 Hey everybody. Oh, so much active conversation going on, it's great. Thank you Matt. So I was going to call us right around 2.40, so we wanted to leave time for the groups to tell us their futures that they came up with. So, just any group want to go first? Anyone group like ready? Yeah? Alright, here we go. Yeah, structurally. To back up. We spent a lot of time generating ideas which led to a little less time actually stabilizing what our world was, but so we had all kinds of ideas up to and including a lot of stuff around brain uploads or human brain interfaces and the singularity and stuff like that. And because we also didn't have a particular theme, so we tried to, we were trying to zero in on a theme. We ultimately somewhat unsurprisingly zeroed in on centralization versus decentralization and somewhat unsurprisingly especially considering where we are and the fact that I work at OTI which has done a lot of mesh networking work focused on a world that's very mesh network centric. And so the basic arc of what we're talking about is a new mesh networking technology that actually to try and just sort of create a plausible story driver. Let's say Apple invents first much like it invented Wi-Fi and it offers a simple peer to peer phone to phone mode of communication. So you can like FaceTime across a few blocks or whatever. Mesh network that quickly, because it allows you to save money, other people competing develop a similar feature. It spreads across Android. It spreads across other operating systems until you start seeing these very large area networks, but because the wireless is somewhat constrained, but there is still a move toward this also a political social move away from the big platforms because they are not trusted in towards less media communication. You start to see more people moving to the cities to be part of bigger networks. So exacerbating sort of the like rural underserving and exacerbating the growth of mega city slums so people can be part of bigger meshes. And that's about as far as we got. What am I, what am I missing? I mean, we, we had a lot of, we were talking a lot about like, are we imagining a magic technology? Like one of the, we went as far as thinking imagine a brain computer interface where we can via quantum entanglement instantaneously communicate with any other brain on the planet encrypted. But then we, then we pulled it back. So maybe we should have gone further, but, but anyway, that's, that's where how far we got. Anyone have any questions for this group before we go to another group? I just, yeah, yeah, rich. Okay. Any other questions for this group? Awesome. All right. Thank you for that. Any, another group want to go next? Chris is raising hand. Allison has a mic by you. This is great because I've been accused of speaking softly. Now have a microphone. So, all right, I'm going to do my best here and thank you for. So, yeah, our group took a little bit of a different approach that we did not make it so far as to imagine any possible futures really. However, we did discuss a number of issues and possibilities. So that the center of our, of our fabulous collage here is a question or an a statement. So the statement is we wanted to, we talked about a number of issues. We talked about access and measurement censorship and what did we want to really unpack. And what we landed on was that we wanted to talk about technology that influence, that influences or can change social equality. And the question that we used to frame that is what is inequality? What equality problem or problems are we trying to solve with technology? And then we sort of brainstormed for a little bit. And then we sort of just did some quiet reflection individually and came up with individual post-its. Just completely random. So anything we wanted to write down. And then we categorized them and they sort of talked through them. And that was when some of the real interesting conversations started to happen. And so then we did, like I said, we didn't really land on a lot of outcomes or potential futures. But what we did do, and we can put it down if you want. No one could read this from far away. But it is helpful to see how we framed it, I think. We just took individual pieces of paper and then put them together into groups and tried to categorize those. So we have a few things around technology, a few things around unpacking what social equity or social equality actually might mean. We have an impact or influence category and a personal identity category. So in respect of technology, we have some things like that maybe there's alternative power systems that are invented that we don't need to rely on batteries or solar power even for what is currently a highly electrically charged environment and consumes a lot of natural resources to do the tech that we want. There's a note here about what does a persistent data storage system look like that doesn't use power, that doesn't require batteries. Someone is considered sort of just possible things like surveillance is in the future underestimated. And quantum computation is not really considered. Growth of data, data science undermines science as we know it. That was an interesting one. And on the flip side, so those are about sort of tech specifically when they have a whole separate thing about personal identity which kind of ties in to some biotech ideas. Like what if our technology allows people to understand us and allows us to frame who we are and how our world sees us and how we see the world. That there may be a one-to-one relationship between what we say and what we hear. Personality tweaking, so this gets into the biohacking. What if anyone has the right to be transhuman? When you're 18, what if you're given the source code of the bios in your brain? You're born sterile and you must buy a kit in order to reproduce or procreate. This is getting weird. Life becomes too safe. People require artificial challenges for entertainment or amusement or interest or work. That does get into the idea of what is the impact or influence that a future set of technologies might give us. And in this conversation we talked about a lot of different things like universal free access, do the impacts of a future technology set of technologies. Truly enable us to stop and not have to work to think about the things that we would do if we were not connected to systems that require us to think about what our future looks like and what we do to be productive. Basic income, is that something that actually happens? What does education look like in that context? The posted note here said it was framed around MOOCs for example and how online education is distributed now. But in a world where we don't necessarily have to have that outcome, what does education actually look like? Then some questions here. What about cultural applications of technology? We touched on that just at the very end because we were thinking mostly about work related things with respect to technology. And then we also, yes, thank you for reminding. We also talked about ownership and who owns what? Who are the beneficiaries of these technologies? Who owns the benefits and what are those benefits? And then finally we unpacked this unpacking social equity or inequality. A number of things, you know, a question, is equality even possible? And we talked about a lot of things around the context of pursuing equality or equity. As the context of equality or inequality, which of those matters? The context of equality or inequality matters and it's potentially different in lots of situations. We have to consider both diversity and equality. And inequality between countries or between populations or groups is likely to increase in any case we think. We talked a bit about marginalized communities and this was an interesting insight about marginalized communities now used depend on and build closed loop systems in order to survive and communicate in closed environments. But this also then, so this enables them to just do, have basic survival and communication. But it also creates sub-marginalized groups within those communities as well. So the pursuit of freedom essentially also creates marginalization. We can stop there. Yeah, I'm rambling, but that's a lot. No. Okay, we have two more groups I think, so who wants to go? You want to go? Peter? Okay. Thank you. So we were sitting at a table with Matt and Rich and so we could not talk about measurement. So we talked about measurement in 2050 and we never quite agreed whether we were talking about measuring the internet or measuring all things. But we agreed that measurement in 2050, the world that sounded good to us, involved measuring from everywhere and measuring a lot of things. The issue of privacy, at least if our discussion is anything to be believed, won't be resolved in the next 30 years. But one thing that I thought was quite nice that we agreed that we should get, we dreamed of a world in 2050 that had acceptance of data without judgment, that as you accepted the data and measurement and observation were first class citizens in political discourse, which Rich pointed out that data by itself is insufficient and we need ubiquitous and diverse open analyses, diverse analyses, not just like what's the right way of doing it, but instead a large set of open analyses so you can see a bunch of them. And again, some people said privacy would obviously be respected. Some people said privacy would obviously be irrelevant. And I just had to throw out the Transparent Society Mutually Assured Destruction Scenario for Privacy because it's fun to talk about as a horrifying boundary in between it being respected or irrelevant. But then we talked about an annealment of diverse analyses, as truth synthesis, or synthesis at least, as this annealment of the diverse analyses of ubiquitous data. And we wanted claims to be explicitly connected to the annealment, then the analyses, then the data, then the measurement. And by having that explicit connection and giving everybody the ability to do that deep dive and the democratization of that ability to do the deep dive was a big thing that we did. Of course, we wanted these claims to drive shared understanding, not necessarily shared agreement. And then I hijacked things a little bit because I realized that as well as having Matt and Richard at the table, we had three people who several, I'll say years of their lives, have actually had as their job to ubiquitously measure, we know the data, make decisions about whether it's good and figure out what problems. I mean, that's literally what Nathan, Stephen and Rich do or have done in their careers. They have their service level agreements as a result of their service level obligations, which come from their service level indicators, which come from their metrics. So in a world in the future where we have metrics for everything, how does this process work today and how would it work in the future? And so we ended up going down a rabbit hole of how this process works today and how it could be, how it could move to a larger system in the future because it turns out we had people at the table doing it today, so we may as well figure out how it works at all because maybe it's unevenly distributed. And that is what we talked about, about measurement in the future. Okay, my group's gonna chip in. So we spoke about what access means, access to information. So we assume that everyone's connected, so connectivity isn't a problem and we're just talking about now the information. How do we access information now, passwords that no one can remember, security or hint, the hint questions that everyone knows answers to and in the future it would obviously be biometrics. And what type of access? So we're gonna chip babies. Like how babies need birth certificates when they're born, they're going to have chips inserted. Sounds kind of awful. It's like an injection, it's like a vaccination. So we're gonna chip babies and that will give you access to a whole load, you can infer our personal information. Who has access to information now? So we have governments that have access, we have corporates all aggregate access and we have our own individual data or data subjects have their own personal data which is limited access at various levels. In the future we don't necessarily have governments but governance and we have complete access of data by an individual so I will have access to my data but I will choose to give out permission for my network, friends and family, to have access to my data that will be tiered access and I will control who knows how much of what and it's kind of like a two-way handshake I suppose. The governance, whoever who governs us would have access to this data but whenever they use it there needs to be logging of all access to our data. There will be self or voluntary controls and transparent access of the individual's data. We did talk about how our own data creates value at the moment and maybe we need to get paid for others using the data but then we don't have any corporates in the future so there's no value addition there. Then we also spoke about how your data architecture may impact your physical architecture. So in a shared environment, in a shared space even though I have now got my tiered access and I know who can access what, in a shared space I might see someone else's data if I walk into a friend's house I might see certain things that I can then sell. So then we spoke of the possibility of having sort of your data architecture impacting your physical architecture so you kind of figure out within your home what is public and private. Kind of, sort of. Yeah, so we also talked of a world where the whole world is sort of quantified like every aspect of the world is sort of almost always measured or quantified like there is data about everything so your movement, your interaction whatever happens in the world there is data to it and that whoever has the power whether the governance would be able to access all the data from that perspective but as an individual maybe you have data that pertains to you that you contribute to the system but maybe the other more powerful governance structures may have access to a lot more data than ourselves and that might become the future because of more scaled ways of surveying the entire world almost. Anyone have questions for the backer? No? Okay, well thanks everyone for participating in this exercise I don't know if anyone has any like wrap up thoughts from this session that they want to share? Anything? Brain story is fun. I hope it was fun. The future sounds like it has a lot of directions it could go but I don't know I liked a lot of the really interesting like themes and insights from across the groups so I really appreciated hearing all that. On that note we are into our final break before our final session so stand up stretch get some coffee there's snacks in the back if you haven't had an MLab cupcake please have one and then we will reconvene in about 10, 15 minutes.