
“An alternative is that they’re out there but they somehow can’t reach us. Perhaps there are some universal constraints that we don’t understand: some fundamental physical limits beyond Newtonian or Einstein’s mechanics, which just make the distances impossible. The problem with that is that there are a huge number of ‘Goldilocks planets’ – with just the right this, that and the other – that we already know about within striking distance. We’ve ‘reached’ them so why can’t they reach us. OK, there’s no guarantee that there’s life on any of them but there might be!”
“So where do the drunks come in then?” asked Aisha. Andy resumed.
“Well, the final broad group of suggestions is that something happens to all these civilisations before they reach the stage where they’re capable of long-distance travel or communication. Presumably something disastrous or fatal. Maybe it’s a natural part of the evolution of intelligent life, or a global society, that before they get to that stage, they all destroy themselves with their technology. By the time they’d be ready to launch big enough spaceships, they’ve already blown themselves apart! I was just thinking – not terribly seriously, mind you – that it might not actually be something catastrophic but something more like decline. Perhaps they all become decadent; you know, like the Romans. Or perhaps they all become addicts!”
The conversation moved on.
*
When Andy returned with the next tray of drinks, Bob was being grilled on his ‘new invention’. With fewer beers inside him, he would probably have been a little more circumspect but he knew he was with people he could trust.
“It’s not exactly an invention, I suppose,” admitted Bob. “It’s more a combination of existing techniques for analysing networks – usually for trying to diagnose problems – wrapped up in a single box … well, nearly a single box. I’ve often wondered why it’s not been done before. There’s a little bit of new hardware in there and a little bit of new software but not that much of either. There are already plenty of tools for tracing data around networks but the problem is they can’t always distinguish particularly well between different types of problem. For example, if someone or something’s trying to break into a network – in other words human or automatic but deliberate – then the data will look quite sensible but it will have malicious intent. You need to ignore individual streams of data in isolation but look at the overall patterns it’s giving. Patterns are often the clue to cyber-attacks: or just plain hacking. On the other hand, if the network isn’t set up properly – that’s probably human but accidental – then the data might be structured properly but the figures will probably be wrong so you really need to be doing some maths. However, if it’s the equipment itself that’s faulty – broken kit, then the data might not even be put together properly at all. You could have the wrong voltage levels or timings, for example. There might not be properly-formed data frames at all. That’s really pretty obvious if you think about it but, if you’re trying to analyse IP-packets, say, to see what’s up with your network, whereas it’s gone wrong in a more primitive way, then you might miss it all together. Basically, if all you know is that you’ve got a problem somewhere but you don’t know what it is, it can be difficult to know where to start
looking. Networkers generally know to look ‘from the bottom up’ when diagnosing problems but there’s still a lot to look for. And because the modern technology is so complex, it’s very hard to find a network manager anywhere these days who actually understands their network on all these levels!
“So what I did was to embed some basic hardware; diagnostic, packet sniffing and intrusion detection software on a reasonably powerful processor. In fact, that’s the bit I keep updating to keep it up to speed. In principle, it’ll run on anything but I always use the newest hardware I can find and rewrite the algorithms when I come across new cases. It’s always a cat-and-mouse game between the hackers and the defenders. Then I added what’s effectively a glorified oscilloscope to analyse the network at a much lower level, and with more accuracy and better timings; and set it up so that the system could automatically switch between the different states – either when I wanted to or when it thought there was something to look at. Then I wrote some software of my own to pull all the different parts of the system together under a common interface. The software is about the only clever bit; the only new bit anyway. It runs another load of AI programs that connect the individual routines together. They use a kind of fuzzy logic to try to second-guess what’s going to happen next on the network and either be ready for it when it does or, at least, respond to it much quicker than existing tools. Also, it learns: the more networks it analyses, the better it gets. It’s so simple but it amazes me how well it actually works! Sometimes it actually diagnoses network problems entirely on its own. Other times, it might not but it gives incredibly clear pointers as to where I ought to look. Someone asked me what it was called once so I had to give it some sort of name. I pretty much made up ‘Holistic Analysis Tool’ on the spot; so initially it was called ‘HAT’. But, after a few beers one night, I started calling it ‘Hattie’ and it’s been that ever since. It’s (She’s) not much to look at – in fact she looks like an overflowing box of junk! But she does the business!”
Bob’s face took on a reflective expression. “And that’s where it got interesting. To be quite honest, when I first starting using Hattie, I couldn’t really see that I was going to get much use out of it (or her) – at least, not for very long. I honestly thought it was a bit of a novelty product. I tried it out on a few private contracts and, yes, it worked very well. But because I knew how simple the architecture behind it was, I thought that it was just a matter of time before other developers managed to come up with something similar and I’d lose the market edge. But there were a couple of things I just didn’t see coming. Firstly, no one yet does seem to have worked out exactly how she works, so the package itself is still in great demand. Secondly, on the one or two occasions where I took a risk and gave her to other people to try to use on their networks, they just didn’t seem to be able to use her! As simple as I thought the package was, it almost seemed – still does, to be honest – that I was the only person that was in tune enough with her and the networks to be able to diagnose whatever problem it was we were looking for. So between the two of us – Hattie and me, we still seem to have cornered the market!
“After that, I started getting some really big work, from some of the major companies, who were struggling with their own systems. It still seems slightly bizarre, when you consider all the resources that these people have at their disposal, that they should have to call in little old me and my box of tricks! But that’s exactly what they do! I’ve got a pretty busy week coming up before Christmas, for example – practically a European tour. I’ve got five networks to investigate in four different countries. And in the middle of all that I’ve been called to a European Commission meeting in Luxembourg. That’s actually about something entirely different, I think, and I’m not even sure what. But I seem to have built up such a reputation now, being this great network troubleshooter, that I’m being called in for all kinds of things – well, Hattie and me, that is. I really don’t know how long it can last but I’m certainly enjoying it while it does! And it’s not doing the retirement fund any harm either!”
“So, how big is this thing, then? How do you move Hattie around?” asked Jenny, curiously. “Does she fit in your briefcase?”
“No, not really,” admitted Bob. “The main box is a bit bigger than a suitcase; and there are one or two extra bits, which can be connected if I need them. And, of course, it’s fairly delicate so conventional ‘hold luggage’ air transport doesn’t work. Hattie has to be looked after: either ground movement or private plane. What generally happens is that she goes on ahead of wherever I go by private courier. I’ve found a specialist team that understand exactly what’s needed and sorts the logistics out for me. Occasionally I travel with her; more often I meet her where I’m going. The couriers charge the earth, of course, for that sort of treatment but it’s worth it and I just build it into costing my contract quotes. People still seem happy to pay when there’s no alternative!”
The looks Aisha and Jenny gave Bob, on finishing, were warm, good-humoured and friendly – but not entirely without a hint of envy. Andy just smiled. Bob grinned in recognition and went to buy the final ‘quick’ round of the evening.
*
When he returned, Jenny had reclaimed the floor and was describing something that was vaguely familiar to his ears.
“Yes, I guess the problem with Kurzweil,” she appeared to be in full flow: he had obviously missed the start of this, “is that it sounds too much like science fiction. The idea of a super-intelligent, super-efficient, super-strong race of robots taking over the planet doesn’t sound like the sort of thing that a serious computer scientist ought to be talking about. But, if you look at it one step at a time, what’s to stop it? Look at what we’re already doing at the moment. We have automated production lines, often with very little human intervention. Most of the precision work is done by machine. So we have, in effect, machines making machines. What we also do, quite routinely, is use design packages – and these are often very automated too – to design machines. When I say design machines, I mean either on a large mechanical scale or on a small, precision level, such as circuit design or microchip layout. So again, effectively, we have machines designing machines. And, of course, all of this is joined together and automated these days by the Internet of Everything.
“So we have, on the one hand, machines designing the next generation of machines and, on the other, machines building the next generation of machines. All you have to do is put those two things together to produce a class of machines which is capable of designing and building the next generation and what have you got then? What you’ve got, in essence, is a generation of machines that is capable of replicating itself automatically. To all intents and purposes, the machines will reproduce; they will give birth to the next generation. Now, once that starts happening, they’re going to get better and better at it very quickly. Each new generation will be better than the last. So, again to all intents and purposes, the machines will evolve. They will evolve to be better and better over time and the pace of the evolution will increase. There’s going to come a point beyond which it’s very difficult to predict what’s going to happen. This tends to get called the Kurzweil Singularity, or sometimes just the technological singularity – although it’s debatable, in the truest mathematical sense, whether it’s an actual ‘singularity’. But that doesn’t really matter. The point is, the acceleration of this machine evolution could get to a point where we simply don’t know what’s going to happen. A lot of people are even suggesting that this could happen in this half of this century! What happens if and when it does? We’re going to have a new race of intelligent machines that, presumably, are better than us in every conceivable way. What’s going to happen to us then? Will these machines still want to serve us? Will they have anything like the same set of morals that we do – for good or bad? Will they become the superior race? Will they have any use for us whatsoever and, if they don’t, what will become of us?”
She looked around. She
knew that her friends were game enough to take this seriously but it seemed like they were unsure quite how seriously! She realised Andy would have problems with some of these assumptions for a start. It was probably best to bring the subject down to earth a little.
“Now, OK, that might all seem a little far-fetched! Well, it may or may not be; I don’t have a strong opinion really. But what I am interested in, taking the viewpoint that some of this – if not necessarily all – is likely to happen, is trying to get an idea of what the wider impact will be. It’s been concerning me a lot recently that, because these are mainly seen as technological issues, we’re almost invariably, and exclusively, letting the technologists, like Ray Kurzweil – that came up with the ideas and theories in the first place – tell us what the effect will be in a wider social sense. Now, that worries me. I’m always happy to listen to technologists talking about technology but I’m a little bit more reluctant to place too much emphasis on what they think the effect of that technology will be on our future society, the environment; what the legalities and ethics of it all are, the political implications and all that sort of thing. The trouble with technologists, I think, and of course I say this as one of them, is that we can often fail to see this bigger picture, so we can be scurrying around trying to solve our individual little technical problems, usually on a pretty small scale, and we can completely miss something way more important. There’s always a ‘bigger picture’.”
