The Longest Word in the English Language Monday, Jun 18 2007 

The following, the name of a protein coat used by a certain strain of Tobacco Mosaic Virus, is the longest word used in the English language in a serious context, i.e., published not just for the sake of the length of the word itself:

    acetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminyl-
    phenylalanylvalylphenylalanylleucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanyl-
    aspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalylcysteinyl-
    threonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanyl-
    glutaminylthreonylglutaminylglutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonyl-
    glutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminylvalyl-
    tryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalyl-
    arginylphenylalanylprolylglycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosyl-
    arginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartylprolylleucylisoleucyl-
    threonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonyl-
    arginylasparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamyl-
    asparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolylthreonylthreonylalanylglutamyl-
    threonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartyl-
    alanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucyl-
    asparaginylleucylvalylasparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycyl-
    threonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginylthreonyl-
    phenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophyl-
    threonylserylalanylprolylalanylserine

The Wikipedia entry is here. The word contains 1185 letters. A much longer word is the full chemical name for titin, the longest known protein, weighing in at 189,819 letters. Thanks to our wonderful computer technology, this word could probably be stored on a hard drive the size of a microbe.

I look forward to a day when superintelligent agents will toss words like these back and forth in microseconds, comprehending their full significance and cross-referencing them effortlessly. I’m excited about this not merely for the sake of grandiosity or hubris, but in anticipation of the new ideas that would become accessible through engaging in discourse on the superhuman level.

It’s interesting that humans usually find long words humorous. We like to laugh off things we don’t understand very well.

Facing Power Asymmetry Monday, Jun 18 2007 

Transhumanism is about embracing the prospect of using technology to modify our bodies and minds. Even using the Internet is a weak form of transhumanism, because it takes advantage of technologically magnified communications to expose us to viewpoints and cultures which we would have never been exposed to otherwise. If it weren’t for the Internet, would you even have a clue who I am, or what I have to say? Probably not.

An inevitability associated with technological magnification of human capacities is some degree of asymmetry. Some people have Internet access and some don’t. Many hope for a day when Internet access to available to all who want it, and that day is rapidly approaching. Australia recently announced a national broadband plan, for instance, which aims to bring fast and affordable Internet access to 99% of their population in two years time. For a country as diffuse as Australia, with only 20 million people in a space the size of the contiguous United States, this will be a big accomplishment.

When the first true transhuman enhancements become available, such as implants that upgrade sight and hearing, or integrate information from the World Wide Web into augmented reality overlays, some people will have a distinct advantage. The advantage enjoyed by these augmentees may very well exceed the current advantages enjoyed by people with access to the Internet or modern medical technologies. This is an inevitable byproduct of technological advancement and morphological self-determination.

When more radical modification technologies are invented, such as implants that increase human IQ, or allow close cooperation between humans and near-human AIs, the power asymmetry will increase further. To avoid classist fragmentations in this transhuman society, egalitarian and democratic philosophies will need to be disseminated as widely as possible. The haves will need to care about the have nots. Technology can facilitate this, if used wisely. For instance, a child slavery ring was recently uncovered in China partially thanks to an online petition which 300 parents with missing children signed. Satellite surveillance has uncovered the brute reality of hard labor camps in North Korea, leading to greater international pressure on the government.

In the end, it is the most powerful entities at any given time that must care the most. If they don’t care, then an attitude of indifference spreads down to everyone. Acknowledging that the most powerful entities must be the most egalitarian to make a difference is not worshipping power for its own sake - only accepting the pragmatic reality that only a privileged few truly can manipulate the levers that change the world on a wide scale.

This insight is particularly important with regards to future advances which topple human beings from our historical role as the most powerful and intelligent species on Earth. Instead of ignoring the inevitability that transhumans will eventually be in de facto control, or letting the chips fall where they may, we can take an active role in the pre-transhuman era to increase the probability that these new beings will be connected to unaugmented humans empathically. Friendly AI is an important initiative in this direction, probably the most important, due to the speed at which AI technology will be able to improve once it passes the human equivalence threshold.

Foresight Nanotech Institute Prizes Thursday, Jun 14 2007 

The Foresight Nanotech Institute is considering nominations for four nanotech-related prizes, as it does every year. The awards are for the Foresight Institute Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology (one for theoretical and one for experimental work), Foresight Institute Prize in Communication, and the Foresight Institute Distinguished Student Award. The first two awards are $10,000 each and the second are $1,000 each. Bragging rights are included in the award free of charge.

I have nominated Chris Phoenix of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology for the Foresight Institute Prize in Communication. In my opinion, Phoenix deserves the prize hands down. A quote:

    “Molecular manufacturing will be extremely powerful, but very few people know what that really means. We must understand its projected impact on politics, economics, law, sociology, and the environment.” – Chris Phoenix

In the last three years, Phoenix has made over a dozen presentations on molecular nanotechnology internationally. His thoughtful feature essays on nanotechnology have been published on the CRN website on a monthly basis. He helped organize and conduct CRN’s virtual scenario workshop. He frequently blogs alongside his co-worker Mike Treder (who would also be a worthy recipient of the prize, but I’ve decided to nominate only one individual) at the CRN daily blog. CRN is doing a tremendous amount to educate the public about molecular nanotechnology and molecular manufacturing. Someone from CRN definitely deserves the Communications Prize, and Phoenix is the one.

A Feynman Grand Prize of $250,000 is also available, as always. Entrants must meet the following criteria:

    design, construct, and demonstrate the performance of a robotic arm that initially fits into a cube no larger than 100 nanometers in any dimension, meeting certain performance specifications including means of input. The intent of this prize requirement is a device demonstrating the controlled motions needed to manipulate and assemble individual atoms or molecules into larger structures, with atomic precision; and
    design, construct, and demonstrate the performance of a computing device that fits into a cube no larger than 50 nanometers in any dimension. It must be capable of correctly adding any pair of 8-bit binary numbers, discarding overflow. The device must meet specified input and output requirements.

It could be another 5-15 years before someone claims this prize, but when they do, the world will enter a new era. This new era could be very short and unpleasant if we don’t responsibly regulate the technology and maintain geopolitical stability.

Thanks to Nanodot for the tip.

James Miller’s Cryonics Agreement Tuesday, Jun 12 2007 

James D. Miller, an Accelerating Future reader and associate professor of economics at Smith College, just came up with a really interesting hypothetical economic agreement about cryonics, reproduced here for your convenience:

“Some people are planning to have their head frozen just after they die. These believers in cryonics think that freezing the head preserves brain patterns. They also believe that there is a reasonably high chance that someday humanity will have the technology to restore life to those who have undergone cryonic head freezing.

If the price of cryonics becomes low enough then a cryonics believer and unbeliever should try to come to the following three part agreement:

(1) The believer will immediately pay the unbeliever some amount of money.

(2) The believer will pay for the unbeliever to undergo cryonic freezing shortly after death.

(3) If the unbeliever is ever brought back to life he will owe a huge debt to the believer. It is hard to know what will be valued in the far future. But if brought back to life the unbeliever promises to try his best to spend at least 50% of his time and resources improving the life of the believer.

This agreement will always make the unbeliever better off, and given his beliefs it may well improve the expected future welfare of the cryonics believer.”

In an unrelated item, I’ve joined the SIAI blog team and made my first post here.

AI-Related Poll at IEET Sunday, Jun 10 2007 

There is an AI-related poll at the site for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, the transhumanist think tank manned by our friends George Dvorsky, Anne Corwin, James Hughes et al. The question is:

Is building a “friendly” super-AI a way to protect against a hostile super-AI?

The choices:

1. Yes, nothing else could stop it
2. Maybe, but super-AIs are unlikely
3. Guaranteed friendly AI is impossible
4. Let’s prevent super-AIs of any type

Go vote yourself.

Update: Here are the final poll results.

It looks like we broke it. After the link to this poll was posted on this site, the number of votes for #1 skyrocketed from about 15 to 95. #3 also grew from about 10 to 44. Since nothing in reality is guaranteed, #3 is true… and since permanent nano-dictatorship enforcing technological stasis could also stop unFriendly AI, #1 is not quite true… but I admit I did vote #1 anyway. The linkage issue necessitated a special message from IEET Executive Director James Hughes:

“After IEET contributor Michael Anissimov put a shout-out to the Singularitarians to answer our poll, we got a vigorous response, most of whom endorsed the SIAI idea that only a super-powerful AI programmed with core friendliness towards humanity can keep us safe from hostile and indifferent super-powerful AIs, which might decide that we were a nuisance, or not even recognize that we exist.”

Since this blog is not exclusively read by Singularitarians, this is obviously untrue, but I think I brought this language upon myself by using the offensive “transhumanism lite” term, which was a definite mistake.

Anyway, all that matters in the end is that #1 won. Right, folks? ;)

For more on this mysterious Singularitarian group, see the Wikipedia entry or the classic document by our fearless leader.

By the way, it’s Singularitarian, not Singularian, or Singulatarian, or whatever other terrible misspelling is prone to lamentably occurring.

Intelligence Augmentation vs. Artificial Intelligence Friday, Jun 8 2007 

To some, it seems “obvious” that significant human intelligence augmentation will come before human-level AI. To others, it’s the reverse that’s obvious. I don’t think either is obvious, but I believe there’s a strong likelihood AI will come first.

In the IA camp, one of the arguments goes, [Brain+Computer] will always be more intelligent than [Computer] alone. But this is untrue, as the I/O channels between brain and computer make all the difference, and with today’s technology, these channels are quite limited. Even if we had million-electrode brain-computer interfaces, it would be a cybernetics problem to ask which outputs to plug into which inputs, and what changes might need to be made to the central executive to handle the new cognitive architecture without information overload or psychosis. Reprogramming the executive center of the human brain would require advanced neurosurgery and extensive knowledge of the brain, knowledge that could take decades of research and advanced experimental techniques to uncover.

Other cons for IA, in my view:

  • Experimentation on the human brain is likely to be made illegal globally
  • The design-and-test cycle is on the order of weeks or months
  • Lack of human volunteers willing to die for the cause of IA research
  • Someone left out the line notes for the brain’s code
  • Experimenting on the deep brain is difficult because neocortex is in the way
  • All that medical hardware is really expensive
  • The human brain was not designed to be upgraded
  • Gene therapies not likely to give enough improvement for takeoff speed

A remark on that last one… the issue of takeoff speed. It’s not enough to create an Einstein with IA. You have to create an Einstein that can go immediately to work on new intelligence augmentation techniques, and actually come up with something of use in a reasonable amount of time, before AI is developed. It seems more likely to me that an intelligence-enhanced human would just go into the business of creating AI. Smarter-than-human intelligence cannot just be a really smart human being - it has to be something qualitatively off the scale. Manipulating the genes associated with genius, as James Miller suggested, would likely produce “only” human geniuses at first. You’d need to go an extra level of theory and genetic engineering to get something genuinely smarter-than-human in a human-like package. I’m not saying it couldn’t be done, but that the whole process could drag on for a number of years.

Benefits of IA:

  • Evolution has already done a lot of work for us
  • Some might think a human seed is more predictable
  • Sparks human-centric patriotism in ways AI doesn’t

On to the cons of AI:

  • Present-day computers might not be fast enough to implement AI
  • You have to build everything from scratch yourself
  • Everyone is working on narrow AI, but AGI is unpopular
  • Requires strong theory of general intelligence, difficulty unknown
  • Stigma of excessive past claims

And the benefits of AI:

  • Design-and-test cycle can be very rapid
  • All aspects of the AI are read/write friendly
  • Line notes are included with the code
  • Cognitive features can be optimized for self-improvement
  • Computational power can be expanded as funds allow
  • Virtual worlds are available as a flexible training zone
  • Hardware can be used to “overclock” beneficial functions
  • Probabilistically realistic, flexible learning can be implemented
  • Nascent AIs can share information with each other rapidly
  • Much larger regions of the mind configuration space can be tested
  • AIs can be copied indefinitely, allowing to commercial spin-offs
  • Substantial advances in AI, but not IA, have already been achieved
  • The hardware itself is inherently cheaper
  • Little to no legal concerns

Comment away. Whether or not IA or AI reaches smarter-than-human intelligence first is pretty important, as the step into this new domain could spark a runaway self-improvement process, something I.J. Good called an “intelligence explosion”. This is normally what we think of when we hear the word superintelligence.

“The Rapids of Progress”, by Mitchell Howe Wednesday, Jun 6 2007 

From our earliest days as an intelligent species, it has always been more difficult to create than to destroy. From fire to fission, forces of great constructive potential have invariably been used as weapons against innocent people with tragic results. The cumulative losses to individuals, nations - and indeed, the whole human family - can never be fully understood.

Despite a pervasive - and in many ways false - sense of security that came with the end of the Cold War, we are far from being past the threat of technologically facilitated global ruin. The rise of trans-national terrorism may not on the surface seem nearly as dangerous as a full-scale atomic conflict. But the bold acts of hatred performed by those who place no value on their own lives remind us daily of the fact that, among billions, there will always be a few who would destroy civilization itself if they had the capacity to do so.

The day is approaching when this awful power will be all too abundant. Technological progress, that relentless engine that has refined our tools of creation and destruction, is not slowing down. It is accelerating. Technologies that seemed like fantasy a few years ago are now discussed as old news and common knowledge. Scientists recently built a lethal polio virus from scratch by assembling a custom strand of DNA. Nanotechnology - the engineering of materials and machines at the molecular level - is already churning out fibers and coatings incorporated into commercial products, and concept components for devices smaller than human cells are created daily.

Times of tremendous potential are upon us. Where we had only decades ago acquired the ability to observe the most fundamental processes of nature, we are now becoming masters of them. The most intractable diseases and disabilities cannot long stand against the perfect scrutiny and manipulation of genetic engineers. The endless drought of economic scarcity that lingers in so much of the world has no chance of resisting the impending flood of material prosperity unleashed by self-reproducing nanofactories that produce goods of unprecedented quality at negligible cost.

But this flood of prosperity cannot help but flow with a dangerous swiftness equal to the technological progress which propels it. Even ignoring the usual sources of murderous discontent, this radical shift in the quantity and quality of life will probably be sufficient to cause dangerous political upheaval. And, as has always happened with knowledge, the arts of genetic engineering and nanotechnology will inevitably see perversions into killing applications. But this time the danger will be far greater than the threat of nuclear catastrophe - an event entirely survivable by many who might nevertheless wish they hadn’t. A custom-designed plague might be virulent enough to kill everyone, and a swarm of self-replicating nanomachines could swallow the biosphere whole.

Calls to relinquish technologies that could lead to such ends are unrealistic, as these are inextricably linked to positive applications - which greatly outnumber the negative ones. And any attempt to suppress technological progress through means of legislation and enforcement will only mean that when these technologies do inevitably mature, they will be in the hands of those who operate outside the law. Government bodies and committees certainly deserve respect for their ability to mediate disputes and create safety guidelines, but these have never proven capable of ensuring that a given technology is never once used for destructive purposes. And with advanced genetic engineering and nanotechnology, one single misuse may be all it takes to write the epitaph for the human race. We simply cannot rely on traditional organizations and regulations to guide us safely through these turbulent rapids of progress. The current is too swift and the hazards too numerous. And we know from history that somewhere, somehow, there is always a mistake. A human mistake.

Human mistakes are inevitable for the obvious reason that we are in possession of mere human intelligence. We also carry in our genes a myriad of irrational tendencies that do not serve us well, having been so far removed from the ancestral environments where they were useful. We often cherish our primitive instincts and delight in our child-like awe at mysteries “beyond human comprehension,” but these are fertile ground for the kinds of critical failures that could send civilization crashing into the lodestones of oblivion. Our need, then, is for faculties beyond human reasoning, and for minds free of evolutionary liabilities. Whether collectively or in the minds of a select few, we need greater-than-human intelligence to skillfully shoot the rapids of progress and chart the seas of universal prosperity.

Fortunately, the means to achieve greater-than-human intelligence (a milestone called the Singularity by many futurists) are found within the very currents of technology pushing us to this critical juncture. Genetic engineering is one possible answer, but given the relatively long time it takes for a human baby to mature into an adult, this approach would probably not be timely enough even if there were no ethical questions to consider. Augmenting human intelligence by connecting brains directly to powerful computers is another option, but this may not do anything to reduce the likelihood of rash, biological mistakes being made, and may actually amplify their damage. At present, the only conceivable way to promptly give rise to greater-than-human intelligence free of the most significant human failings is through the creation of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). (The “General” is sometimes added by researchers to distinguish it from the narrowly specialized programs that are often claimed, for marketing reasons, to possess Artificial Intelligence (AI).) Computer technology has matured to the point where most AI researchers feel that an AGI could exist on today’s equipment, given the right design.

But of course the “right” design has not yet been developed, and will not be without determined effort. Any sufficiently intelligent AGI will be able to assist in the design of its own successors, making subsequent leaps in intelligence easier. But the initial design must do more than “merely” think in ways that match or exceed human capability. It must empathize with and care about the problems of its human comrades - a trait called “Friendliness” by some researchers. An AGI lacking this compassion would be as dangerous as any other technological nightmare. And since computer technology is so rapidly increasing in power and decreasing in cost, a time will come when rogue nations or sociopaths could create an unsafe AI - with consequences as potentially catastrophic as the misuse of nanotechnology or genetic engineering. Unless, that is, we already have greater intelligence on our side helping to discover ways to prevent such disasters.

The fate of humanity thus hinges on this question: When will we create greater-than-human intelligence that cares about our problems? There is every reason to act now. Without greater intelligence we are doomed to make human mistakes regarding forces so powerful that there may be no second chances. But, with the assistance of Friendly AI, we will have an extraordinary new capacity to not only safeguard our continued existence, but to meet every other challenge we currently face - or may face.

There is no greater or more responsible use for discretionary resources today than the advancement of this effort. Whether it be a few pennies, a few million dollars, or years of volunteer service, investments in Friendly AI will go further to improve the human condition than donations to any other charity or research project. After all, there are few causes that would not benefit from an infusion of Friendly superintelligence. But, more importantly, if we do not safely navigate the rapids of progress we will not be around to worry about disease, poverty or global warming. This is one swift ride that we are all along for, whether we like it or not, and it is up to each of us to help make sure the human family can survive the journey and come out on top.

(Read the latest short, Singularity-relevant story by Mitch at SIAI’s new blog.)

« Previous PageNext Page »