In this episode of the Wow! Signal Podcast. The topic is ems, starting about minute 35, after an interview with Heath Rezabek.
In this episode of the Wow! Signal Podcast. The topic is ems, starting about minute 35, after an interview with Heath Rezabek.
Oedipus famously answered this riddle:
What goes on four feet in the morning, two feet at noon, and three feet in the evening?
The answer: people crawl when babies, walk as adults, and use a cane when old. It seems natural to divide lives into three parts: young, middle, and old. But where exactly should the boundaries fall? One tempting approach comes from the facts that in the US today lifespans average about 29000 days, and people typically marry and have kids at about 10000 days. So maybe we should split life into the first, second, and third 10000 days.
If we split life into 5000 days units, we get:
Note that 5000 days is near the doubling time of the world economy.
In my life, I married at 10250, had my first kid at 11500, started grad school again at 12400, started at GMU at 14600, and was tenured at 16540. And today I am 20,000 days old, within a few days of all my kids being employed college graduates. So a lot happened to me in that third 5000 days, and I now enter the last third of a typical lifespan, with expected declining (but hardly zero) relative productivity. Of course if cryonics works I might live lots longer.
The Yale Technology & Ethics study group hosts about one talk a month on various futurist topics. Amazingly, I was their very first speaker when the group started in 2002. And this Thursday I’ll return to talk on the same subject:
The Age of Em: Social Implications of Brain Emulations
4:15-6:15pm, May 22, Yale ISPS, 77 Prospect St (corner of Prospect & Trumbull), Rm A002.
The three most disruptive transitions in history were the introduction of humans, farming, and industry. If another transition lies ahead, a good guess for its source is artificial intelligence in the form of whole brain emulations, or “ems,” sometime in the next century. I attempt a broad synthesis of standard academic consensus, including in business and social science, in order to outline a baseline scenario set modestly far into a post-em-transition world. I consider computer architecture, energy use, cooling infrastructure, mind speeds, body sizes, security strategies, virtual reality conventions, labor market organization, management focus, job training, career paths, wage competition, identity, retirement, life cycles, reproduction, mating, conversation habits, wealth inequality, city sizes, growth rates, coalition politics, governance, law, and war.
My ’02 talk was controversial; Thursday’s talk will likely be well. All are welcome.
Sam Wilson and I did a podcast for his series, on near-far, em econ, and related topics.
One topic that came up briefly deserves emphasis: robustness can be very expensive.
Imagine I told you to pack a bag for a trip, but I wouldn’t tell you to where. The wider the set of possibilities you needed to handle, the bigger and more expensive your bag would have to be. You might not need a bag at all if you knew your destination was to stay inside one of the hundred largest airports. But you’d need a big bag if you might go anywhere on the surface of the Earth. You’d need a space-suit if you might go anywhere in the solar system, and if you might go anywhere within the Sun, well we have no bag for that.
Similarly, it sounds nice to say that because the future can be hard to predict, we should seek strategies that are robust to many different futures. But the wider the space of futures one seeks to be robust against, the most expensive that gets. For example, if you insist on being ready for an alien invasion by all possible aliens, we just have no bag for that. The situation is almost as bad if you say we need to give explicit up-front-only instructions to a computer that will overnight become a super-God and take over the world.
Of course if those are the actual situations you face, then you must do your best, and pay any price, even if extinction is your most likely outcome. But you should think carefully about whether these are likely enough bag-packing destinations to make it worth being robust toward them. After all, it can be very expensive to pack a spacesuit for a beach vacation.
(There is a related formal result in learning theory: it is hard to learn anything without some expectations about the kind of world you are learning about.)
In 2002, Jacob Freydont-Attie made the ok movie String Theory (decent camera work & acting, good characters, some compelling interactions, & non-sensical physics mumbo-jumbo). He’s now working on a non-fiction film Cross of the Moment, “on the greater philosophical issues of life on Earth.” He just posted a 24 minute draft of the first of five parts, on the Fermi Question. He interviews myself and Donald Brownlee and Peter D.Ward, authors of the book Rare Earth. The other two were interviewed indoors, I was outdoors. It seems to me that indoors looks better.
I can’t recall ever applying to an essay contest before. But I did for this FQXi contest:
How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
Dystopic visions of the future are common in literature and film, while optimistic ones are more rare. This contest encourages us to avoid potentially self-fulfilling prophecies of gloom and doom and to think hard about how to make the world better while avoiding potential catastrophes. …
In this contest we ask how humanity should attempt to steer its own course in light of the radically different modes of thought and fundamentally new technologies that are becoming relevant in the coming decades.
Possible topics or sub-questions include, but are not limited to:
My submission mainly takes issue with the idea that we can do much steering:
Humanity can best steer its future by working hard to clearly see the future it will have if we do nothing. Because most likely we will do little to steer our future. Yes, this answer frustrates our hunger for inspiring visions. Even so, it seems right. Let me explain.
Imagine you are holding on to a log, floating down the rapids of a wide fast murky river at night. You hear rough water ahead. How should you steer yourself?
You should not try to figure out what river you’d most rather be on, or what landscape you wished the river flowed through. Instead, you should focus on details of the actual river in front of you. You should also not just swim for the best looking spot in the river ahead; in a wide fast river you probably can’t get most places.
What you should do is, keeping in mind your limited stamina and abilities, look to see the places ahead where you could plausibly swim. See them as clearly as possible, and try to infer what might be just under the water where you cannot see. Don’t immediately swim before you look, but also don’t wait too long before starting a plan.
Steering humanity’s future is like swimming this river. It is way too fun and easy to assume that we can create any future world we can imagine. Yes the future is made by the sum total of all our actions, but we actually have very limited abilities to coordinate those actions, abilities that get worse on larger space and time scales. We don’t have a world government, and won’t anytime soon. The organizations we do have, they rarely plan more than a decade ahead.
Given our limited abilities to influence the future, our first priority must be to see as clearly as possible the likely outcomes if we do absolutely nothing. After all, the world today is very nearly what it would be if our distant ancestors had done nothing to try to influence it. And the future world will likely be similar.
Yes, science fiction is full of stories of a few foresighted heroes swinging the tide of their civilization. And yes, inspiring speakers often rouse audiences to cheer by framing their causes as ways to help the future. But honestly, people are mostly moved to action by the world around them, not the distant future.
Seeing the future in enough detail does seem the hard part; deciding what to do given any specific vision seems easier. For example, if you see in the river ahead a sharp rock a bit off to the left, you should swim to the right. Seeing the rock is hard; deciding which way to swim is easy.
True, it may feel more inspiring to think about how you’d want to restructure the whole river landscape. But focusing on the rocks straight ahead is the best way to avoid smashing against them.
To read the rest, go here. You can also comment on my and others’ essays there.
Added 20Aug: Seems I won a “special commendation prize” of $1000.
This Monday at 3:30p I talk on interstellar colonization at the Engineering Colloquim of NASA Goddard:
Attempts to model interstellar colonization may seem hopelessly compromised by uncertainties regarding the technologies and preferences of advanced civilizations. However, if light speed limits travel speeds and reliability limits travel distances, then a selection effect may eventually determine behavior at the colonization frontier. Making weak assumptions about colonization technology, I use this selection effect to predict colonists’ behavior, including which oases they colonize, how long they stay there, how many seeds they then launch, how fast and far those seeds fly, and how behavior changes with increasing congestion. This colonization model might explain some astrophysical puzzles, predicting lone oases like ours, amid large quiet regions with vast unused resources. (more here; here)
Hal Finney made 33 posts here on Overcoming Bias from ’06 to ’08. I’d known Hal long before that, starting on the Extropians mailing list in the early ‘90s, where Hal was one of the sharpest contributors. We’ve met in person, and Hal has given me thoughtful comments on some of my papers (including on this, this, & this). So I was surprised to learn from this article (key quotes below) that Hal is a plausible candidate for being (or being part of) the secretive Bitcoin founder, “Satoshi Nakamoto”.
Arguments for this conspiracy theory:
The arguments against this conspiracy theory:
The notion that Finney alone might have set up the two accounts and created a fake conversation with himself to throw off snoops like me, long before Bitcoin had any measurable value, seemed preposterous.
That last point seems pretty weak. We already know that the Bitcoin founder wants to be hidden. If Hal really created Bitcoin, he is plenty smart enough to think that Bitcoin might succeed, and to think of and implement the idea of creating fake conversations to cover his tracks. In this case Hal would also plausibly lie about his C++ skills, or maybe he got C++ help from someone else. In any case the probability of seeing those things conditional on Hal actually being Nakamoto seem pretty high.
It seems to me that the question comes down to your prior expectation on whether the person who did such a careful expert job on something so hard would be one of the few people in the field most known to be capable of and to have actually done such things, or whether it would be a new largely unknown person. And thinking about it that way I have to put a pretty large weight on it being someone known. And conditional on that it is hard for me not to think that yeah, there’s at least a 15% chance Hal was more involved than he’s said. And if so, my hat’s way off to you Hal!
But I also figure I’m not paying nearly as close attention to this bitcoin stuff as many others. Google doesn’t find me any other discussion of the Hal as Nakamoto theory, but surely if I wait a few weeks others who know more will weigh in, right? And since I can’t think of any actions of mine that depend on this issue, waiting is what I’ll do. Your move, internet.
Added 8a 26Mar: In the comments, Gwern points to further reasonable indicators against the Hal as Nakamoto theory. I accept his judgement.
Those promised quotes: Continue reading "Conspiracy Theory, Up Close & Personal" »
Friday I’ll appear on The Independents, which airs on Fox Business TV at 9pm EST, discussing “The Rise Of The Machines.”
Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all its myriads of inhabitants, was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe, who had no sort of connection with that part of the world, would be affected upon receiving intelligence of this dreadful calamity. He would, I imagine, first of all, express very strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people, he would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of human life, and the vanity of all the labours of man, which could thus be annihilated in a moment. He would too, perhaps, if he was a man of speculation, enter into many reasonings concerning the effects which this disaster might produce upon the commerce of Europe, and the trade and business of the world in general. And when all this fine philosophy was over, when all these humane sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his business or his pleasure, take his repose or his diversion, with the same ease and tranquillity, as if no such accident had happened. The most frivolous disaster which could befall himself would occasion a more real disturbance. If he was to lose his little finger to-morrow, he would not sleep to-night; but, provided he never saw them, he will snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his brethren, and the destruction of that immense multitude seems plainly an object less interesting to him, than this paltry misfortune of his own.
Last night my father died. And I am sad. This wasn’t a big deal in the scheme of things. But, you see, this was MY little finger. And more.