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!â€
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 phrases 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.
“Long experience has taught me this about the status of mankind with regard
to matters requiring thought: the less people know and understand about them,
the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them, while on the other
hand to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in
passing judgment upon anything new.”
- “The Assayer” by Galileo
I wouldn’t take the Rapture/Singularity analogy too seriously. It’s just a ploy to get some interested Amazon browser to purchase a book via a “wow” factor. The drawback though is that it does pretty much smear the term Singularity. I guess Singulitarians should wait until the day they ascend into heaven and their clothes is left behind…oh the humanity.
I’ve been arguing along somewhat similar lines.
I look forward to reading the full articles.
Although debating or arguing about the set of Singularity predictions is mostly not productive.
If some of the predictions could be true then how would it be useful for decisions that people make today ?
Discussions about the Drexler vision of a nanobot design. How useful now ? Those working on computers in the 1940s-60s could have debated the Babbage rod logic computer design and its performance and feasibility Or they could make computers out of tubes and transistors.
Talks about cellular repair and what aspects of it would be the most useful would be good. I think keeping mitochondria robust and the other 6 SENS goals.
But talks about how hypothetical nanobots would have problems with cellular repair is of limited use. The limited use is if the whole goal of cellular repair is flawed and fixes could be identified or not.
I think that if one approach cannot be made to work or is extremely difficult, then if the goal is worthwhile then other approaches should be considered.
Like Brian, I, too, look forward to reading this set of articles. Robin (Hanson), superb polymathic intellect though he is, would seem to think that robots either cybernating or obviating (the need for) human labor (and thus, at least for the most part, labor markets) is a bad thing—or at least a problematic thing. Admittedly, it’s historically unprecedented. But that’s precisely why I think we should seriously consider the institutional(-change) proposals of Kelso and the Kelsonians (Robert Ashford, Norman Kurland, Rod Shakespeare) and James Albus. Simply because robots obviate the need for human labor in the production process doesn’t entail that the sky is going to fall. (This is not, again, and btw, to imply my whole-hog agreement with or advocacy of specific Kelsonian/Albusian proposals; but, rather, merely to say that these theorists have examined the implication of thorough-going sophisticated robotics and have proposed institutional accomodations—we should at least subject them to respectful scrutiny [e.g., Public Choice/Institutional Economic analysis...])
And cell repair, as best my non-specialized (and thus non-expert) mind can discern from the evidence and discussion so far, would certainly seem *in-principle* possible, though there may very well be some engineering “finesse” required to pull it off. I thus look forward to reading what Richard Jones has to say; but it would’ve been much better had there been included replies from Merkle and/or Freitas.
At any rate the articles look reasonably interesting (based on this “teaser”), and I look forward to reading this particular issue. Thanks, as always, Michael, for bringing this to the attention of your audience. ;)
I’m certainly looking forward to reading the other articles – Christof Koch in particular should be well worth looking out for, as there are probably few people who know as much as him about the biophysical details of biological computation.
I won’t say anything about my own article, as people will be able to read it soon enough. But I will say that Michael mistakes my primary motivation. I don’t make these arguments primarily because i think “discussion over MNT demoralizes those working in mainstream “nanotechnologyâ€. I make them because I think they’re right.
Since I’ve written extensively about nanotechnology and MNT, Freitas and Merkle have had plenty of opportunity to reply already, and indeed, as Michael notes, they have duly taken note of my arguments. For this issue, what I do know is that all the manuscripts were seen by Vernor Vinge before he wrote his piece, so he gets to have the last word.
I thought the current scientific paradigm invited peer review? An exchange of pro v con?
If Tranhsumanists are going to avoid outside review, and adopt a “You’re with us or you’re against us” mentality, they have little to complain about when others accuse them of being, “insular” or “extreme.”
e.g. Put the sophistry away – appeals to emotion, to authority, to popularity, to ad homs, etc. – (…and stick to the facts.)
Not only do both ‘sides’ not indulge in the former, they both appear to enjoy the malicious forms of the latter. …with each side calling “FOUL!,” of course.
I seem to be hearing a lot of “straw man” claims these days. so much so, that it’s getting conspicuous – and suspicious.
What it sounds like is that so many more people have the wrong idea about what the singularity is than the right one (yours, of course).
At what point do you concede to the popular conception? When do you give up on the label and membership politics, and start digging into the actually important things: specifics of technical, or socio-political issues?
Though I agree with many “actual” transhumanist or singularitarian claims or positions (as opposed the the straw men, as you put it), that’s why I think of myself as “post-transhumanist”. Others may have differing thresholds.
I just don’t want to be instantly misunderstood – even if it means I have to spend more time explaining myself (in fact, especially then!).
From the April IEEE Spectrum, an article on recent Brain-computer interface work
2007 work for integrating an artificial 12000 neuron memory device with the human brain
Clearly those who predict that artificial brains will never reach humans levels feel that progress on hardware brain simulation or software brain simulation will reach limits or will not be integrated with more advanced brain/computer interfaces
Millions of neurons now and billions projected for several funded and active projects by around 2015
Will exaflop computers not be achieved ?
The Zettaflop design work won’t pan out ?
10,000 neurons and 30 million synapses using a 22.8 teraflop supercomputer now. (45 times more power in a petaflop machine; 45,000 times for an exaflop, 45 million times for a zettaflop).
The researchers believe that the hardware for full brain simulation will be available in 2017.
A whole human brain has 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses.
So what are the hardware, bandwidth or interface issues ?
===
I can also put together the current state of nanomedicine. With the ability of nanoscale devices to be targetted in the body at tumors or for delivery of gene therapy or delivery of sensors or imaging agents or drugs.
There is scientific/medical journal discussion on invivo rejuvenation of cells
There has been the analysis of the process to turn existing cells into rejuvenated cells. (A sequence of gene manipulations.)
So it appears that nanomedicine does not need to manipulate every molecule in the body. It merely has to extend and enhance existing alterations of processes in the body.
Which goes to the strategy of surveying what is working best now and enhancing and extending those methods instead of finding far more difficult plans and showing how those would have problems with physical limits.
Someone can show – look how little we understand about gravity and how hard or impossible anti-gravity is. OR someone can look at more efficient flight and space launch systems or look at enhancing magnetism for a ground based launch against the earth’s magnetic field. There are many different options and strategies for any goal. Determine if the goals are worthwhile and find the best approaches for getting to worthwhile goals.
==
Flying cars – technically achievable. But 1.2 million deaths from regular ground based cars. Are flying cars a worthwhile goal ?
A technologically and economically practical flying car. but safety ? Insurance ?
I have written an article about the current state of various technology that are being mocked by some
Baseless technology extrapolation ?
Take brain computer interfaces which are funded and commercially sold. (12000 neuron memory devices)
And larger neuron simulations via hardware or software. 10,000 to millions of neurons with 22 teraflops or less.
Extrapolate exaflop/zettaflop computers. Baseless Moore’s law or actually thinking that announced exaflop projects will be implemented.
Those things cannot possibly be combined or happen all together. Because… I have to wait for the articles to find out why.
That’s definitely one of the things that irritates me about the naysayers, Brian. They simply haven’t been keeping up with the research. For some of them, their knowledge base appears to be at least ten years old, and thus, obsolete.
On the side of the Tranhsumanists, I well understand the use of superlatives. Once you actually do the reading – the ‘academic’ research – the peer-reviewed papers, journals and other published works and some research on who’s funding what, why and where – and see what’s coming out of labs all over the world today, AND see which seminars and organizations are doing what and where and why and see who’s attending and sponsoring those seminars, AND see what products are actually already in the marketplace or coming to the marketplace over the next year or two, superlatives and descriptives absolutely fail. SMOG of thirty or not; There. Are. No. Words. Words absolutely fail.
Once a person actually starts keeping up, they’ll find that the material is not from a short list of whackos working in a sub-basement lab or a garage somewhere. Government after government, corporation after conglomerate and university after university – even military and defense organizations – around the world, are spending money and time on this stuff, and they’re achieving significant results. Hell, even the UN has been funding such research *and* making progress.
The other thing about the naysayers is that they don’t acknowledge the products that are already in the marketplace which a priori disprove their ‘thesis’ that such work is impossible. Things are happening now, in the real world, that weren’t even on the back of somebody’s envelope or napkin just two years or three years ago. Other research that has been in development for years, even for decades, is coming into fruition and producing results.
Transhumanists just need to put the superlatives and sophistry away while they talk to the naysayers …and just bury ‘em with the hundreds and even thousands of real world, independently verifiable facts. Be calm, cool and collected…and bury them with facts.
Any group with a set of values or ideas, be it Christianity or Singularity, is going to have adherents who follow it blindly and adherents who take the time to understand and think critically about the subject. Speaking from personal experience, you don’t so much as have to sneeze skeptically in the direction of Ray Kurzweil to be greeted with a flurry of idiotic ad hominem attacks from certain corners of the Internet. There is definitely a dogma to the Singularity, because there are those who are dogmatic about it. That’s what the mainstream latches on to because it’s the easiest thing to understand. It’s all just human nature. I think the only reasonable response is to keep discussing the issues reasonably and intelligently, and reason, intelligent people will start to understand, even if they don’t agree.
There’s just no helping the idiots.
Brian (Wang): As usual, YOU **ROCK**, kid-o! THANKS so much for those posts!! (Said the still-in-fairly-good-shape nifty-50yr-old) I am SO glad that most of you guys (and gals!) are **younger** than I am—hell, even Ben and Aubrey are mere 40-something whipper-snappers!! And even Eric (Drexler) is just a few yrs older. I forget how old Freitas and Merkle and JoSH are but they’re in the same ballpark. Hopefully you younger chaps won’t even have to corpse-sicle for a while, but just sail right on thru (“transition”) to immortality “on the fly” as it were, i.e., w/o any temporary corpse-sicle deanimated down-time—how wonderful!! Hell, even this old codger (i.e., yours-truly) might even make it. Gee I better be sure to take my nutrient regimen today!!
Ciao for now, and rock-on, dear colleagues! ;)
P.S. This stuff just further confirms what Warren said the other day: that were are indeed already at just the very edge, the very boundary, of the Event Horizon of the Singularity itself, *qua* cognitive-epistemic (and thus techno-economic) hyper-exponential change/progress such that even the “more-or-less-informed” public can’t keep-up with all the change—much less the synergetic (transdisciplinary) potential for *further* change (which, of course, in a positive-feedback process, further “ups” the entire process(es) it(them)self(s), which is what makes the whole thing not merely exponential, but indeed *hyper*exponential.)
Hold on to your hats, kids: The next decade is gonna be somethin’… ;)
P.P.S. “Kids”, of course, is always used with tremendous affection and esteem: Hell most if not all of y’all, cognitively-intellectually-speaking, can tap-dance and flamenco around *me* so deftly, I get dizzy just a-thinkin’ ’bout it! Compared to most of y’all, I’m Ally-Oop (or at least Jed Clampett)!
But, as Hayek said of himself: “I’m just an unrepentent old whig”—well, I’m just an unrepentent old transhumanist whig (well, really, *anarcho-eudaimonist*—but ssshhh, don’t tell the thought-police, K? LOL ;) )
[Yeah, I know: I'm a hoot... ;) ]
MPC2012, I don’t think I’ve said robot labor is a bad thing overall, though I do want to be honest about implications that may trouble some, so they can make their own judgemnets.