Accelerating Future

Art by Anders Sandberg.

No Responses »

Via Pink Tentacle:

It won’t fill you up, but it is a feast for the eyes (if you look through a microscope). This so-called “world’s smallest bowl of ramen” — a 1-micron (1/1000-mm, or 1/100th the width of a human hair) wide bowl containing dozens of 20-nanometer (1/50,000-mm) thick noodles — was created by University of Tokyo professor Masayuki Nakao as part of an effort to develop new carbon nanotube-based microcircuit fabrication technology. Nakao used a metal particle beam to carve the bowl from silicon, and he mixed up a soup of ethanol and catalyst inside the bowl to form the carbon nanotube “noodles.” According to Nakao, it was a major challenge to keep it from overflowing. No word yet on how the tiny meal tastes.

[Source: Yomiuri]

I tend to view most things like this as basically stunts.

2 Responses »

The branding of catastrophic risk as a globe on fire makes me snicker a bit.

One Response »

For the reasoning behind this, read “How to Disagree”.

11 Responses »

Dr. Max More, a futurist philosopher and father of contemporary transhumanism, has been getting a little more active online lately, after a long hiatus.

Extropia Core reports that Dr. More willing be giving a talk in Secondlife the Sunday after next, titled “Unsolved Problems in Transhumanism”.

Here is the blurb:

Max More is back. In his first public Second Life appearance, the founder of contemporary transhumanism will discuss unsolved problems within the movement:

- Communication Strategy: How can we communicate ideas most effectively and rationally, overcoming the typical tension between the two? How does this relate to constrained and unconstrained visions of transhumanism (in Thomas Sowell’s terms)?

- Visionary Horizon: How far should we focus on offering solutions to current problems vs. envisioning longer-term solutions and visions?

- Visionary vs. Practical: To what extent should transhumanists try to be a movement that is organized, integrated, and directed? Should the movement or transhumanist activity concern itself primarily with ideas or practice or both, and should it include a major component that is a practical guide to self-transformation?

- Bridging the Knowing-doing Gap: Both as movement and as individuals, how can be do better to practice what we espouse?

- Organizing: How can we better organize and converse, using the best available knowledge to do so?

- Historical Accuracy and Continuing Honesty: Establishing and maintaining an accurate history of transhumanism; combating Orwellian rewriting of the past.

As always, Dr. More welcomes feedback on his thinking.

The last question may have to do with attempts to brush his early contributions to H+ under the carpet and giving undue attention to pre-transhumanist historical figures, like JBS Haldane, who had proto-transhumanist ideas but did little to get contemporary transhumanism started. We’ll see.

I was introduced to online transhumanism through Dr. More’s Extropian Principles, which I read in 2001. I had read The Age of Spiritual Machines just prior to that, and my thoughts in the area were strongly coalescing. (Another important influence around this time was Yudkowsky’s “What is Friendly AI?”)

What else is there? Well, I dropped by Dr. More’s homepage and noticed that it just got the first update in years, which references that he has joined Facebook, Second Life, and World of Warcraft. Also, he has started a blog.

I’ve been fortunate enough to hang out with Dr. More a couple times in the last year at transhumanist events. Given what transhumanism has become, it’s fascinating to talk to the man that started it all during the 1980s.

“We have achieved two of the three alchemists’ dreams: We have transmuted the elements and learned to fly. Immortality is next.” — Max More, On becoming posthuman

“No more gods, no more faith, no more timid holding back. Let us blast out of our old forms, our ignorance, our weakness, and our mortality. The future belongs to posthumanity.” — Max More, On becoming posthuman

(Also read Dr. More’s Letter to Mother Nature.)

3 Responses »

Evolution crafts organisms with specific goals. Always, they revolve around a variable called inclusive fitness. Subgoals of inclusive fitness include ability to survive, obtain food, mate, and (sometimes) protect offspring and engage in evolution-mediated reciprocal altruism. In humans, the subgoals blossom into a peacock-tail-like phantasmagoria of music, art, ornamentation, intellectual pursuits, yadda yadda. Still, these are all spinoffs of inclusive fitness.

Inclusive fitness according to Earthly life is a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny subset of all information-theoretically possible goal systems. The Hamming distance between Earthly life’s goals and goals of biota on another planet may be huge. This phenomenon magnifies itself when you have intelligence that can formulate its own goals and rearrange its evolutionary goals into arbitrary permutations.

Heard of the concept of a limit? When a certain goalset is implemented at the limit, totalistic things happen. For instance, if you were to implement a rabbit genome’s goalset to the limit, most of the terrestrial biomass on planet Earth would be converted into copies of rabbits. Ditto with practically every other animal. Animals are basically just robots manipulated by long DNA molecules, anyway.

When we can produce arbitrary goalsets and back them up with optimization pressure equivalent or exceeding that exerted by Homo sapiens, it’s usually called “bad”. Yet within the next century, we’ll likely create one that we consider “harmless”.

7 Responses »

Towards Commercialization

It’s been a while. We’ve been busy. A good kind of busy.

At the end of March we completed an important milestone: a demo system consolidating our prior 10 months’ work. This was followed by my annual pilgrimage to our investors in Australia. The upshot of all this is that we now have some additional seed funding to launch our commercialization phase late this year.

On the technical side we still have a lot of hard work ahead of us. Fortunately we have a very strong and highly motivated team, so that over the next 6 months we expect to make as much additional progress as we have over the past 12. Our next technical milestone is around early October by which time we’ll want our ‘proto AGI’ to be pretty much ready to start earning a living.

By the end of 2008 we should be ready to actively pursue commercialization in addition to our ongoing R&D efforts. At that time we’ll be looking for a high-powered CEO to head up our business division which we expect to grow to many hundreds of employees over a few years.

Early in 2009 we plan to raise capital for this commercial venture, and if things go according to plan we’ll have a team of around 50 by the middle of the year.

Well, exciting future plans, but now back to work.

Peter

Well then. A2I2 currently has 16 full-time employees and a significant amount of funding. But an expansion has been in the works for a while. I wonder what their AGI engine will be commercialized for?

And as I often ask, “are we there yet?”

13 Responses »

One of the more mesmerizing things I’ve seen in the last week.

Via MCS.

Gif version via Rüdiger Koch:

11 Responses »

Robin Hanson is one of those people you just have to follow, or you aren’t cool.

Check out his Memorial Day podcast with Econtalk on the topic of signaling.

Signaling is one of those amazing concepts, that, when you start to get it, you see everywhere, and witness how it directs huge quadrants of human behavior. As Marshall McLuhan said, the medium is the message. That was him trying to say that signaling matters a shitload.

We automatically signal all the time without even knowing it. Below the threshold of active consciousness our subconscious is making calculations about our signaling all the time. In our active consciousness too, of course. Some people are consumed by the whole thing 24 hours a day. It’s human nature.

Back to Hanson, here’s his tenure statement (pdf). Yes, the man is clearly a genius, but as I like to say, “how genius?” It’s difficult to say, because all human “geniuses” are a lot dumber than what I can vaguely imagine as being just to the right of the Gaussian, but Hanson is definitely in the top five in the transhumanist-oriented community. I wish he would think more directly on how to deal with extinction risk.

Do you see the irony of me signaling how smart I am by listening to Hanson’s podcast? Do you see it!?

4 Responses »

The World Transhumanist Association (WTA), that organization I am so excited about, has now exceeded 5000 members. This is a pretty good number, but it still qualifies as a “small movement”. Yet, in proportion to its size, transhumanism produces a lot of accomplishments and gathers plenty of attention.

Coincidentally, the WTA also turns 10 this year. So our recruitment rate has averaged about 1.3 per day, or 500 per year. This is not terrible but by no means excellent. I think I will give it a C+.

What is the WTA? Well, now it would be appropriate for me to step aside for two seconds and present the WTA’s about page:

What is the WTA?

The World Transhumanist Association is an international nonprofit membership organization which advocates the ethical use of technology to expand human capacities. We support the development of and access to new technologies that enable everyone to enjoy better minds, better bodies and better lives. In other words, we want people to be better than well.

Where Did the WTA Come From?

The WTA was founded in 1998 by the philosophers Nick Bostrom Ph.D and David Pearce. Its first task was organizing an international group of transhumanists to write the Transhumanist Declaration, published in 1998, and the Transhumanist Frequently Asked Questions, published in 1999. In 2002 the WTA incorporated as a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization headquartered in Connecticut in the United States.

Who Belongs to the WTA?

Approximately 5004 people belong to the WTA from more than 100 countries, from Afghanistan to Brazil to Egypt to The Philippines. Supporting and sustaining members elect the Board, and participate in WTA leadership and decision-making. WTA members also participate in more than two dozen chapters around the world, and in a dozen affiliated organizations.

What does the WTA Do?

The WTA has three core programs of activity:

* The Rights of the Person
* Longer, Better Lives
* Future Friendly Culture

How Can I Participate?

First, join the WTA. You may also enroll in one of our discussion lists and join one of our local WTA chapters, which can be found in countries and languages all over the world. Also we can really use your financial support.

The WTA is basically a group of forward-looking people that agree that the foremost issue of the century will be the way in which mankind deals with accelerating developments in nanotech, biotech, robotics/AI, and other areas. We support the right of humans to change our bodies and minds using technology, while simultaneously encouraging social responsibility and empathy.

I’ve been a member of the WTA since 2001. I’ve been very pleased with the connections I’ve made through the organization and the thoughts it has inspired. I will continue to be a member for quite a long time, perhaps until the organization is no longer necessary.

Transhumanism is the next evolutionary step of humanism. Traditional humanists tend to obsess a little overmuch with deriding religion (when that only makes theists angrier), while transhumanists take a more pro-active stance in developing emerging technologies and guiding them to beneficial ends. Transhumanists own multimillion-dollar companies in medical technology, Internet services, speech recognition technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and occupy top posts in universities and labs worldwide. Earlier this year, transhumanist and Accelerating Future reader, Dan Stoicescu, became the second person in the world to buy the full sequence of his own genetic code.

In the last year especially, positive media coverage of transhumanism and transhumanist goals (like radical life extension) has been fairly constant, with a positive article popping up every month at least. Nowadays, I can’t even safely surf an entirely mainstream site, like CNN.com or Times Online, without finding an article coming out in favor of human enhancement or deriding its critics. The latest, from the Times, from just over a week ago, was “Who’s Afraid of a Synthetic Human?” A couple days before that, the Sarcos robotic exoskeleton was hitting the news. People are starting to get clued in to the fact that, hey, if we can use technology to radically modify our surroundings, we can use it to modify ourselves as well. And the impact will be revolutionary, exceeding in importance many of our petty tribal squabbles.

Us transhumanists are positioned directly at the convergence point, where technologies come together to create devices for human enhancement. We are the early adopters, the people the world will be watching to see if these new technologies are a good or a bad thing. That’s a lot of responsibility, but a lot of excitement and opportunity at the same time. When enhancement technologies hit the market in a big way, it will be transhumanists that start the companies, and collect on the profits. Therefore, we have to foster a mentality of social responsibility and philanthropy so these advancements benefit all of humanity rather than an elite few. This is not about money. It’s about mankind’s technologically-facilitated evolution past the boundaries of the last 200,000 years of our species.

The World Transhumanist Association is where we gather to discuss these emerging technologies, and how we can play a direct part in their development. We need to expand outwards, recruiting people of more diverse cultures and views, so that the upcoming wave of enhancement technologies meets the needs of human beings everywhere, not just geeky types in the United States and Europe. We need to get more women involved, integrating feminine perspectives into developments emerging from the hard sciences. Currently, many perspectives towards enhancement technologies are reactive rather than proactive, and that has to change.

So, consider joining us. There’s a lot of work to do, and a lot of opportunities ahead — but also dangers. Transhumanism is not techno-utopianism. In fact, we are more acutely aware of the dangers of emerging technologies than almost any other group. Help us step into the future intelligently and responsibly.

6 Responses »

The Executive Director of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, Mike Treder, is doing a world tour of sorts this summer, talking to audiences everywhere about the importance of studying and preparing for advanced nanotechnology. Here’s the info, as reported on CRN’s blog:

June 17-19: International Conference on Nanotechnology, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

* Next month, I’ll make a presentation on “Responsible Nanotechnology” in Saudi Arabia as part of ICON008. This is the first International Conference on Nanotechnology (ICON) to be hosted by the Center of Nanotechnology at King Abdulaziz University. Their stated aim is “to provide a platform for eminent researchers from both academia and industry as well as graduate students to exchange their ideas and concepts about the latest developments” in nanotechnology.

June 25: Workshop on Emerging Issues, Washington, DC

* I’m giving a talk in Washington at a workshop in connection with the Issue Management Council’s 20th Annual Conference. This special one-day event “will feature a blue-ribbon collection of leading issue advocates. As change agents in their respective fields, these individuals and the organizations they represent are actively turning up the volume on issues that demand and deserve corporate attention.”

July 17-20: Conference on Global Catastrophic Risks, Oxford, UK

* This event, organized by the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, is built around a new book composed of essays on the full range of global catastrophic risks. Chris Phoenix and I co-authored a chapter on advanced nanotechnology for the book, and we will make a joint presentation at the conference on the subject of “Small Machines, Big Choices: The Looming Impacts of Molecular Manufacturing.”

July 26-28: WorldFuture 2008, Washington DC

* The annual conference of the World Future Society, where I have made presentations twice before, in 2005 and 2007. My talk this year, scheduled for 11:00 am to 12:00 pm on Sunday, July 27, will be on “Radical Technologies, Rapid Change, and the Real World.” You can download the preliminary conference program here [PDF].

September 3-5: Basque Country Program on Globalization, San Sebastian, Spain

* This is an annual event sponsored by the Basque Savings Bank Federation. In previous years they have covered the digital revolution, sustainable development, demographic evolution, climate change, and other issues. For this year’s conference, I’ve been asked to give a lecture “broadly focused on globalization and nanotechnology.”

Saudi Arabia in summer… stay hydrated, Mike! ;)

Perhaps the increased awareness from these talks could lead to more funding for projects like Freitas and Merkle’s Nanofactory Collaboration.

No Responses »

From PhysOrg:

Researchers in Taiwan report development of a new type of “molecular brake” that could provide on-demand stopping power for futuristic nanomachines. The brake, thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair, is powered by light and is the first capable of working at room temperature, the researchers say. Their study is scheduled for the June 5 issue of ACS’ Organic Letters.

In the new study, Jye-Shane Yang and colleagues point out that the ability to control specific motions of small molecules or larger molecular structures is essential for the development of nanomachines. Some of these machines may find use in delivering drugs or performing surgery deep inside the human body.

Although scientists have already built molecular motors, wheels, and gears for powering nanomachines, the development of a practical braking system remains a challenge, the researchers say.

Yang’s group assembled a prototype molecular brake that resembles a tiny four-bladed wheel and contains light-sensitive molecules. The paddle-like structure spins freely when a nanomachine is in motion.

In laboratory studies, the scientists showed that exposing the structure to light changes its shape so that “blades” stop spinning, putting on the brakes. The braking power can be turned off by altering the wavelength of light exposure, they add.

Source: American Chemical Society

Since late last year, and especially earlier this year, it’s become typical to cast certain present-day advances in nanotechnology as building blocks for the development of advanced molecular machines for nanofabrication.

More scientists are starting to warm up to the possibility of molecular manufacturing. Does that mean that MM is imminently inevitable, like individuals such as Ray Kurzweil and organizations such as the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology seem to be arguing? Actually, no. There could be unforeseen barriers that push it back decades. I think that a lot of the analysis of Kurzweil/CRN is based on the idea that at some point in the near future, the powers that be will “realize” the power of MM and invest billions of dollars in it. If studies in the millions of dollars range fail to provide serious results, then the “domino effect” of successful studies and designs will not get going, and MM will not materialize.

However, if the domino effect does get going (assign whatever probability to it that you like), then we could have an almost entirely automated economy when it concludes. MM, if it’s feasible at all, would trigger an Industrial Revolution more extreme than all past industrial progress combined, shoved into the space of less than a decade. It would give us construction materials 100 times stronger, motors and generators over a million times smaller and 10 times more efficient. Any “in between” isn’t really feasible — either we gain the ability to construct human-sized products atom by atom using molecular machinery, or we don’t. If we don’t, then we might use some sort of micromachine-based “fab lab” for decentralized, customized fabrication two decades from now, which would provide superior products to today’s, but nothing like the “magical” improvement gains offered by molecular manufacturing. If we do, then the entire economic, social and political landscape could be disrupted like porcelain figurines in a paint mixer.

5 Responses »