11 of the Weirdest Solutions to the Fermi Paradox

Most people take it for granted that we have yet to make contact with an extraterrestrial civilization. Trouble is, the numbers don’t add up. Our Galaxy is so old that every corner of it should have been visited many, many times over by now. No theory to date has satisfactorily explained away this Great Silence, so it’s time to think outside the box. Here are eleven of the weirdest solutions to the Fermi Paradox.

There's no shortage of solutions to the Fermi Paradox. The standard ones are fairly well known, and we’re not going to examine them here, but they include the Rare Earth Hypothesis (the suggestion that life is exceptionally rare), the notion that space travel is too difficult, or the distances too vast, the Great Filter Hypothesis (the idea that all sufficiently advanced civilizations destroy themselves before going intergalactic), or that we’re simply not interesting enough.

But for the purposes of this discussion, we’re going to look at some of the more bizarre and arcane solutions to the Fermi Paradox. Because sometimes it takes a weird explanation to answer a weird question. So, as Enrico Fermi famously asked, “Where is everybody?”

1. The Zoo Hypothesis

Though it sounds like something from a Twilight Zone episode, it’s quite possible that we’re stuck inside some kind of celestial cage. ETI’s may have stumbled upon our tiny blue marble a long time ago, but, for whatever reason, they’re observing us from afar. It might be that we’re entertainment for them (like watching monkeys in the zoo), or that they’re studying us for scientific purposes. Regardless, they’ve invoked a hand’s off policy and they’re leaving us alone.

This idea was first proposed by John Ball in 1973, who argued that extraterrestrial intelligent life may be almost ubiquitous, but that the “apparent failure of such life to interact with us may be understood in terms of the hypothesis that they have set us aside as part of a wilderness area or zoo.” We could be part of a vast nature preserve that has been set off limits, free to grow unperturbed by intelligent life. It’s an idea that somewhat related to Star Trek’s Prime Directive in which civilizations are left alone until they attain a certain technology capacity. It’s also an idea that UFOlogists are partial to — the suggestion that aliens are essentially here, but observing us from a distance. Image: ssi.org.

2. Self-Imposed Quarantine

This is pretty much the opposite of the zoo hypothesis. Extraterrestrials have the potential to be dangerous. Like, extremely dangerous. So rather than fart around the Galaxy in spaceships and hope that everyone’s super friendly, ETI’s may have collectively and independently decided to stay the hell at home and not draw attention to themselves.

And why not? It would be perfectly reasonable to conclude, especially in light of the Fermi Paradox, that the cosmos is filled with perils — whether it be an imperialistic civilization on the march, or a wave of berserker probes set to sterilize everything in its wake. And to ensure that nobody bothers them, advanced ETIs could set up a perimeter of Sandberg probes (self-replicating policing probes) to make sure that nobody gets in. Image: Cardens Design/Shutterstock.

3. The Whack-a-Mole Hypothesis

Imagine if there’s a kind of Prime Directive in effect, but that ETIs are hovering over us with a giant hammer ready to smack it down should it suddenly not like what it sees. These ETI’s would be like Gort from The Day the Earth Stood Still, intent on preserving the galactic peace. "There's no limit to what Gort could do,” said Klaatu, “He could destroy the Earth." So what is Gort or other advanced ETIs waiting for, exactly? One possibility is the technological Singularity. In the space of possible survivable Singularities, a sizeable portion of them might result in an extremely dangerous artificial superintelligence (SAI). The kind of SAI that could set about the destruction of the entire Galaxy. So, in order to prevent the bad ones from emerging — while giving the good ones a fair chance to get started — the Galactic Club keeps watch.

4. We’re Made Out of Meat

From the Nebula Award-nominated short story, “They’re Made Out of Meat” by Terry Bisson:

"They're made out of meat."

"Meat?"

"Meat. They're made out of meat."

"Meat?"

"There's no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."

"That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"

"They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."

"So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."

"They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."

"That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."

"I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in that sector and they're made out of meat."

A little while later:

"They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?"

"Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat."

"I thought you just told me they used radio."

"They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat, it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat."

"Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?"

"Officially or unofficially?"

"Both."

"Officially, we are required to contact, welcome and log in any and all sentient races or multibeings in this quadrant of the Universe, without prejudice, fear or favor. Unofficially, I advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing."

"I was hoping you would say that."

"It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with meat?"

"I agree one hundred percent. What's there to say? 'Hello, meat. How's it going?'

5. The Simulation Hypothesis

We haven’t been visited by anyone becausewe’re living inside a computer simulation — and the simulation isn’t generating any extraterrestrial companions for us.

If true, this could imply one of three things. First, the bastards — I mean Gods — running the simulation have rigged it such that we’re the only civilization in the entire Galaxy (or even the Universe). Or, there really isn’t a true universe out there, it just appears that way to us within our simulated bubble (It’s a ‘If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?’ type thing).

Another more bizarre possibility is that the simulation is being run by a posthuman civilization in search of an answer to the Fermi Paradox, or some other scientific question. Maybe, in an attempt to entertain various hypotheses (perhaps even preemptively in consideration of some proposed action), they’re running a billion different ancestor simulations to determine how many of them produce spacefaring civilizations, or even post-Singularity stage civilizations like themselves.

6. Radio Silence

This one is similar to the quarantine hypothesis, but it’s not quite as paranoid. But it’s still pretty paranoid. It’s possible that everyone is listening, but no one is transmitting.

And for very good reason. David Brin has argued that the practice of Active SETI would be like shouting out into the jungle (Active SETI is the deliberate transmission of high-powered radio signals to candidate star systems). Michael Michaud has made a similar case: “Let’s be clear about this,” he has written, “Active SETI is not scientific research. It is a deliberate attempt to provoke a response by an alien civilization whose capabilities, intentions, and distance are not known to us. That makes it a policy issue.” The concern, of course, is that we may draw undue attention to ourselves prematurely. It’s conceivable, therefore, that our collective governments may some day decide to shut down all Active SETI efforts. We should just be content to listen. But what if every civilization in the cosmos were to adopt the same policy? That would imply that everyone has gone radio silent.

As an aside, it could also be dangerous to listen: SETI may be at risk of downloading a malicious virus from outer space.

7. All Aliens Are Homebodies

This one isn’t so much weird as it might actually be possible. An advanced ETI, upon graduating to a Kardashev II scale civilization, could lose all galactic-scale ambitions. Once a Dyson sphere or Matrioshka Brain is set up, an alien civilization would have more action and adventure in its local area than it knows what to do with. Massive supercomputers would be able to simulate universes within universes, and lifetimes within lifetimes — and at speeds and variations far removed from what’s exhibited in the tired old analog world. By comparison, the rest of the galaxy would seem like a boring and desolate place. Space could very much be in the rear view mirror.

8. We Can’t Read the Signs

Now, it’s totally possible that the signs of ETIs are all around us, but we just can’t see them. Either we’re too stupid to notice, or we still need to develop our technologies to detect the signals. According to the current SETI approach, we should be listening for radio signatures. But a civilization far more advanced than our own might be using a different technique entirely. They could be signaling with lasers, for example. Lasers are good because they’re tightly focused beams with excellent informational bandwidth. They’re also able to penetrate our galaxy’s dusty interstellar medium.

Or, ETIs could use “calling cards” by exploiting the transmit method of detection (e.g. by constructing a massive perfectly geometrical structure, like a triangle or a square, and put in orbit around their host star).

And and as Stephen Webb has pointed out, there’s also the potential for electromagnetic signals, gravitational signals, particle signals, tachyon signals, or something completely beyond our understanding of physics. It’s also quite possible that they are in fact using radio signals, but we don’t know which frequency to tune into (the EM spectrum is extremely broad). More conceptually, we may eventually find a message buried in a place where we least expect it — like within the code of our DNA. Image: Arnold/Observatoire de Haute-Province in Paris.

9. They’re All Hanging Out At the Edge of the Galaxy

This interesting solution to the Fermi Paradox was posited by Milan M. Ćirković and Robert Bradbury.

“We suggest that the outer regions of the Galactic disk are the most likely locations for advanced SETI targets,” they wrote. The reason for this is that sophisticated intelligent communities will tend to migrate outward through the Galaxy as their capacities of information-processing increase. Why? Because machine-based civilizations, with their massive supercomputers, will have huge problems managing their heat waste. They'll have to set up camp where it’s super cool. And the outer rim of the Galaxy is exactly that.

Subsequently, there may be a different galactic habitable zone for post-Singularity ETIs than for meat-based life. By consequence, advanced ETIs have no interest in exploring the bio-friendly habitable zone. Which means we’re looking for ET in the wrong place. Interestingly, Stephen Wolfram once told me that heat-free computing will someday be possible, so he doesn’t think this is a plausible solution to the Fermi Paradox.

10. Directed Panspermia

Or maybe we haven’t made contact with ETI’s because we’re the aliens. Or least, they’re our ancestors. According to this theory, which was first posited by Francis Crick (yes, that Francis Crick), aliens spark life on other planets (like sending spores to potentially fertile planets), and then bugger off. Forever. Or maybe they eventually come back.

This idea has been tackled extensively in scifi, including the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, “The Chase” in which the uber-generic humanoid Salome Jens explains that its species is responsible for all life in the Alpha Quadrant, or Ridley Scott’s Prometheus, in which an alien can be seen seeding the primordial Earth with life. Even Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001 is a take on this idea, with the monoliths instigating massive evolutionary leaps.

11. The Phase Transition Hypothesis

This one is similar to the Rare Earth hypothesis, but it suggests that the universe is still evolving and changing. Subsequently, the conditions to support advanced intelligence have only recently fallen into place. This is what cosmologist James Annis refers to as the phase transition model of the universe — what he feels is an astrophysical explanation for the Great Silence.

According to Annis, a possible regulatory mechanism that can account for this is the frequency of gamma-ray bursts — super-cataclysmic events that can literally sterilize large swaths of the galaxy.

“If one assumes that they are in fact lethal to land based life throughout the galaxy,” he wrote, “one has a mechanism that prevents the rise of intelligence until the mean time between bursts is comparable to the timescale for the evolution of intelligence.” In other words, gamma-ray bursts are too frequent, and intelligent life is constantly getting wiped out before it develops the capacity to go interstellar. Looking to the future, however, given that gamma-ray bursts are decreasing in frequency, things are set to change. “The Galaxy is currently undergoing a phase transition between an equilibrium state devoid of intelligent life to a different equilibrium state where it is full of intelligent life,” says Annis.

Which would actually be good news.

This article originally appeared at io9.

Why you should starve yourself a little bit each day

We've been told since we were children that we need to eat three square meals a day. But new research shows that we don't need to be eating throughout the course of the day. And in fact, it might even be undermining our health. These insights have given rise to what's known as "intermittent fasting" — the daily restriction of meals and caloric intake. Here's why some health experts believe you should starve yourself just a little bit each day.

Most people associate fasting with juice cleanses or religious rituals — a torturous affair that lasts an entire day if not longer, and the sort of thing that should only be done a couple of times each year. But fasts can encompass any number of different strategies, including routines that simply limit the times when you eat each day, or on certain days of the week.

For example, there's Alternate Day Fasting (ADF) and the Two Day Diet (also known as the 5:2 diet). We'll get into these in just a bit, but what's really starting to take off is daily fasting — the practice of eating only during an 8-hour window of your choosing, and then fasting for the remaining 16 hours of the day.

While some might be inclined to cynically dismiss intermittent fasting as just another fad diet, the scientific evidence in support of daily fasting (or any fasting for that matter) is compelling. Restricting caloric intake for extended periods seems to do a remarkable job of staving off a number of health problems, while yielding some definite benefits.

Now before we get into the details, it's important to note that intermittent fasting is not for everyone. Before you try any of this, you should probably check with your doctor to make sure you're healthy enough to go without food for an extended period — even if it's just a 16 hour stretch. It's also important to note that intermittent fasting is not really meant as a way to lose weight — though it happens to be a good way to regulate food intake.

Time restricted feeding

One of the most important studies in this area was conducted just last year at Salk's Regulatory Biology Laboratory. In an experiment, biologist Satchidananda Panda and colleagues restricted the feeding of mice to — conveniently enough — an 8-hour period each day. The researchers were attempting to study whether obesity and metabolic diseases like diabetes were the result of high-fat diets, or from the disruption of metabolic cycles.

To that end, Panda gave the mice lots of fat to eat. In fact, 60% of the calories consumed were derived from fat (which was meant to simulate foods like chips and ice-cream). The researchers also created a control group that ate the same thing, but these mice could eat any time they wanted (interestingly, as nocturnal creatures, they ate half their meals at night, while grazing on the remainders during the day). As for the restricted group, their 8-hour window was at night.

One hundred days later, the free-for-all group was a mess. They gained weight, developed high cholesterol, high blood glucose, and experienced liver damage and diminished motor control (ouch).

But as for the mice who practiced the intermittent fast, they weighed 28% less and showed no signs of adverse health. And what's remarkable is that both groups ate the same amount of calories from the same fatty food. Not only that, the fasting mice also performed better on exercise tests — including a control group of mice who were eating normal food. (You can check out the study for yourself: "Extended Daily Fasting Overrides Harmful Effects of a High-Fat Diet: Study May Offer Drug-Free Intervention to Prevent Obesity and Diabetes")

As a result, the scientists concluded that time restricted feeding can prevent metabolic diseases — and without having to restrict caloric intake. At least in mice. They theorize that eating willy-nilly throughout the day creates metabolic disturbances to naturally occurring metabolic cycles. Essentially, the scientists say that spreading caloric intake throughout the day perturbs metabolic pathways that are regulated by circadian clocks and nutrient sensors.

It's possible to extrapolate this to humans, too. Though anthropologists are not entirely sure how our paleolithic ancestors ate, it's unlikely that they sat down for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Those are eating routines from a more modern era — and even then, it's likely that only the wealthy could afford multiple meals in one day. In all likelihood, our ancestors ate one or two big meals a day. And that was it. Consequently, their bodies were likely both adapted for and accustomed to going for extended periods without food during much of the day.

Go Mode

Other studies point to similar conclusions. Take the work of Valter Longo, for example. Longo, who works out of the University of Southern California's Longevity Institute, has studied the effects of intermittent fasting on IGF-1, an insulin-like growth factor.

When we consume food, this hormone keeps our body in "go" mode, where our cells are driven to reproduce and facilitate growth. This is great when we need it, but not so much when we're trying to keep off the weight. Moreover, while it's good for growth, it can also speed up the aging process. And in fact, Longo compares the effect to "driving along with your foot hard on the accelerator pedal."

Intermittent fasting, on the other hand, decreases the body's expression of IGF-1. And it also appears to switch on a number of DNA repair genes. Restricted feeding, says Longo, makes our body go from "growth mode" to "repair mode."

Just As Effective as Caloric Restriction

Other research by Krista Varady of University of Illinois in Chicago has looked at the way fasting impacts chronic diseases, like cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer. Her work, which involves both animal and human test subjects, seeks to compare the effects of intermittent fasting with caloric restriction (an extended low-calorie dietary routine that has known health benefits).

What her animal models showed was that intermittent fasting (in this case, alternate-day fasting) lowers the chances of acquiring diabetes, while also lowering fasting glucose and insulin concentrations — and at rates comparable to caloric restriction.

Her tests on human subjects were not much different, which showed greater insulin-mediated glucose uptake. Her evidence suggested that fasting can increase HDL-cholesterol (that's the good kind), while lowering triacylglycerol concentrations. Fasting had no effect on blood pressure. She concluded her study by suggesting that fasting can modulate several risk factors that are known to bring about various chronic diseases.

Moreover, her study showed that intermittent fasting can offer many of the same benefits of caloric restriction, which includes a slight increase in longevity (though this has been recently thrown into question) and increased insulin sensitivity.

Varady recommends an alternate-day fasting routine in which there's no need to restrict the quantity of foods for one day (yes, really), followed by a day in which no more than 600 calories can be consumed.

Another typical intermittent fast is the so-called "5:2 diet." People using this strategy are encouraged to eat normally for five days of the week, but two days are set aside for the fast in which no more than 600 calories are consumed.

Other benefits

And there's more. In addition to Varady's study, other research shows that intermittent fasting can offer neuroprotective benefits. Studies on humans show that it can help with weight loss and reduce disease risk.

And incredibly, there may even be a link to cancer. Another study study by Varady and M. Hellerstein on mice indicated that both caloric restriction and alternate-day fasting can reduce cancer risk and reduce cell proliferation rates.

Short-term fasting can induce growth hormone secretion in men (which is a problem for guys after they hit 30), it reduces oxidative stress (fasting prevents oxidative damage to cellular proteins by decreasing the accumulation of oxidative radicals in the cell — what contributes to aging and disease onset), and it's good for brain health, mental well-being, and clarity.

And as a study published just last week has shown, restricting calories can also lengthen telomeres — which has a protective effect on our DNA and genetic material, which in turn helps with cellular health (i.e. it helps us extend healthy lifespan).

And for people who wish to maintain a ketogenic diet — a metabolic state in which the body is in a perpetual state of fat burning instead of carbohydrate burning — intermittent fasting is a good way to help the body stay in ketosis.

Not As Hard As It Sounds

I actually practice daily intermittent fasting, and I've been doing it for about five months. Admittedly, the first week was difficult, but now I don't give it a second thought. My cravings have largely disappeared, but my stomach starts to grumble in the late stages. I feel great, though, my mood is upbeat, and I'm often full of energy (I also do strength-and-conditioning work, which helps).

My particular routine — which is quite typical for daily intermittent fasters — sees me having my last meal of the day sometime between 6:00 and 8:00 PM. But then I don't eat until 1:00 PM the next day. My lunch is usually a big deal, and I savor every bite (a neat benefit of the daily fast is how much better food suddenly tastes). Likewise, my dinner is also a grand affair. So I basically eat two solid meals each day, and fast for a 16 hour stretch.

I also drink coffee and tea during the fasting period (both without cream and sugar). These are zero calorie foods that have little impact on the body's metabolism. And not only that, caffeine is a known appetite suppressant.

Lastly, I also tend to eat very little carbs. As many people know, carbohydrates are notorious for creating food cravings — carbs cause a kind of negative feedback loop. But as all this new research it's showing, it's not necessarily the kind of foods you eat. Rather, it's the fasting that's important. But that said, I wouldn't tempt fate; it's probably prudent to keep the foods healthy.

As a final note, given that this is a restrictive dietary routine, it's important to keep our health goals in mind as they relate to our daily enjoyment of life. Limiting our eating to such a small window of time could certainly be construed as a draconian measure. If a routine like this threatens to make you miserable, it may simply not be worth the bother.

But for me, it's not a problem, and fits in rather nicely with my overall health strategies.

This article originally appeared at io9.

Images: lev dolgachov/Shutterstock, cath5/Shutterstock, Valter Longo, Krista Varady.

How Much Longer Before Our First AI Catastrophe?

With everyone’s attention focused on a pending technological Singularity, few give consideration to the immediate period of time leading up to it. If things continue apace, this could prove to be the most dangerous time in human history. It will be the era of weak and narrow artificial intelligence, a highly problematic combo that could wreak tremendous havoc on human civilization. Here’s why we’ll need to be ready.

As opposed to the Technological Singularity, which is defined as the advent of recursively improving greater-than-human artificial intelligence (or artificial superintelligence), or the development of strong AI (human-like artificial general intelligence), this particular concern has to do with the rise of weak AI, expert systems that match or exceed human intelligence in a narrowly defined area, but not in broader areas. As a consequence, many of these systems will work outside of human comprehension and control. 

But don't let the name fool you; there's nothing weak about the kind of damage it could do.

Before the Singularity

The Singularity is often misunderstood as AI that’s simply smarter than humans, or the rise of human-like consciousness in a machine. Neither are the case. To a non-trivial degree, much of our AI already exceeds human capacities. It’s just not sophisticated and robust enough to do any significant damage to our infrastructure. The trouble will start to come when, in the case of the Singularity, a highly generalized AI starts to iteratively improve upon itself.

And indeed, when the Singularity hits, it’ll be like, in the words of mathematician I. J. Good, anintelligence explosion — and it will indeed hit us like a bomb. Human control will forever be relegated to the sidelines, in whatever form that might take.

A pre-Singularity AI disaster or catastrophe, on the other hand, will be containable. But just barely. It’ll likely arise from an expert system or super-sophisticated algorithm run amok. And the worry is not so much its power — which is definitely a significant part of the equation — but the speed at which it will inflict the damage. By the time we have a grasp on what’s going on, something terrible may have happened.

Narrow AI could knock out our electric grid, damage nuclear power plants, cause a global-scale economic collapse, misdirect autonomous vehicles and robots, take control of a factory or military installation, or unleash some kind of propagating blight that will be difficult to get rid of (whether in the digital realm or the real world). The possibilities are frighteningly endless.

Our infrastructure is becoming increasingly digital and interconnected — and by consequence, increasingly vulnerable. In a few decades, it will be brittle as glass, with the bulk of human activity dependant upon it.

And it is indeed a possibility. The signs are all there.

Accidents Will Happen

Back in 1988, a Cornell University student named Robert Morris scripted a software program that could measure the size of the Internet. To make it work, he equipped it with a few clever tricks to help it along its way, including an ability to exploit known vulnerabilities in popular utility programs running on UNIX. This allowed the program to break into those machines and copy itself, thus infecting those systems.

On November 2, 1988, Morris introduced his program to the world. It quickly spread to thousands of computers, disrupting normal activities and Internet connectivity for days. Estimates put the cost of the damage anywhere between $10,000 to $100,000. Dubbed the “Morris Worm,” it’s considered the first worm in human history — one that prompted DARPA to fund the establishment of the CERT/CC at Carnegie Mellon University to anticipate and respond to this new kind of threat.

As for Morris, he was charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and given a $10,000 fine.

But the takeaway from the incident was clear: Despite our best intentions, accidents willhappen. And as we continue to develop and push our technologies forward, there’s always the chance that it will operate outside our expectations — and even our control.

Down to the Millisecond

Indeed, unintended consequences are one thing, containability is quite another. Our technologies are increasingly operating at levels beyond our real-time capacities. The best example of this comes from the world of high-frequency stock trading (HFT).

In HFT, securities are traded on a rapid-fire basis through the use of powerful computers and algorithms. A single investment position can last for a few minutes — or a few milliseconds; there can be as many as 500 transactions made in a single second. This type of computer trading can result in thousands upon thousands of transactions a day, each and every one of them decided by super-sophisticated scripts. The human traders involved (such as they are) just sit back and watch, incredulous to the machinations happening at break-neck speeds.

“Back in the day, I used to be able to explain to a client how their trade was executed. Technology has made the trade process so convoluted and complex that I can’t do that any more,” noted PNC Wealth Management's Jim Dunigan in a Markets Media article.

Clearly, the ability to assess market conditions and react quickly is a valuable asset to have. And indeed, according to a 2009 study, HFT firms accounted for 60 to 73% of all U.S. equity trading volume; but as of last year that number dropped to 50% — but it's still considered a highly profitable form of trading.

To date, the most significant single incident involving HFT came at 2:45 on May 5th, 2010. For a period of about five minutes, the Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted over 1,000 points (approximately 9%); for a few minutes, $1 trillion in market value vanished. About 600 points were recovered 20 minutes later. It's now called the 2010 Flash Crash, the second largest point swing in history and the biggest one-day point decline.

The incident prompted an investigation by Gregg E. Berman, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The investigators posited a number of theories (of which there are many, some of them quite complex), but their primary concern was the impact of HFT. They determined that the collective efforts of the algorithms exacerbated price declines; by selling aggressively, the trader-bots worked to eliminate their positions and withdraw from the market in the face of uncertainty.

The following year, an independent study concluded that technology played an important role, but that it wasn’t the entire story. Looking at the Flash Crash in detail, the authors argued that it was “the result of the new dynamics at play in the current market structure,” and the role played by “order toxicity.” At the same time, however, they noted that HFT traders exhibited trading patterns inconsistent with the traditional definition of market making, and that they were “aggressively [trading] in the direction of price changes.”

HFT is also playing an increasing role in currencies and commodities, making up about 28% of the total volume in futures markets. Not surprisingly, this area has become vulnerable to mini crashes. Following incidents involving the trading of cocoa and sugar, the Wall Street Journalhighlighted the growing concerns:

"The electronic platform is too fast; it doesn't slow things down" like humans would, said Nick Gentile, a former cocoa floor trader. "It's very frustrating" to go through these flash crashes, he said...

..The same is happening in the sugar market, provoking outrage within the industry. In a February letter to ICE, the World Sugar Committee, which represents large sugar users and producers, called algorithmic and high-speed traders "parasitic."

Just how culpable HFT is to the phenomenon of flash crashes is an open question, but it’s clear that the trading environment is changing rapidly. Market analysts now speak in terms of “microstructures,” trading “circuit breakers,” and the “VPIN Flow Toxicity metric.” It’s also difficult to predict how serious future flash crashes could become. If insufficient measures aren’t put into place to halt these events when they happen, and assuming HFT is scaled-up in terms of market breadth, scope, and speed, it’s not unreasonable to think of events in which massive and irrecoverable losses might occur. And indeed, some analysts are already predicting systems that can support 100,000 transactions per second.

More to the point, HFT and flash crashes may not create an economic disaster — but it’s a potent example of how our other mission-critical systems may reach unprecedented tempos. As we defer critical decision making to our technological artifacts, and as they increase in power and speed, we are increasingly finding ourselves outside of the locus of control and comprehension.

When AI Screws Up, It Screws Up Badly

No doubt, we are already at the stage when computers exceed our ability to understand how and why they do the things they do. One of the best examples of this is IBM’s Watson, the expert computer system that trounced the world’s best Jeopardy players in 2011. To make it work, Watson’s developers scripted a series of programs that, when pieced together, created an overarching game-playing system. And they’re not entirely sure how it works.

David Ferrucci, the Leader Researcher of the project, put it this way:

Watson absolutely surprises me. People say: 'Why did it get that one wrong?' I don't know. 'Why did it get that one right?' I don't know.

Which is actually quite disturbing. And not so much because we don’t understand why it succeeds, but because we don’t necessarily understand why it fails. By virtue, we can’t understand or anticipate the nature of its mistakes.

For example, Watson had one memorable gaff that clearly demonstrated how, when an AI fails, it fails big time. During the Final Jeopardy portion, it was asked, “Its largest airport is named for a World War II hero; its second largest, for a World War II battle.” Watson responded with, “What is Toronto?”

Given that Toronto’s Billy Bishop Airport is named after a war hero, that was not a terrible guess. But why this was such a blatant mistake is that the category was “U.S. Cities.” Toronto, not being a U.S. city, couldn't possibly have been the correct answer.

Again, this is the important distinction that needs to be made when addressing the potential for a highly generalized AI. Weak, narrow systems are extremely powerful, but they’re also extremely stupid; they’re completely lacking in common sense. Given enough autonomy and responsibility, a failed answer or a wrong decision could be catastrophic.

Moreover, because expert systems like Watson will soon be able to conjure answers to questions that are beyond our comprehension, we won’t always know when they’re wrong. And that is a frightening prospect.As another example, take the recent initiative to give robots their very own Internet. By providing and sharing information amongst themselves, it’s hoped that these bots can learn without having to be programmed. A problem arises, however, when instructions for a task are mismatched — the result of an AI error. A stupid robot, acting without common sense, would simply execute upon the task even when the instructions are wrong. In another 30 to 40 years, one can only imagine the kind of damage that could be done, either accidentally, or by a malicious script kiddie.

The Shape of Things to Come

It’s difficult to know exactly how, when, or where the first true AI catastrophe will occur, but we’re still several decades off. Our infrastructure is still not integrated or robust enough to allow for something really terrible to happen. But by the 2040s (if not sooner), our highly digital and increasingly interconnected world will be susceptible to these sorts of problems.

By that time, our power systems (electric grids, nuclear plants, etc.) could be vulnerable to errors and deliberate attacks. Already today, the U.S. has been able to infiltrate the control system software known to run centrifuges in Iranian nuclear facilities by virtue of its Stuxnet program — an incredibly sophisticated computer virus (if you can call it that). This program represents the future of cyber-espionage and cyber-weaponry — and it’s a pale shadow of things to come.

In future, more advanced versions will likely be able to not just infiltrate enemy or rival systems, it could reverse-engineer it, inflict terrible damage — or even take control. But like the Morris Worm incident showed, it may be difficult to predict the downstream effects of these actions, particularly when dealing with autonomous, self-replicating code. It could also result in an AI arms race, with each side developing programs and counter-programs to get an edge on the other side’s technologies.

And though it might seem like the premise of a scifi novel, an AI catastrophe could also involve the deliberate or accidental takeover of any system running off an AI. This could include integrated military equipment, self-driving vehicles (including airplanes), robots, and factories. Should something like this occur, the challenge will be to disable the malign script (or source program) as quickly as possible, which may not be easy.

More conceptually, and in the years immediately preceding the onset of uncontainable self-improving machine intelligence, a narrow AI could be used (again, either deliberately or unintentionally) to execute upon a poorly articulated goal. The powerful system could over-prioritize a certain aspect, or grossly under-prioritize another. And it could make sweeping changes in the blink of an eye.

Hopefully, if and when this does happen, it will be containable and relatively minor in scope. But it will likely serve as a call to action in anticipation of more catastrophic episodes. As for now, and in consideration of these possibilities, we need to ensure that our systems are secure, smart, and resilient.

A different version of this article appeared at io9.

Images: Shutterstock/agsandrew; Washington Times; TIME, Potapov Alexander/Shutterstock.