Bionics

3d_printingThe next big thing seems to be 3D printing. Last year, it enjoyed extended attention because of a variety of breakthroughs. It’s important to keep in mind what it can do and what it can’t, though.

What it can do is pretty amazing, ranging from potentially life-changing to kind of scary. Just scanning the Google News feed for “3D printers” brings up an implantable cartilage and a gun and gun magazine. These things can be made with at-home or non-industrial printers that range from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand. As it becomes more well-known and popular, that price is only going to drop.

There is even an open-source 3D printer, called RepRap, that is constantly under development from hundreds of volunteers around the world. At this point, it is making respectable prints and it is designed to print parts for others to make their own RepRap printer. That is democratic access to technology and the means of production in the most obvious manner currently imaginable.

The most recent biggest buzz is that 3D printing will allow you to print up your own house, which is what a Dutch architecture firm is about to experiment with. According to TechCrunch’s Jordan Cook, it may have a wider implication:

Sure, 3D printing is fun and cute. And products like the Makerbot and Form 1 will most certainly disrupt manufacturing, even if it’s only on a small scale. But the possibilities of 3D printing stretch far beyond DIY at-home projects. In fact, it could entirely replace the construction industry.

What it could also do is usher in an era of small-scale democratic manufacturing. The access of the means of production available to all for little to no-cost, and therefore the ability to live in abundance without relying on a major corporate-oriented or state-oriented system. That is exciting.

Just a couple of weeks ago, we brought up Paul Krugman’s worry that robotics could remain in the domain of elite capital owners. Others are a bit more optimistic that won’t happen, but I took a middle of the road approach. That is, we could go either way pretty easily, depending on how we choose to arrange our economic and education system.

I feel like 3D printing offers us a chance to go the way of the optimists. I may be getting ahead of myself here, but I feel like this is a shorter leap to make than offing the entire construction industry. Currently, we have the example of a robotic toy that was completely 3D printed. I also came across a robotic hand that is made mostly from 3D printed parts. These are not as neat or well-done as some of the heavily researched and manufactured robots, but it is still impressive for what it is and for what it could become.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Atlantic has run a fantastic piece by Dr. Patrick Lin, on trying to square cyborgs with International human rights law during wartime. This is just one small bit, when trying to take on whether cyborg enhancements used in war are “repugnant to the consciousness of mankind,” per the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention:

Not all enhancements, of course, are as fanciful as a human-chimeric warrior or a berserker mode, nor am I suggesting that any military has plans to do anything that extreme. Most, if not all, enhancements will likely not be as obviously inhuman. Nonetheless, the “consciousness of mankind” is sometimes deeply fragmented, especially on ethical issues. So what is unobjectionable to one person or culture may be obviously objectionable to another.

Something as ordinary as, say, a bionic limb or exoskeleton could be viewed as unethical by cultures that reject technology or such manipulation of the human body. This is not to say that ethics is subjective and we can never resolve this debate, but only that the ethics of military enhancements — at least with respect to the prohibition against inhumane weapons — requires specific details about the enhancement and its use, as well as the sensibilities of the adversary and international community. That is, we cannot generalize that all military enhancements either comply or do not comply with this prohibition.

Toward the end, we are reminded that this discussion barely scratches the surface:

The above discussion certainly does not exhaust all the legal issues that will arise from military human enhancements. In our new report, funded by The Greenwall Foundation and co-written with Maxwell Mehlman (Case Western Reserve University) and Keith Abney (California Polytechnic State University), we launch an investigation into these and other issues in order to identify problems that policymakers and society may need to confront.

The New York Times profiles deep learning and the optimism surrounding the field:

Using an artificial intelligence technique inspired by theories about how the brain recognizes patterns, technology companies are reporting startling gains in fields as diverse as computer vision, speech recognition and the identification of promising new molecules for designing drugs.

The advances have led to widespread enthusiasm among researchers who design software to perform human activities like seeing, listening and thinking. They offer the promise of machines that converse with humans and perform tasks like driving cars and working in factories, raising the specter of automated robots that could replace human workers.

The technology, called deep learning, has already been put to use in services like Apple’s Siri virtual personal assistant, which is based on Nuance Communications’ speech recognition service, and in Google’s Street View, which uses machine vision to identify specific addresses.

An interesting side-note:

One of the most striking aspects of the research led by Dr. Hinton is that it has taken place largely without the patent restrictions and bitter infighting over intellectual property that characterize high-technology fields.

“We decided early on not to make money out of this, but just to sort of spread it to infect everybody,” he said. “These companies are terribly pleased with this.”

Touch Bionics, developer of the world’s first commercially available bionic hand, announced that the i-LIMB Hand has won a 2008 da Vinci Award from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

The da Vinci Awards recognize the most innovative developments and research in adaptive and assistive technology. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society understands well the difficulties people experience when faced with physical disabilities and created the da Vinci Awards to recognize the most innovative projects that enable participation and contribution in all aspects of society.

“We are delighted to have been awarded a 2008 da Vinci Award – a great honor from an organization like the National MS Society,” said Touch Bionics CEO Stuart Mead. “New technology allows incredible advances to be made, but these advances only come into their own when they truly help people, and this is what these awards are all about.”

Launched in 2007, the i-LIMB Hand is a first-to-market prosthetic device with five individually powered digits. With over 20 years of research and development behind it, the i-LIMB Hand looks and acts like a real human hand and represents a generational advance in bionics and patient care. Since the launch, more than 350 patients worldwide have been fitted and Touch Bionics is rapidly expanding across the globe.

“The dramatic growth and acceptance of the i-LIMB Hand has allowed Touch Bionics to move forward aggressively in how we support our customers in North America,” said Mark Ford, director, U.S. sales and marketing at Touch Bionics. “Our purchase of LIVINGSKIN in May has allowed us to increase the number of customer care staff that we have for Touch Bionics in North America, and all of our U.S. orders, returns and repairs are now handled from our New York location.”

The 2008 da Vinci Awards will be presented on Saturday, September 20, 2008 at The Ritz-Carlton in Dearborn, Michigan at a gala event featuring a cocktail reception, gourmet dinner and awards program followed by displays from the award winners.