Kevin Warwick: Terminator Scenario “Realistic”, Singularity Likely in “Not Too Distant Future”
Kevin Warwick, though obviously is a Singularitarian, portrays the same adversarial stance against AI as other human chauvinists, such as James Hughes. I paraphrase it as: "If there's an entity around that's smarter and more powerful than me, then I'm going to equate that with me being subservient and freak the fuck out!"
My suggestion: calm down. Let's do what we can to develop AIs that are nice people. There is no way we are going to outrace AI in the long run, so have to pursue this path, whether we like it or not. We are not going to eliminate all computers in the world, or keep power in the hands of humans forever. The question is not, "will the most powerful and capable entities in the world eventually be AIs?" (the answer is yes), the question is, "what the heck can we do to ensure our continued survival and prosperity once these entities inevitably become more capable than us?"
Sooner or later, positive experiences with AI programs or robots will cause these AI adversaries to understand that AIs could potentially become people too: worthy of our trust and love. The longer they keep up their adversarial attitude, the more time is wasted ignoring the challenge of engineering Friendly AIs. The year is 2010 and the clock is ticking.
Aaron Diaz: “Artificial Flight and Other Myths (a reasoned examination of A.F. by top birds)”
Aaron Diaz, author of the webcomic Dresden Codak (one of the most scientifically and philosophically literate webcomics on the internet) and "Enough is Enough: a Thinking Ape's Critique of Trans-Simianism", a hilarious defense of transhumanism, has now written "Artificial Flight and Other Myths (a reasoned examination of A.F. by top birds)", which pokes fun at those who think that Artificial Intelligence will require replicating every aspect of the human brain. Here is the opening:
Artificial Flight and Other Myths
a reasoned examination of A.F. by top birdsOver the past sixty years, our most impressive developments have undoubtedly been within the industry of automation, and many of our fellow birds believe the next inevitable step will involve significant advancements in the field of Artificial Flight. While residing currently in the realm of science fiction, true powered, artificial flying mechanisms may be a reality within fifty years. Or so the futurists would have us believe. Despite the current media buzz surrounding the prospect of A.F., a critical examination of even the most basic facts can dismiss the notion of true artificial flight as not much more than fantasy.
We can start with a loose definition of flight. While no two bird scientists or philosophers can agree on the specifics, there is still a common, intuitive understanding of what true flight is: powered, feathered locomotion through the air through the use of flapping wings. While other flight-like phenomena exist in nature (via bats and insects), no bird with even a reasonable education would consider these creatures true fliers, as they lack one or more key elements. And, while some birds are unfortunately born handicapped (penguins, ostriches, etc.), they still possess the (albeit undeveloped) gene for flight, and it is indeed flight that defines the modern bird.
This is flight in the natural world, the product of millions of years of evolution, and not a phenomenon easily replicated. Current A.F. is limited to unpowered gliding; a technical marvel, but nowhere near the sophistication of a bird. Gliding simplifies our lives, and no bird (including myself) would discourage advancing this field, but it is a far cry from synthesizing the millions of cells within the wing alone to achieve Strong A.F. Strong A.F., as it is defined by researchers, is any artificial flier that is capable of passing the Tern Test (developed by A.F. pioneer Alan Tern), which involves convincing an average bird that the artificial flier is in fact a flying bird.
Continue here.
G-Speak Overview
g-speak overview 1828121108 from john underkoffler on Vimeo.
Here is the NYT article.
Revisiting ‘Beyond Anthropomorphism’
My understanding of the concept of anthropomorphism really "clicked" when I first read "Beyond anthropomorphism", part of Creating Friendly AI, an early (2000) Singularity Institute document. I strongly recommend it for those who are interested in better understanding the concept of non-anthropomorphic artificial intelligence. Here is the opening:
If you punch a human in the nose, he or she will punch back. If the human doesn't punch back, it's an admirable act of self-restraint, something worthy of note.
Imagine, for a moment, that you walk up and punch an AI in the nose. Does the AI punch back? Perhaps and perhaps not, but punching back will not be instinctive. A sufficiently young AI might stand there and think: "Hm. Someone's fist just bumped into my nose." In a punched human, blood races, adrenaline pumps, the hands form fists, the stance changes, all without conscious attention. For a young AI, focus of attention shifts in response to an unexpected negative event - and that's all.
As the AI thinks about the fist that bumped into vis nose, it may occur to the AI that this experience may be a repeatable event rather than a one-time event, and since a punch is a negative event, it may be worth thinking about how to prevent future punches, or soften the negativity. An infant AI - one that hasn't learned about social concepts yet - will probably think something like: "Hm. A fist just hit my nose. I'd better not stand here next time."
The more I study nature and biology, the more I see that anthropomorphism gets in the way of understanding animals as well. Certain birds, cats, dogs, and even rodents are intelligent, but thinking of their intelligence merely as inferior to humans is not the whole story. Different forms of intelligence have to be understood on their own terms -- not through starting with an archetype of human intelligence and making incremental modifications to that archetype. That sort of thinking can lead to anchoring.
Tom McCabe on Nuclear Fusion
Tom McCabe at the Rational Futurist has a new article up; "The Real Story Behind Fusion Energy". I suggest you check it out -- it dispels a great many myths that we have been told about fusion power, and recommends the construction of thorium-powered fission reactors instead.
Animal Rights Interlude: “Free Range” is Bullshit
Meat and egg companies often try to sell their wares to unsuspecting SWPLs ("socially conscious" educated bourgeoisie Americans) by using the "free range" label. Unsurprisingly, this label is a lie. To quote the Wikipedia page on "free range":
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) requires that chickens raised for their meat have access to the outside in order to receive the free-range certification. There is no requirement for access to pasture, and there may be access to only dirt or gravel. Free-range chicken eggs, however, have no legal definition in the United States. Likewise, free-range egg producers have no common standard on what the term means. Many egg farmers sell their eggs as free range merely because their cages are two or three inches above average size, or because there is a window in the shed.
The USDA has no specific definition for "free-range" beef, pork, and other non-poultry products. All USDA definitions of "free-range" refer specifically to poultry. No other criteria-such as the size of the range or the amount of space given to each animal-are required before beef, lamb, and pork can be called "free-range". Claims and labeling using "free range" are therefore unregulated. The USDA relies "upon producer testimonials to support the accuracy of these claims."
Basically, the label is a farce. It conjures up images of old time family farms, when the reality is the exact opposite. Factory farmed chickens are routinely debeaked, and starved to cause forced molting, which shocks them into entering another egg-laying cycle. They live in filthy, shit-strewn cages and suffer from respiratory diseases due to inhaling large quantities of nitrogen released by their feces. "Free range" chickens spend most of their time in cages.
Specifically regarding eggs, here's another source, the Humane Society:
The vast number of consumer labels affixed to egg cartons can leave a shopper feeling dazed and confused. One carton may label its eggs "Natural." Another carton may call them "Free Range," while yet another may claim its eggs are "Certified Organic." How are thoughtful consumers supposed to know what these labels and claims really mean?
The truth is that the majority of egg labels have little relevance to animal welfare or, if they do, they have no official standards or any mechanism to enforce them.
Here's another, more detailed pro-animal rights source on the Free-Range Myth. This organization, the Peaceful Prarie Sanctuary, provides a safe haven for animals rescued from factory farming. After their miserable lives, "spent hens" are terminated immediately by the egg-laying operations themselves, as their meat has no market value. Easy methods of termination include gas chambers, woodchippers, or simply throwing them into a dumpster to die. In one case, an egg-laying operation was caught red-handed burying thousands of hens in large trenches because it was apparently too inconvenient to send them to the rendering plant. Anything to get the job done and home in time for dinner, you know?
Whether or not you care about the welfare of chickens, the misleading presentation that factory farmers use to sell their goods is designed to instill false beliefs in consumers, and it is a good case study in deception. People want to believe that cage-free actually means cage-free, so they can feel good, but the whole idea is merely a falsity perpetuated by gullible consumers and cynical ranch owners. Essentially, humans are completely comfortable inflicting the worst imaginable suffering on any number of pigs, cows, and chickens to satisfy our taste buds, yet we expect transhumans and posthumans to treat us with respect. Why? The tyrant that carelessly inflicts brutality on his subjects is liable to get his just desserts sooner or later.
Do understand that kindness to animals is not necessarily all-or-nothing. One person can have a tremendous impact simply by making an effort to lower the number of animal products they consume per week.
While I'm addressing the topic, I might as well point out that "what about the suffering of broccoli and other plants?" is one of the most intellectually pathetic comeback arguments I have ever heard to justify factory farming. Everyone knows that plants lack nerve cells, never mind brains. Only someone completely ignorant of the most basic biology could plausibly make sure an argument. The truth is that that argument is merely a pithy joke designed to mock pro-animal rights arguments through misdirection. Its common use only illustrates that a substantial number of people who consume animal products see no need to justify their actions, and make no pretense at devoting any thought to the issue.
My apologies, but I will leave comments off for this post, because 1) the most plausible comments are likely to be from people who regard animals as dirt and are just trying to eliminate guilt by providing a pithy comeback, and 2) I don't want to start too much of a precedent for animal rights debates on this blog, because there are many other places around the Internet to have them, and as far as I am concerned, the "debate" is mostly a non-issue. Yes, perhaps I could "win some people over" by being polite and engaging them in the comments, but it doesn't really matter, because I am extremely doubtful that anything less than in vitro meat will bring down factory farming. Factory farming operations are expanding at a massive rate as the world's standard of living increases but its empathy for animals remains where it has been throughout most of history -- in the toilet.
Tom McCabe’s New Website: Rational Futurist
My long-time friend and associate Tom McCabe has a nice personal website up, Rational Futurist. At the site, you can read Tom's popular articles, like "The Top 5 Technology Panics of 2009", which was recently Slashdotted, "Reducing long-term AI risk", and Tom's brief summary of his life so far.
The Power of Self-Replication
How can a small group of people have a big impact on the world? Develop a machine or service that is self-replicating or self-amplifying.
In a mundane way, artifacts such as iPhones and even shovels engage in human-catalyzed self-replication. People see them, then want them, then offer their money for them (or build them themselves, in a few cases), which provides the economic juice necessary to increase production and maintain the infrastructure necessary for that self-replication, like the Apple Store.
Self-replication can be relatively easy as long as the substrate is designed to contain components not much less complex than the finished product. For instance, the self-replicating robot built at Cornell self-replicates not from scratch, but rather from a set of pre-engineered blocks not much simpler than the robot itself. Using a hierarchy of such self-replicators, where each step is relatively simple but results in the creation of more complex components used in the next stage of self-replication, could provide a bootstrappable pathway to self-replicating infrastructures. Such a scheme also makes recycling easier -- if a large machine falls apart, perhaps only some of its components need by discarded, and the rest can be reused.
At the root of a substantial number of transhumanists' wild visions appears to be confidence that self-replicating factories will ultimately be produced. Otherwise, it is hard to imagine how society would acquire the necessary wealth to implement changes of the type that transhumanists discuss. In fact, it appears to me that modern transhumanism evolved in large part out of enthusiasm for the idea of molecular nanotechnology in the mid-1990s. The ongoing philosophical connection of transhumanism to other Enlightenment movements is more of a post hoc project designed to make transhumanism palatable and comprehensible to larger groups.
At its core, I believe that transhumanism's greatest accomplishment is identifying self-replicating and self-amplifying processes as humanity's greatest opportunity and hazard of the 21st century -- technology with the potential to allow us to transcend our material, physiological, and psychological limitations or, if handled poorly, cause a reprise of the Permian-Triassic extinction. You don't have to be a transhumanist to appreciate this insight; you only need to be convinced that self-replicating machines are technically plausible at some point in the near or mid-term future. Indeed, a substantial minority of tech-oriented people seem open to the possibility. Here is a poll from a 2005 CNN article on RepRap:
Even more exciting to me than self-replication is the power of self-amplification. I define self-amplification as a growing optimization process that extends its own infrastructure in a diverse way rather than simple self-replication, where "infrastructure" is defined as both core structures and the peripheral structures that support them. Humanity is an interesting edge case here, at the boundary of what I would consider the transition from self-replication to self-amplification. We are able to create diverse artifacts, but our ability to inject diversity into our own bodies and minds through self-transformation or directed evolution is extremely limited.
There is an opportunity here for the development of a mathematical model that quantifies the information and structural content produced by a given self-replicating or self-amplifying entity. Humans like to think that we exhibit nearly infinite variety in the creation of artifacts, but this is untrue. We mostly create artifacts that we have cultural and evolutionary predispositions to create. If we realized how constrained our information-producing tendencies are, it would help us become a more mature species through better self-reflection.
Ten Interesting Futuristic Materials in Korean
My article from 2008, "10 Interesting Futuristic Materials", is now available in Korean.
Prototaxites Mystery Solved?
Around 420 million years ago, during the Silurian, the ground was only colonized by non-vascular shrubs and tiny insects, except for one exception: Prototaxites. These primitive, fungus-like spires reached up to 8 m (26 ft) in height, by far the largest organisms on land at the time. For decades, paleontologists have wondered what the hell these things really were.
Now, a small group of scientists think they have the answer. Their results were recently published in the American Journal of Botany. Their article, "Structural, physiological, and stable carbon isotopic evidence that the enigmatic Paleozoic fossil Prototaxites formed from rolled liverwort mats", is available for free for the next 30 days only.
Coming on the heels of a discovery that Ediacaran organisms had musculature, this year has been a good start for paleontology. That Ediacaran finding contradicts the doubtful paper from 2008 that asserts that giant protists may be responsible for pre-Cambrian ichnofossils attributed to early bilaterians, and another paper that argues that the Ediacaran fauna were lichens.
“Moot” of 4chan Makes Appearance at TED 2010
Looking over the press release announcing TED, I was surprised to see that "moot", the founder of 4chan, will be making an appearance there.
You may remember moot as Time's Most Influential Person of the Year for 2009. Few journalists realize that "Christopher Poole" is just another pseudonym, not his real name. The joke is that Christopher Poole stands for CP, a.k.a. child porn. Moot is covertly trolling the mainstream media by using that name.