We Care About Your Opinion, But Are Still Committed (to the Singularity)
So, quite a few people are reacting to the Markoff piece, and the Singularity Institute (SIAI) has already been in touch with him. It seems nowadays that there are a lot of people in the NYT offices interested in the topics of this blog: AGI, extinction risk, transhumanism, and nanotechnology. Some colleagues in my circles have called this a "PR coup" -- but we have to remember -- journalists mostly just report on the opinions of experts, not issue their own. (Though framing is obviously involved.) Even if the cover of The New York Times began to look like Accelerating Future, it would still just transmit the positions of experts in nanotechnology, futurism, and AI.
Therefore, I encourage more academics and other professional thinkers to take a look at the ideas and formulate their opinions. Because the dialog is young and is picking up, there are still many opportunities to make quite a name for yourself, either as a Singularity proponent, like Kurzweil and myself, or critic, like Horgan. I'm just getting started myself, and plan to increase my profile as much as I can.
A recent reaction to the Markoff piece at Beliefnet, authored by Denise Abatemarco, said the following:
The fact that some of our brightest minds are focused on the goal of immortality always strikes me as odd. It also seems indicative of a GIANT denial of impermanence...and maybe an unhealthy attachment/clinging to ego? The idea of immortality, though sometimes fun to contemplate, has always struck me as more creepy and unnatural than alluring. But I suppose creepy and unnatural is my take on self-aware A.I. in general. Maybe I've been exposed to too much dystopian style science fiction, but I'm skeptical of the idea that superhuman computers and human/computer hybrids are the answers to our problems.
What do others think? Anyone planning on combating impermanence by having themselves cryogenically preserved?
It's a little disappointing, because I do believe that superhuman computers and human/computer hybrids are the answer to our problems. As J. Storrs Hall put it, reacting to a poll at H+ magazine about the plausibility of a "Terminator" scenario:
On the face of it, it's ludicrous. Why would a supposedly intelligent network mind waste so much energy and resources indulging in cinematically grandiose personal combat in grim wastelands with loud music? If it, for some reason, wanted to kill off humanity, it would just whip up a thousand new flu strains and release them all at once -- and use neutron bombs to clean up.
On the other hand, if all you mean is are the robots going to take over, it's more or less inevitable, and not a moment too soon. Humans are really too stupid, venal, gullible, mendacious, and self-deceiving to be put in charge of important things like the Earth (much less the rest of the Solar System). I strongly support putting AIs in charge because I'm dead certain we can build ones that are not only smarter than human but more moral as well.
I generally agree with this. I think it's possible to realize the joke that is humanity while at the same time respecting it, sort of. We're still the best species around. I like other humans. It's just that, we've had 200,000 years to get things right and we've failed. Time to create superintelligence.
I really care about the opinions of people like Denise Abatemarco. She admits being exposed to a lot of sci-fi and being skeptical about the use of AI to improve our lot as a civilization. Unfortunately, sci-fi-formulated opinions are not really sufficient. We need more academics and experts in cognitive science and decision theory looking at the challenge of AI and the Intelligence Explosion (the real "Singularity").
What myself and Denise might agree on is that AI could be really powerful. Since someone will build AI eventually anyway, doesn't it make sense to try to steer it in the right direction? The blunt truth is that in the end, we will go forward whether or not people like Denise object. A lot of us are pretty committed -- within 45 seconds of reading "What is Friendly AI?", I knew that this is probably what I'd be doing until it was finished. As this document says:
Independence means regarding the Singularity as a personal goal. The desire to create the Singularity is not dependent on the existence, assistance, permission, or encouragement of other Singularitarians. If every other Singularitarian on the planet died in a tragic trucking accident, the last remaining Singularitarian would continue her personal efforts to make the Singularity happen.
The intellectual heritage of Singularitarianism comes from transhumanism and Extropianism, both of which have a strong streak of individualism and quite explicit antiauthoritarianism. Historically speaking, most human causes do tend to organize themselves around explicit sources of authority. It should go without saying that neither I, nor Vernor Vinge, nor the Singularity Institute, nor any other human institution, should be believed to have any "authority" over other Singularitarians - except that voluntarily granted by other Singularitarians, of course. That much is implicit in our transhumanist heritage.
So, we're distributed and non-dogmatic. I assign authority to the Singularity Institute because I consider it the best-focused effort at creating Friendly AGI. Some might disagree, and pick A2I2, or some other company or organization -- even DARPA. But, I'd think that most Singularitarians would agree that the majority of us consider ourselves allies of SIAI. It's vaguely possible that that could change in the future -- if the wrong people got in charge of the organization, it could drift away from its original goals, in which case I'd leave.
Still, I and some others have been at this for a while now (going on a decade), and we're not stopping now. (Not to say that I'm dogmatic -- if I were convinced that it was a lost cause or unavoidably dangerous, I'd stop.) Some people, like Denise Abatemarco and others, might feel intimidated or slighted somehow by what we're trying to do. We want to take their opinions into account as much as possible -- that's why we advocate an AI design that uses the preferences of humanity as its input. We care about what you think, but we still want to build human-friendly Artificial General Intelligence as soon as we possibly can. Intelligence is destined to create greater intelligence, and nothing short of absolute extinction can prevent that.
The views expressed in this post are not necessarily those of the Singularity Institute.
Michael Anissimov Debates John Horgan on the Singularity
I recently debated John Horgan via email on whether the Singularity is a cult or not. He posted our discussion at a blog for the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology (located in in Hoboken, NJ), where he is Director. It's a privilege to debate with such a lauded journalist, even if I am supposedly a cultist in his eyes. If I'm going to be a cultist, I might as well be the best damn cultist I can be.
Friendly AI in the New York Times
Oh, hello, what's this? Friendly AI and Eliezer in The New York Times. As Media Director of SIAI, it's nice when things occur due to work I put in, but it also great when I don't need to do a thing and SIAI is publicized in mainstream newspapers. Can't complain.
Terminator Salvation: Preventing Skynet is Live
Well, I did it -- Preventing Skynet is live. Just three essays up there right now, but I'm still soliciting additional essays, and will contribute my own soon. Please link to it from your blog or website! Include "Terminator Salvation" as part of the link to increase its ranking for that search term. So, like this:
Terminator Salvation: Preventing Skynet
This site will continue to be online as a resource forever, so we can keep adding things to it if we want to.
Forecasts from the World Future Society
"Top 10 Forecasts for 2009 and beyond". Here's the ones I find the most interesting:
Forecast # 1: Everything you say and do will be recorded by 2030. By the late 2010s, ubiquitous unseen nanodevices will provide seamless communication and surveillance among all people everywhere. Humans will have nanoimplants, facilitating interaction in an omnipresent network. Everyone will have a unique Internet Protocol (IP) address. Since nano storage capacity is almost limitless, all conversation and activity will be recorded and recoverable. -- Gene Stephens, "Cybercrime in the Year 2025," THE FUTURIST July-Aug 2008.
Forecast #2: Bioviolence will become a greater threat as the technology becomes more accessible. Emerging scientific disciplines (notably genomics, nanotechnology, and other microsciences) could pave the way for a bioattack. Bacteria and viruses could be altered to increase their lethality or to evade antibiotic treatment.-- Barry Kellman, "Bioviolence: A Growing Threat," THE FUTURIST May-June 2008.
Forecast #6: The race for biomedical and genetic enhancement will -- in the twenty-first century -- be what the space race was in the previous century. Humanity is ready to pursue biomedical and genetic enhancement, says UCLA professor Gregory Stock, the money is already being invested, but, he says, "We'll also fret about these things -- because we're human, and it's what we do." -- Gregory Stock quoted in THE FUTURIST, Nov-Dec 2007.
Forecast #7: Professional knowledge will become obsolete almost as quickly as it's acquired. An individual's professional knowledge is becoming outdated at a much faster rate than ever before. Most professions will require continuous instruction and retraining. Rapid changes in the job market and work-related technologies will necessitate job education for almost every worker. At any given moment, a substantial portion of the labor force will be in job retraining programs. -- Marvin J. Cetron and Owen Davies, "Trends Shaping Tomorrow's World, Part Two," THE FUTURIST May-June 2008.
Since professional knowledge is quickly becoming obsolete in all areas, that means that someone with only a decade of experience soaking himself in scientific and technological knowledge (me) can do just as well, if not better, at foresight than those with more "experience". Funny how that works out.
Two Facebook Groups to Consider Joining
These are relatively new groups... "Once we reach 1 million members everyone will donate $100 for SENS research" (that would lead to $100 million), currently at 578 members, and "Once we reach 4,096 members, everyone will donate $256 to SingInst.org" Here's the text from the SIAI one:
In the coming decades, humanity will likely create a powerful artificial intelligence. The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence (SIAI) exists to confront this urgent challenge, both the opportunity and the risk.
The Singularity Institute is a nonprofit organization funded by donations from people like us. This group exists to raise over $1 million for SIAI.
Here's how you can help:
1. Join this group
2. Invite all of your friends to join.
3. Once we have 4,096 members, go to http://singinst.org/donate and donate $256.This is a great chance to cooperate and make a big difference.
This group was inspired by another awesome group, created by David Robert to raise money for SENS - http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=81069009305
If you want to help and have the money to spare, join both groups! The world could be helped immeasurably if SENS and SIAI go into the 2010s with very strong bank accounts.
Superintelligence Is Likely to Happen, Whether or Not You Were Disillusioned by AI in Your College Days.
There was recently an article on Ray Kurzweil in Newsweek, titled, "I, Robot". And... what's this? An accompanying critical article, calling Singularitarians a cult, by our associate John Horgan, the guy who pretended to put together (with Zorpette, as implied in the back story) a neutral assessment of the Singularity for IEEE Spectrum that was actually just a bunch of indignant critics, plus Hanson, Vinge, Brooks, and a couple fluffy background articles. In the opener, Horgan says:
I once believed in the imminence of superhuman intelligence. In 1981, when I was still in college, I took a science-writing class at Columbia University from the journalist Pamela McCorduck. She had just written Machines Who Think (note the mischievous "Who"), a book about the efforts of Marvin Minsky and other artificial-intelligence pioneers to create conscious, autonomous computers that would leave mere humans in their cognitive dust. This research, which McCorduck often enthused over in class, helped persuade me to become a science journalist. What could be cooler than witnessing this giant leap forward in the evolution of consciousness?
I do agree that "Machines Who Think" is a misleading title, and that Minsky was wildly overoptimistic. Both the journalist and Marvin fell prey to anthropomorphism, where they saw more in their programs than was really there. We ought to correct this mistake and move on, not dismiss AI forever.
Here's the conclusion:
Part of me—the part that thrilled at prospects for artificial intelligence almost 30 years ago—finds Kurzweil's prophesies highly entertaining. He raises lots of provocative questions: What would be like to be immortal? To have an IQ of 1,000? To exist not as a doomed, flesh-and-blood creature but as a piece of software that can keep redesigning itself and merging with other programs? But another part of me—the grown-up, responsible part—worries that so many people, smart people, are taking Kurzweil's sci-fi fantasies seriously. The last thing humanity needs right now is an apocalyptic cult masquerading as science.
Thank you for calling us smart! Perhaps our intelligence is being used to make the most accurate possible general assessments in light of available evidence.
I would also like to point out here that these "sci-fi fantasies" -- molecular nanotechnology, artificial superintelligence, indefinite life-extension -- are not just Kurzweil's ideas, and were in fact around before he published his first futurist book. After all, it was as far back as 1948 that Mr. Ettinger published his first articles on preserving the human body and brain via cryonics. John W. Campbell published on superintelligence in 1935's The Machine. All of medicine can be viewed as an effort at life-extension. If medicine could make people live for hundreds of years, most of us would take it gladly.
Here's the first random comment in response to Horgan:
"Apocalyptic cult"?? I must have missed the part about the apocalypse - or the cult for that matter... That aside, you are basically saying that Kurzweil's entire argument is absurd. Just because (it sounds like) you chased an unfounded dream many years too early, doesn't mean that your jaded view of reality is really reality and that the people who subscribe to the ideas of a genius like Kurzweil are absurd. You're either trying to be bold for selfish reasons or just plain bitter.
The "apocalyptic cult" seems to more be around my neck of the woods -- the Singularity Institute and Lifeboat -- than Kurzweil's expansive fanbase in the rest of memespace. "Apocalyptic cult" means we are concerned about runaway self-improving AI, and may even have something in common with Bill Joy, who I think has a decent idea of the dangers, if somewhat hysterical, and with an unworkable solution. Still, if you don't believe AI is possible for centuries, that's fine -- ignore us if you like -- but don't call us a cult, because we're not.
It's quite rude to call groups of obviously intelligent and freethinking people a cult, when we have 1) a commitment to rationalism and changing our minds, 2) a naturalistic worldview, 3) substantial uncertainty about many of the nodes in our probabilistic model, 4) are willing to put forth the work to actually develop AGI, no matter how long it takes, 5) operate on the expectation of human-derived causes rather than "the great thrust of history"-type nebulous causes, 6) see the positive/negative outcome as contingent on human action, 7) have no expectation of or desire for in-group perks if we do successfully build superintelligence, 8) absence of religious trappings, 9) no revenge fantasies, a la true Rapturists, and 10) have no overblown anthropomorphism for the technological agents we are creating.
Particularly, at least in my view, the rigid timeline of Kurzweil for AGI by 2029 ought to be discarded. AGI could come about around then, as I actually think is somewhat plausible, or substantially before (as Peter Voss claims), or substantially after. The point is not when it is invented, but that when it is actually invented, it is programmed with human-friendly motivations that are stable under recursive self-improvement.
H/t to Barry Mahfood for the original pointer.
Call for Short Essays — “Preventing Skynet”
I'm thinking of doing a small website project for the upcoming movie Terminator: Salvation. The concept is somewhat similar to "Three Laws Unsafe". I want to call it "Preventing Skynet". The movie is just coming out in three days, so we'd be late with the site. Hopefully it would go up within two weeks if I receive enough material.
I am soliciting short essays that discuss basic Friendly AI/Singularity concepts:
- why is morality not automatic?
- why could human-equivalent AI be powerful?
- why should I care about AI? The human brain is too complex to duplicate for hundreds of years.
I would suggest including a superficial mention of the Terminator franchise. You don't need to see the new movie, just see a couple of the older ones.
"Short" essays as in 1,000-2,000 words. Everything should be kept simple, with your educated, geeky, easily distracted target audience in mind. For examples of what I'm looking for, see:
http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/06/tragic-assumptions-about-greater-intelligence-as-depicted-by-termites/
http://www.asimovlaws.com/articles/archives/2004/07/robot_oppressio.html
http://www.asimovlaws.com/articles/archives/2004/07/too_simple_to_b.html
http://www.asimovlaws.com/articles/archives/2004/07/why_we_need_fri_1.html
http://www.asimovlaws.com/articles/archives/2004/07/unsafe_at_any_l.html
http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2007/06/the-rapids-of-progress-by-mitchell-howe/
http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2007/04/investing-in-immortality-by-mitchell-howe/
Please consider contributing! Email your essay to me. Even if your essay is a rant, consider submitting it, because I might be able to edit it. Anonymous essays are accepted.
Accelerating Future on Twitter, Blog Posts by Category
I've been on Twitter for a while, you may have noticed the link in my blogroll. Also, my blog posts by category are now available, in two formats:
http://acceleratingfuture.com/michael/afblogindexbycategory.html
http://acceleratingfuture.com/michael/afblogindexbycategoryv2.html
Thanks again to Peer for setting these up.
Methuselah Foundation’s Los Angeles Initiative
Got this via email... MF apparently got some nice coverage at a local TV station in LA, KTLA:
Excellent videos on current work on stopping the aging process, links at the bottom.
There's no escaping the inevitable...all of us and our loved ones will grow old. But now a cutting edge group is doing something about aging. At the southern California offices of Methuselah Foundation, KTLA has met a man who says we can live as long as our scientific imaginations allow.
Methuselah Foundation creative director Roger Holzberg says it's simple: together let's aggressively attack the diseases of aging!
"Over the last century, the extent of a healthy life span has increased dramatically as we started to conquer illnesses like polio. and there is no reason why the diseases of aging can't fall like polio did, over the next decade," Holzberg says.
The work of the Foundation operates on several levels: first, there's short-term care through their web site, offering 'tips for life.' Another level in the battle against aging is the 'M Prize' -- it's a huge cash prize the Foundation is offering, to anyone who can best prolong life in lab animals. The 'prize strategy' is working. Already one of the entrants has helped lab mice live well beyond their years.
Holzberg says, "Successful, documented therapy that extended the health span of those animals on the human equivalent -- in the 120 to 140 year range."
Video: http://www.ktla.com/news/extras/ktla-live-forever-video,0,5314454.worldnowvideo
Article: http://www.ktla.com/news/extras/ktla-live-forever,0,6577906.story
I worked with Roger Holzberg when I was doing PR work for the Methuselah Foundation for last summer's Aging 2008 event, and got to meet him down there. Great guy. He used to be a VP/Creative Director at Disney before he joined the MF. Here's his Twitter.
Human-Animal Hybrids Outlawed in Louisiana
This news is via the Lifeboat Foundation blog:
BATON ROUGE, La.—Combining human and animal cells to create what are sometimes called “human-animal hybrids†would be a crime in Louisiana, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, under legislation approved Tuesday by a state Senate panel.
Scientific researchers in some areas have tried to create human embryonic stem cells, which scientists say could be used to develop treatment for a variety of human ailments, by placing human DNA into animal cells. But such practices are controversial for a number of reasons.
Sen. Danny Martiny’s bill, approved without objection by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was designed to outlaw such practices. It defines and criminalizes various ways of making human-animal hybrids, including combining human sperm and an animal egg, combining animal sperm with a human egg, and the use of human brain tissue or neural tissue to develop a human brain in an animal.
Meh. Maybe banning human-animal hybrids isn't such a terrible idea for the time being. I can't see a huge benefit to society or the world from having them around, mostly because I'd worry for their welfare. Considering the way we treat animals nowadays (terribly), I myself definitely wouldn't want to be a human-animal hybrid. I certainly don't object to trying to become more animal like, as presumably hundreds of thousands of furries might want to do, but I think it would require greater biological and technological knowledge in general to do it right.
You can always stay up to date on advanced scientific possibilities by seeing what they're banning in the South and Midwest. Another slightly odd example would be extraocular implants (also known as "eyeball jewelry"), which has been duly banned in Illinois. Giving someone the implant is punishable by up to three years in jail.
Personal Alarm Systems for Cryonicists
See Ben Best's page on the subject. If I randomly drop dead, it would be nice to get shoved in the freezer, post haste.
As Eliezer Yudkowsky once said, "it still looks to me like it would be better to just chop off the head and drop it into a bucket of liquid nitrogen as fast as possible." (I'm actually going for full body because it barely costs more.)
For more cryonics enjoyment, see this page of "Who Are We?"