This proposal covers the creation of an Augmentation Research Center modeled after Doug Engelbart's Augmentation Research Center at SRI in the 1960's and 70's.

It proposes an initial research project to study what is involved in getting as much as possible out of computers, for the benefit of mankind.

It makes two propositions. The first is that computer processing power is a resource and should be harvested efficiently.

The second is that we know very little about what is involved in the development of useful software - how it evolves - and it's time to find out. If we don't know what's involved in the development we cannot hope to improve it.

The whole point of this exercise is to develop better and better augmentation infrastructures (which will heavily utilize networked computers- software & hardware- as well as anything else which is involved in improving how we think and communicate, such as education, training and so on).

 

"...any possibility for improving the effective utilization of the intellectual power of society's problem solvers warrants the most serious consideration."

"This is because man's problem-solving capability represents possibly the most important resource possessed by a society."

"The other contenders for first importance are all critically dependent for their development and use upon this resource. Any possibility for evolving an art or science that can couple directly and significantly to the continued development of that resource should warrant doubly serious consideration."
Augmenting Human Intellect, A Conceptual Framework Doug Engelbart.

 

 

 

A resource unlike any other- it is not about to run out, it is doubling every year and a half. It's resource undergoing explosive growth.
[Moore's law sidebar]

What we get out of this computer processing resource is another matter entirely.

According to the Labor Department, US productivity grew by 3.5% the last three months of 2001. Not bad for a recession. This is compared with 2.6% for the late 90's and 1.7% for the preceding three decades. Technology in general and networked computers in specific seems to be helping productivity.

But computer processing power increases by 67% (100% per 1.5 years) per year.

Fact is, faster computer processing bring their own productivity problems.

"More information has been produced in the last 30 years than in the previous 5,000. About 1,000 books are published internationally every day, and the total of all printed knowledge doubles every eight years," according to Peter Large in Information Anxiety. There is now 2.5 times more information stored online than on paper but none of the Internet search engines have even cataloged 1/6th of the total information available and Internet traffic is doubling every 100 days (Interactive Week) "Everyone spoke of an information overload, but what there was in fact was a non-information overload" (Richard Saul Wurman, What-If, Could be).

"E-mail's ease of use and ubiquity has led to an information overload and productivity crisis for 90 percent of enterprises. A February 2001 Gartner survey found that U.S. employees spend an average of about 50 minutes per day managing their e-mail, with a quarter of employees spending more than an hour per day. Yet workers reported that a third of the e-mail they received contained redundant or nonessential information. Unnecessary e-mail costs the average U.S. enterprise of 10,000 employees about $16 million a year."
M. Grey, A. Linden, Jay 2001 Gartner Group.

We understand how to evolve increasingly faster computers.

The industry is pouring money and expertise into developing ever faster processors.
[Chip Fabrication Challenges Sidebar]

There are challenges to be met, but so far they are doing well. Moore's Law has held steady for a hundred years so far. And looks set to continue for quite a while.
[100 Years of Moore's Law Sidebar]

In addition to more traditional chip fabrication methods, DNA, molecular and Quantum computing is being explored.
[Future Chips Sidebar]

We are even beginning to understand quite a bit about our own, (biological) evolution.

We are uncovering exciting and important knowledge of how we came to be, how evolution works in general and what may be in store for the human race and the planet.

We understand how biological evolution works to an impressive degree. We have a language for talking about biological evolution. We can talk about genes and ecosystems, punctuated equilibrium and so on. There is a language, a body of knowledge, a growing understanding.
[Human Evolution Sidebar]

When it comes to the evolution of what we get out of the computers however, we are almost blind.

What are the components of computer based augmentation systems, to use a klunky term? We can guess at economic, technical and technological factors, political and social. But these guesses are only educated stabs in the dark. Why are computer games more impressive and advanced than email today? Why is Microsoft such a success while it's products are not even remotely growing at the rate of Moore's Law- we have more horsepower but we are still moving at horse and buggy speed?

It has become imperative to systematically work to answer these questions, and disseminate the findings as quickly and as far as possible.

Otherwise we will keep pouring resources at improving our lives and productivity through ever faster computers - without knowing what will make computers serve us better- without even knowing what the components of the evolution of such systems are. Should we improve policies through governments? If so, what should these policies do? How have policies worked in the past? How about the technical issues- what technical infrastructures, protocols and ways of working will help us get as much as possible out of the hardware to augment our intellect?

We can guess, talk and debate. But the hard fact is we just don't know.