In a lengthy behind-the-scenes profile of Google X – the company’s secret innovation lab responsible for driverless cars and Google Glass – Jon Gertner offers insight into a program that blurs the lines between science fiction and reality. He describes what it’s like to pitch an idea to “Rapid Eval,” X’s vetting team:
At one point, [Rapid Eval head Rich] DeVaul asks if I have any ideas of my own for Rapid Eval consideration. I had been warned in advance that he might ask this, and I came prepared with a suggestion: a “smart bullet” that could protect potential shooting victims and reduce gun violence, both accidental and intentional. You have self-driving cars that avoid harm, I say. Why not self-driving ballistics?
DeVaul doesn’t say it’s the stupidest thing he’s ever heard, which is a relief. What ensues is a conversation that feels like a rapid ascent up [an] imaginary ladder. We quickly debate the pros and cons of making guns intelligent (that technology already exists to a certain degree) versus making bullets intelligent (likely much more difficult). We move from a specific discussion of “self-pulverizing” bullets with tiny, embedded hypodermic needles that deliver stun-drugs (DeVaul’s idea) to potentially using sensors and the force of gravity to bring a bullet to the ground before it can strike the wrong target ([Xer Mitch] Heinrich’s). Then comes the notion of separating the bullet’s striker from the explosive charge with a remote disabling electronic switch ([Xer Dan] Piponi). The tenor soon changes, though.
We start talking about smart holsters for police officers, and then intelligent gun sights–something that firearms owners might actually want to buy. They think that idea might even be worth a rapid prototype. But we also debate the political and marketplace viability of bullet technology–who would purchase it, who would object to it, what kind of impact it might have. Eventually it becomes clear that in many ways, appearances often to the contrary, Google X tries hard to remain on the practical side of crazy.
Zooming out, Gertner ponders the implications of such radical innovation:
To me, the fundamental challenge of fashioning extreme solutions to very big problems is that society tends to move incrementally, even as many fields of technology seem to advance exponentially. An innovation that saves us time or money or improves our health might always have a fighting chance at success. But with Glass, we see a product that seems to alter not only our safety and efficiency–like with self-driving cars–but our humanity. This seems an even bigger obstacle than some of the more practical issues that the lab grapples with, but the Xers don’t seem overly concerned. [Google X head Astro] Teller, in fact, contends that Glass could make us more human. He thinks it solves a huge problem–getting those square rectangles out of our pockets and making technology more usable, more available, less obstructive. But isn’t it possible that Glass is the wrong answer to the right problem? “Of course,” Teller says. “But we’re not done. And it’s possible that we missed. I mean, I know we missed in some ways.”
(Video: Behind the scenes at Google X)
The Dish 