Accelerating Future

Man, this could be anything. Press release is via Nanowerk News:

(Nanowerk News) The rise of superintelligent machines, the transfer of humans’ consciousness into computers, and the birth of machine consciousness are all points on the spectrum of the singularity. Between the fervent believers–the singularitarians–and the extreme skeptics lies a wide area of hotly debated theories and coolly pursued technologies.

The singularity debate is too rarely a real argument. There’s too much fixation on death avoidance. That’s a shame, because in the future, as computers become stupendously powerful and as electronics and other technologies begin to enhance and fuse with biology, life really is going to get more interesting.

To produce the special report in the June issue of IEEE Spectrum, the editors invited articles from half a dozen people who have worked on and written about subjects central to the singularity idea in all its loopy glory. They encompass not just hardware and wetware but also economics, consciousness, robotics, nanotechnology, and philosophy. With a few exceptions, these are people who are not on record as either embracing or rejecting singularity dogma.

“Introduction: Waiting for the Rapture” by Glenn Zorpette (g.zorpette@ieee.org, 212-419-7580) One day a machine will blink into consciousness, and it will be humankind’s crowning achievement. But it’s just wishful thinking to believe that artificial consciousness could let people alive today escape death by uploading their minds.

“The Singularity: Who’s Who” by Paul Wallich (g.zorpette@ieee.org, 212-419-7580) A scorecard of true believers, atheists, and agnostics.

“Economics of the Singularity” by Robin Hanson (p.ross@ieee.org, 212-419-7562) Humans could find themselves out of work if machines of merely human intellect could be made cheap enough.

“Reverse Engineering the Brain” by Sally Adee (s.adee@ieee.org, 212-419-7505) To David Adler, the human brain is just really advanced technology.

“Can Machines Be Conscious?” by Christof Koch and Giulio Tononi (j.kumagai@ieee.org, 212-419-7551) Yes, someday–and here’s one way to determine if they are.

“Singular Simplicity” by Alfred Nordmann (p.ross@ieee.org, 212-419-7562) The argument for technological fabulism rests on baseless extrapolations.

“Rupturing the Nanotech Rapture” by Richard A. L. Jones (s.upson@ieee.org, 212-419-7920) Tiny robots that can fix all our bodily flaws sound lovely, but they violate the laws of physics.

“I, Rodney Brooks, Am a Robot” by Rodney Brooks (e.guizzo@ieee.org, 212-419-7581) As our machines become more like us, we will become more like them.

“Signs of the Singularity” by Vernor Vinge (h.goldstein@ieee.org, 212-419-7573) The science-fiction author who laid out his theory of the singularity 25 years ago answers the skeptics and tells you what to look for as the world slips closer to the edge.

Source: IEEE Spectrum

~~~

Sigh. Seems like a mash-up of sympathetic and contrarian views here. Accelerating Future reader Dr. Jones is taking this opportunity to rail against the notion of “tiny robots that can fix all our bodily flaws”. Fair enough, he tends to present actual arguments rather than the “you’re scaring our children!” hysteria of the late Dr. Smalley. But, he also has an axe to grind — Dr. Jones believes that discussion over MNT demoralizes those working in mainstream “nanotechnology”. Yes, he presents valid challenges to the workability of MNT, but MNT advocates (Dr. Freitas and Merkle) have responded in kind with even more engineering challenges that they themselves noticed. While both sides agree there are challenges, they disagree on whether or not these challenges are showstoppers.

The comparison between the singularity and religious rapture is an unfair smear. As Steven says,

But that image of a shared psychological flaw is itself so seductive that it has distorted people’s view of what the singularity is about into a kind of geek-bible-wielding strawman — singularitarian ideas are assumed to parallel fundamentalist Christian ideas even where they don’t, just because the comparison is apparently so much fun. “Oh, look at those silly nerds, aping the awful fundies without even knowing it!”

People who compare discussion about the possibly huge impact of emerging technologies to that of religious delusion are themselves falling victim to a seductive and oversimplified view of the reality. The press release pretends to be objective, but it’s completely not. Casually tossing off words like “singularity dogma” are just perpetuating this seductive but incorrect interpretation.

This press release insults all life extension advocates, confusing them with singularity advocates. For instance, the Methuselah Foundation, with over $10 million in funding, practices “death avoidance” — or what some might call “recognition of the horror of physical and mental deterioration prior to an unwanted death”. But the Methuselah Foundation and numerous “death avoiders” have little connection to discussions of the singularity, which focuses on the possibility of greater-than-human intelligence. Having a high IQ and living a long time are two different things. One contributer seems to be going after mind uploading.

The release says, “With a few exceptions, these are people who are not on record as either embracing or rejecting singularity dogma.” Well, Dr. Jones is against it, I would presume, and Dr. Vinge is for it, depending on what these people mean by “singularity dogma”. No one knows what “singularity dogma”, “singularity un-dogma”, or any other singularity-related word means because the term itself is useless unless carefully defined. Of course, this issue of IEET Spectrum, along with nearly every other mention of the singularity, makes it seem like there is a centralized agreement on the definition, when I’ve been pointing out for about a year now that the term “Singularity” has lost all meaning.

3 Responses »

Press release from PhysOrg:

(AP) — A Swiss pilot strapped on a jet-powered wing and leaped from a plane Wednesday for the first public demonstration of the homemade device, turning figure eights and soaring high above the Alps.

Yves Rossy’s performance in front of the world press capped five years of training and many more years of dreaming.

“This flight was absolutely excellent,” the former fighter pilot and extreme sports enthusiast said after touching down on an airfield near the eastern shore of Lake Geneva.

Rossy, 48, had stepped out of the Swiss-built Pilatus Porter aircraft at 7,500 feet and unfolded the rigid eight-foot wings strapped to his back before jumping.

Passing from free fall to a gentle glide, Rossy then triggered four jet turbines and accelerated to 186 miles per hour, about 65 miles per hour faster than the typical falling skydiver. A plane that flew at some distance beside him measured his speed.

The crowd on the mountaintop below gasped and cheered.

Rossy’s mother, who was among the spectators, told journalists she felt no fear.

“He knows what he’s doing,” Paule Rossy said of her son, who now flies commercial planes for Swiss airlines.

Steering with his body, Rossy dived, turned and soared again, performing what appeared to be effortless loops from one side of the Rhone valley to the other. At times he rose 2,600 feet before descending again.

After one last wave to the crowd the rocket man tipped his wings, flipped onto his back and leveled out again, executing a perfect 360-degree roll.

“That was to impress the girls,” he later admitted.

Rossy said after Wednesday’s five-minute flight, he is ready now for a bigger challenge: crossing the English Channel this year.

The stunt, which will be shown on live television, will test his flying machine to the limit. Rossy said he plans to practice the 22-mile trip by flying between two hot-air balloons.

“I still haven’t used the full potential,” he said.

Rossy told The Associated Press that one day he also hopes to fly through the Grand Canyon.

To do this, he will have to fit his wings with bigger, more powerful jets to allow for greater maneuverability. The German-built model aircraft engines he currently uses already provide 200 pounds of thrust, enough to allow Rossy and his 120-pound flying suit to climb through the air.

“Physically, it’s absolutely no stress,” Rossy said. “It’s like being on a motorbike.”

But on this ride, even the slightest movement can cause problems. Rossy said he has to focus hard on relaxing in the air, because “if you put tension on your body, you start to swing around.”

Should things go wrong - and Rossy says they have more times than not - there’s always a yellow handle to jettison the wings and unfold the parachute.

“I’ve had many ‘whoops’ moments,” he said. “My safety is altitude.”

Rossy wears a heat-resistant suit similar to that worn by firefighters and racing drivers, to protect him from the heat of the turbines. The cooling effect of the wind and high altitude also prevent him from getting too hot.

Rossy says his form of human flight will remain the reserve of very few for now. The price and effort involved are simply too enormous, he says.

So far Rossy and his sponsors, including the Swiss watch company Hublot, have poured more than $285,000 and countless hours of labor into building the device. He would not estimate how much his device would cost should it ever be brought to market.

But, he believes similar jet-powered wings will one day be more widely available to experienced parachutists ready for the ultimate flying experience.

That is, if they don’t mind missing out on the breathtaking panorama above the Swiss Alps.

“I am so concentrated, I don’t really enjoy the view,” Rossy said.

—

On the Web:

Yves Rossy: http://www.jet-man.com/prod/index-en.html

No Responses »

No Responses »

3 Responses »

Are there any transhumanists living in San Francisco who would be willing to open up their home for a meeting of the Bay Area Transhumanist Association? Our usual gracious host is on an extended vacation. I asked the list, but no one stepped forward. We’d prefer a house or a large flat, attendance would be in the 30-50 range. My Sunset apartment is a little small for this number.

Thank you for your support. Many interesting things are in the works with transhumanists.

Email me. (Click my image on the left sidebar for email.) We can always meet ahead of time for coffee to get acquainted.

No Responses »

Given adequate food, fuel, and gender equality, mass conflict just might disappear.

This was published by Discover magazine two days ago. By John Horgan:

Frans de Waal stands in a watchtower at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center north of Atlanta, talking about war. As three hulking male chimpanzees and a dozen females loll below him, the renowned primatologist rejects the idea that war stems from “some sort of blind aggressive drive.” Observations of lethal fighting among chimpanzees, our close genetic relatives, have persuaded many people that war has deep biological roots. But de Waal says that primates, and especially humans, are “very calculating” and will abandon aggressive strategies that no longer serve their interests. “War is evitable,” de Waal says, “if conditions are such that the costs of making war are higher than the benefits.”

War evitable? That is a minority opinion in these troubled times. For several years I’ve been probing people’s views about war. Almost everyone, regardless of profession, political persuasion, or age, gives me the same answer: War will never end. I asked 205 students at the college where I teach, “Will humans ever stop fighting wars, once and for all?” More than 90 percent said no. This pessimism seems to be on the rise; in the mid-1980s, only one in three students at Wesleyan University agreed that “wars are inevitable because human beings are naturally aggressive.”

Asked to explain their views, most fatalists offer variations on Robert McNamara’s remarks in the documentary The Fog of War. “I’m not so naive or simplistic to believe we can eliminate war,” said McNamara, who was the U.S. defense secretary during the Vietnam War. “We’re not going to change human nature any time soon.” War, in other words, is inevitable because it is innate, “in our genes,” as my students like to put it.

Continue.

Even given adequate food, fuel, etc., people might still find reasons to make war, but they’d be far decreased. I’d worry more about massively destructive individuals.

7 Responses »

The following video is from the “good ending” of Deus Ex: Invisible War, the 2003 dumbed-down sequel of the foresightful and flagrantly transhumanist 2000 title, Deus Ex, which was named Best PC Game of All Time in a 2007 poll carried out by UK gaming magazine PC Zone, among other awards. The video is a little corny, but I kept thinking about it this morning, and would feel bad if I held it back. If you have a problem with computer games or never play them, skip it.

The description of the video is as follows:

“With the destruction of the Illuminati and the Knights Templar, nothing stands in the way of the great utopia: the purest democracy, where every person in the whole world is counted by the great supercomputer Helios. With all of humanity now one, inequality and war have become obsolete.”

Yeah, the voice and tone is a little spooky. Remember, this is a fictional computer game. I’m not saying I want this to happen. This is food for thought. Don’t take it too seriously!

It’s interesting to see the YouTube comments on this video. I’m surprised at the people who have such a huge problem with an AI-run democracy. Just like humans, there will be good AIs and bad AIs. If AIs can manage billions of bits of complex information more easily than humans, and be entirely unselfish, then wouldn’t it make sense to integrate them into our governments? Only irrational prejudice would dictate otherwise.

Thanks to Steven Killeen for forwarding this to me. My response, when asked what I thought, was as follows:

“It’s alright, a crude caricature of what I’d want from Friendly AI. A lot of people might find it spooky. I’ve seen the good ending from the first Deus Ex, but this is even better. Helios is saying a little bit of pseudophilosophical stuff, I think a real AI would be even more compelling.”

10 Responses »