Tag Archives: Personal

Em Econ 101 Talk

Here are slides and audio from my Friday talk. The abstract again:

Em Econ 101 – My best guess for the next revolution on the scale of the industrial, or farming, or human revolutions, is artificial intelligence in the form of whole brain emulations, or “ems.” Many have considered ems from technical and philosophical viewpoints, but I consider em economics. That is, I try to work out in as much social detail as possible a relatively-likely reference scenario set modestly far into a post-em world.

Halycon had a very high quality audience – it was a special pleasure to speak there. The talk was also filmed – I’ll post that here if/when there is a link.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

N. Calif. Talk, Meetup

Next weekend I’ll have two events in northern California:

  1. I’ll give the Future Friday talk at Halcyon, 6:30p Friday April 6, 505 Penobscot Dr, Redwood City, CA 94063. (Enter on north side of building)
  2. Meetup, 7pm+, Saturday April 7, 1195 Andre Ave., Mountain View CA 94040.

Here is more about my Friday talk:

Em Econ 101 – My best guess for the next revolution on the scale of the industrial, or farming, or human revolutions, is artificial intelligence in the form of whole brain emulations, or “ems.” Many have considered ems from technical and philosophical viewpoints, but I consider em economics. That is, I try to work out in as much social detail as possible a relatively-likely reference scenario set modestly far into a post-em world.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

Me on Al Jazeera again

I’ll be on Al Jazeera again at 3:30p EST today , this time with George Dvorsky and Ari Shulman; the topic: ethics of transhumanism.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

Egan’s Zendegi

Greg Egan is one of my favorite science fiction authors, and his latest novel Zendegi (Kindle version costs a penny) seems to refer to this blog:

“You can always reach me through my blog! Overpowering Falsehood dot com, the number one site for rational thinking about the future—”

That is Nate Caplan, a self-centered arrogant rich American male nerd, who creepily stalks our Iranian female scientist hero Nasim Golestani, an expert in em (brain emulation) tech. Nate introduces himself this way:

I’m Nate Caplan. My IQ is one hundred and sixty. I’m in perfect physical and mental health. And I can pay you half a million dollars right now, any way you want it.

Nate wants to pay so he can be the first em:

It’s very important to me that I’m the first transcendent being in this stellar system. I can’t risk having to compete with another resource-hungry entity; I have personal plans that require at least one Jovian mass of computronium.

Nasim naturally despises Nate.

So is Nate Caplan inspired by me, by my famously libertarian colleague Bryan Caplan, or by Eliezer Yudkowsky, who was my co-blogger back when Egan wrote this book?

Consider that Egan’s book also contains a Benign Superintelligence Bootstrap Project, clearly modeled on Eliezer’s Singularity Institute:

Their aim is to build an artificial intelligence capable of such exquisite powers of self-analysis that it will design and construct its own successor. … The successor will then produce a still more proficient third version, and so on, leading to a cascade of exponentially increasing abilities. … Within weeks—perhaps within hours—a being of truly God-like powers will emerge.

This institute is backed by an arrogant pompous “octogenarian oil billionaire” Zachary Churchland. To say more here, I’m going to have to give spoilers – you are warned. Continue reading "Egan’s Zendegi" »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , , , , ,

Today’s Insults

I recently asked a table full of New York city residents what they most noticed was different about people who lived elsewhere in the US. One person immediately said others are “fatter.” No one else disagreed, or offered any other descriptor.

I don’t know how representative is this opinion, but in general I’m interested in the kinds of insults that people find to be more more socially acceptable. This person might have also thought that outsiders seemed dumber, less well dressed, lazier, or less politically informed, but might have been shy about saying so.

The “fat” descriptor seems a more acceptable insult. Perhaps because fat can be seen pretty objectively, and tends to be blamed more on a person’s intentions, rather than on inherited ability or disposition.

Is there any data on the most common insults people use today? I’d be more interested in data on socially visible insults, rather than anonymous insults, such as might be found in blog comments.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

The Costs Of Savoring

Life has many pleasures, like tasty food, soft sheets, the smell of spring, sunlight through leaves, the touch of skin, the sound of a sweet song, etc. And the quality of these experiences vary with the quality of inputs — how much one pays for good food, sheets, etc., and how much one studies which inputs give the best value per price.

But honestly, for me the biggest factor influencing how much pleasure I get from these experiences is how much I pay attention. I can get great pleasure out of most foods if I simply stop for a moment and focus all my attention on that food as I eat it. The pleasure of food in a medium budget meal savored is more than from a top budget meal when distracted thinking or talking, etc. Similarly, a pleasant office window view doesn’t offer nearly as much pleasure when one is focused on a computer screen.

Yet knowing this, I do not actually spend that much time savoring my food, caressing my sheets, or gazing out my office window. I am often happily in my own head thinking, or focused on what other folks are saying. I mostly prefer those mental pleasures to food, etc. While I could learn more about what foods are tastiest, or what window treatments will make my room sparkle, I usually prefer to invest that time learning about what ideas are interesting, important, and neglected.

I also notice an internal reluctance to savor things that others I know consider to be of only moderate quality. By judging those things good enough to open myself to them, to let their feelings rule me for a moment, it feels like I am accepting a lower status position. After all, if I were higher status, I would insist on only being pleased by higher quality inputs. This may be part of why I prefer intellectual pleasures, since I have invested enough there, building on high innate skills, to be able to honestly say that my inputs are of a high quality, relative to inputs available to others.

Time is my key resource. With more time I can better savor my experiences, which usually offers me more pleasure than buying expensive inputs, or researching where to get good inputs cheap. Even if I don’t savor as often as I could, for fear of lowering my status. Money is mainly useful to me as a way to buy more time, and inputs into the intellectual pleasures which are my main focus. I love to savor the sweet taste of an insight acquired, and explained. Like right now – aaah. :)

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

Me On Marketplace

I’m on today’s edition of the NPR radio show Marketplace Money (transcript; audio ~25:30 to 29:00):

The average dog owner spends $655 a year on health care, that’s up 50 percent from a decade ago. Cat owners are in for $644, up nearly 75 percent, close to how much our health care costs have risen by. And that’s a puzzle to economists, like Robin Hanson at George Mason University.

Robin Hanson: Everyone’s got a favorite villain or bugaboo about why human health care costs are increasing; it’s too much regulation, too much government involvement, too much third-party payment.

Too many malpractice lawsuits. None of these factors apply to pets. You can’t blame insurers for pushing up costs either. Pet insurance is rare; only 1 percent of pet owners in this country have it. The 99 percent are paying full freight.

Hanson: But in pet medicine, people put their money on the barrel head. And yet pet expenses are increasing nearly as fast as human expenses.

What gives? Hanson and other economists give two explanations. Explanation one: Love. We treat our pets like family. They eat our food, they sleep in our beds, they relax at the spa, they have Facebook accounts. Of course we’re going to pay for their health care. Take dogs.

Hanson: So we want to show loyalty to these dogs who are showing loyalty to us. One way to do that is to spend more on medicine for them.

Explanation two for the rising cost has nothing to do with your pets; it’s how we see ourselves.

Hanson: We compare ourselves to people around us. And we ask the doctor and they say well, lots of people do this, most people do this, and the bar has been raised on how much you need to spend on your pets to show you’re a caring pet owner.

In the interview I tried to pose the choice as supply vs. demand explanations, as I’ve done in my last two posts, but I guess they didn’t find as engaging.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

You & The Distant Future

I spoke again yesterday to mostly retired folks at GMU’s lifelong learning institute, on “You & the Distant Future” (audio; slides). I talked on near-far theory, long-term bequests, and cryonics.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

Imagine Being Wrong

I felt myself wince recently when I wrote “I imagine that if I were a racist.” I realized that I’m not supposed be able to imagine being a racist. Even though a most folks in history have believed, often reasonably given their evidence, that races differ substantially on important qualities. And even though historians, sociologists, etc. regularly study and understand racists.

Apparently one is supposed to believe that racists are so obviously and extremely crazy that it is impossible for a reasonable person to see things from their point of view. Pretending to believe this signals to your associates confidence in your shared anti-racist position, and so is a signal of group loyalty.

But it seems a bad habit to get into, if you want to believe the truth. No doubt many positions are hard to understand, at least without some practice and preparation. Being rational in disagreements is hard exactly because it is so much easier to see one’s own reasoning than to imagine the reasoning of others. And we have only a limited ability to overcome this barrier. But to go out of your way to make it hard to see things from another’s view, that suggests one is more interested in showing loyalty than in discerning truth.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Unspeakable Arrogance

Pretty much everyone thinks they are better than some of the people they meet. Not better on all possible features of course, but better on the features that matter most to them. But it seems to be arrogant to say “I often think that I am better than other folks I meet”, and especially so to say it about particular people. As in, “I am better than George.”

But for the purposes of this post, I’ll have to own up to this. I am in fact often disappointed by the people I meet. For me it is mostly about their intellectual curiosity and abilities in conversation. They either show little interest in fundamentally interesting things, or they show interest but seem incapable of effectively engaging such topics. C’est la vie.

Interestingly, my feelings often go beyond mere disappointment into full irritation – it bothers me to share a room, a department, a firm, a stage, etc. with them. Sometimes I am even angry. Yet such irritation makes a lot less sense that it would seem.

Consider how I would treat a dog, or a young child with similar intellectual capabilities. Abilities that are disappointing in someone with whom I’d share a stage could be quite impressive in a dog or a young child. I imagine I’d be quite happy to associate with such a dog or child, and hardly irritated at all by their lack of capacity. I could easily find activities that they and I would find mutually enjoyable. And I imagine that if I were a racist, classist, or sexist, surrounded by those who shared my racism, classism, or sexism, I could find ways to associate comfortably with my race, class, or gender inferiors, as long as it were clear to all that they were my inferiors.

I’m led to conclude that it I’m not so much irritated by the low abilities of associates, as by rivalry and how my associating with them will reflect on me. If they don’t share my low opinion of them, I’ll have to either hide my opinion, or to create a conflict by expressing it. And even if they do share my opinion of our relative abilities, others might see me as arrogant to visibly acknowledge it. Since there are lots of ways to lose and few ways to win this game, I’d rather not play.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,