Keith Henson, of whom I’ve long been a fan, has a new article where he imagines our descendants as fragmenting Roman-Empire-like into distinct cultures, each ~300 meter spheres holding ~30 million ems each ~1 million times faster than a human, using ~1TW of power, in the ocean for cooling. The 300m radius comes from a max two subjective seconds of communication delay, and the 30 million number comes from assuming a shell of ~10cm cubes, each an em. (Quotes below)
There's nothing in theory to stop ems speeding themselves up or down to suit the particular circumstances. Or, for that matter, spinning off a semi-autonomous avatar to handle slow connections while they get on with other things.
So, two points I think you could make some exciting use of: adjustable-speed cognition, and fuzzier boundaries around individuals.
Regardless of the origin of humans valuing intelligence, we do. And to the extent running faster makes you smarter, that would seem to drive up the speed once human abandon flesh.
There is surely economic value in thinking fast and having short communication delays for high frequency trading.
There won't be a demand for infinitely many widgets.
Attention from females and winning a competition are subjective experiences that can be wire-headed.
Real existential competition for the sake of real existential competition is stupid and not at the core of what most humans want.
Exponential reproduction vs. limited resources is given. Therefore real existential competition is given. The way to stop this is to enable control of resources so that they cannot be profitably taken away by evolving others.
Ems can be tortured, deceived or programmed into obedience that never benefits them.
It is possible, but unlikely and inefficient, to coordinate to ban reproduction. This can only be done with a totalitarian lock-in.
A totalitarian lock-in could be acceptably painless and peaceful, but also extremely unpleasant.
No, not everything is senseless. If there came a technology that lets me and my neighbor (my competitor) produce twice as many widgets in the same time, using the same amount of resources then we will have improved our lives if we agree to work half the hours we worked before. If one of us decides to instead work the same hours as before and produces twice as many widgets the other will have to follow (and he will), to re-establish our equilibrium. This competition was senseless because in the end we're still stuck in the same equilibrium (neither of us gained more power or attention from females). Now, of course our lives could improve if having twice as many widgets improves our lives more than having more spare time would, but that has nothing to do with competition and in practice those extra widgets will end up in some rich executive or politician's pocket, not ours, anyway.
"My question is, if it doesn’t go to science or to bettering our lives (and again, having twice as many stuff doesn’t better a person’s life if he has to work twice as hard to get it and can’t choose to opt out of this rat race)"
Why would he not be able to choose to opt out? Does some law exist that determines how hard a person has to work.
"but instead goes to bettering the lives of a small, undeserving elite, then why would we, and especially EMs who are 100x smarter than us, even bother?"
If the elite were "undeserving", how did they become the elite? What is your universal value system that defines "deserving", and what if you can't get everybody to agree on it? Also what prevents the EMs who are 200x (rather than only 100x) smarter than us from re-establishing the same power structure? And wouldn't the 200x smarter elites try squash your squashing of capitalism?
There seems to be a lot of holes in your thoughts, Poelmo.
"But the factors that make a modern day workaholic’s life worth living (making lots of money, generating positive externalities, making a big difference in the world) would not exist in a Malthusian future."
But if the things that make a workaholics meaningful don't exist anymore, then nobody will become a workaholic in the first place and the problem will take care of itself.
"Anyway, the gist of my rant was that competition for the sake of competition is senseless."
So? Everything is senseless. Why should I want to stay alive? Why should I want ease? It seems everybody wants to be "happy", but what gives rise to happiness? The answer is that happiness IS the increase in power or influence. Everybody wants to live long and live easy because those things facilitate an increase in the power of their ego to persist and control. Everything is will to power.
You say you don't like "senseless" competition? Then why are you here arguing for your ideas? Show me the person who doesn't compete for competition's sake. In fact, show me any human action that isn't rooted in that. It's what we are.
EM society would likely limit copying because server capacity is limited (if EMs start copying themselves there will be less server capacity per EM to process thoughts and/or their virtual environment would shrink). So EM society will do anything in its power to prevent the workaholic EMs from copying themselves.
If there are even a few ems psychopathic enough to spend all their time working, copies of them could come to dominate the population, even if the other ems are sane enough to see that a life spent doing nothing but working for subsistence is a life devoid of value.
Fortunately, since ems think a thousand times faster, they may be able to coordinate to stop the workaholic psychopaths from taking over. They could quickly invent nonsentient software that could outcompete the workaholics on all fronts, or they could use plain old fashioned violence to make sure copies are made in a more restricted and egalitarian fashion.
Now, Robin might object that this would be bad because the lives of workaholics are worth living. But the factors that make a modern day workaholic's life worth living (making lots of money, generating positive externalities, making a big difference in the world) would not exist in a Malthusian future. Drawing an analogy between modern workaholics and Malthusian ems is a bad comparison, a Malthusian em world would be like living in a concentration camp, not an office.
And in any case, the idea that because an individual finds their life worth living, it is good for them to exist, is a blatant example of the Fallacy of Composition. Ted Bundy probably thought his life was worth living.
The Overall Utility of a society is determined by factoring in the total utility, average utility, equality of utility, and similar factors of a society, with each factor being subject to diminishing returns. Creating a world of Malthusian ems would decrease Overall Utility because the gains in total utility are subject to diminishing returns and would be offset by the losses in average utility and equality. That's why the Repugnant Conclusion is dead wrong and a world of Malthusian ems is a Bad Future.
I hope the rest of you are right in thinking that someone will be able to coordinate to stop it from happening.
>I’m convinced the EMs will ask themselves the same question and decide to end the madness, as, one day, flesh and blood humans will.
Damn right. I just laugh at Robin's ultra-Libertarian EM scenarios.
If I found out I was an EM and I was asked to work 80 hours per week performing 'tasks' in a 'virtual office' to maximize the profits of good old American corporations, what do you think my reponse is going to be?
I can think 1000x as fast as the 'investors', and they want me to work 80 hours per week to maximize profits for them? Gee, I guess I've got nothing better to do right?
In actual fact, after I've handed their testicles back to them as an appropriate 'return' on their investment, kicked in the whole rotten system and squashed capitalism, taken over the world, punished wrong-doers etc., there would finally be time for the fun stuff...
...finding suitable punishments for Libertarian economist bloggers and the people who used to ridicule me on transhumanist forums. And here I might actually borrow one of Robin's better ideas...I really like the idea of public floggings to demonstate my new-found EM status.
You could probably count literature, other forms of art and philosophy too. As well as our ability (at least in theory) to deflect an incoming asteroid and cure more ilnesses (then again, those are really just applications of science). My point was that these things take up a small percentage of our resources (yes health care costs a fortune but only a fraction of that costs goes to actual medicine). So there should be plenty left for "hedonistic utility", but in practice this part often gets gobbled up by parasitic elites.
So I'm not saying we should labor ourselves to death to promote science and the arts, I'm saying any society that has increasingly more room for "hedonistic utility", science, the arts, etc... should periodically ask itself if it actually sees an increase of those things, to keep tabs on the parasites.
Agreed. I was just puzzled because it seems like you think that hedonistic utility and science are two independent terminal values. In other words, science and improving people's lives are both good things to do, even though they don't always overlap; having a good time doesn't necessarily increase scientific knowledge, and doing scientific research doesn't necessarily, or doesn't necessarily optimally, enable people to have a good time.
Is that what you're saying? If so, why does science and only science, out of all activities, get promoted to equal status with utility as a terminal value?
At least science enriches people's lives somewhat. Even when it is not of direct benefit it at least inspires (the same way as art) and satisfies our curiosity. And it usually does offer ways of improving life, even though the powers that be often decide not to use it in that manner.
The sexual motivation for fast run times may be realistic, but not for the reason Henson anticipates: It would simply allow the person to have more good experiences in the same objective time, many of which will obviously be sexual - unless and until the mental phenotypes have become too different from humans to be interested in carnal pleasure, simulated or otherwise.
Anyway, the gist of my rant was that competition for the sake of competition is senseless. If, for the overwhelming majority of the population (including the inventors) life hasn't become easier, richer (not in a financial sense) and better since the stone age (as was the case around the world well into the 20th century, still is the case in the 3rd world and may again become the case in the 1st world if certain people get their way) then what was the purpose of all the progress in between? There is no cosmic price for the civilization with the biggest GDP and you don't get to take your wealth to the next life...
Why work all day to buy stuff you never get to enjoy because you work all day? And don't talk to me about science: science gets only a tiny fraction of global GDP so most of what we do every day doesn't go towards increasing humanity's understanding of the universe.
My question is, if it doesn't go to science or to bettering our lives (and again, having twice as many stuff doesn't better a person's life if he has to work twice as hard to get it and can't choose to opt out of this rat race), but instead goes to bettering the lives of a small, undeserving elite, then why would we, and especially EMs who are 100x smarter than us, even bother?
I'm convinced the EMs will ask themselves the same question and decide to end the madness, as, one day, flesh and blood humans will.
There's nothing in theory to stop ems speeding themselves up or down to suit the particular circumstances. Or, for that matter, spinning off a semi-autonomous avatar to handle slow connections while they get on with other things.
So, two points I think you could make some exciting use of: adjustable-speed cognition, and fuzzier boundaries around individuals.
Regardless of the origin of humans valuing intelligence, we do. And to the extent running faster makes you smarter, that would seem to drive up the speed once human abandon flesh.
There is surely economic value in thinking fast and having short communication delays for high frequency trading.
Keith
There won't be a demand for infinitely many widgets.
Attention from females and winning a competition are subjective experiences that can be wire-headed.
Real existential competition for the sake of real existential competition is stupid and not at the core of what most humans want.
Exponential reproduction vs. limited resources is given. Therefore real existential competition is given. The way to stop this is to enable control of resources so that they cannot be profitably taken away by evolving others.
Ems can be tortured, deceived or programmed into obedience that never benefits them.
It is possible, but unlikely and inefficient, to coordinate to ban reproduction. This can only be done with a totalitarian lock-in.
A totalitarian lock-in could be acceptably painless and peaceful, but also extremely unpleasant.
@Kpres
No, not everything is senseless. If there came a technology that lets me and my neighbor (my competitor) produce twice as many widgets in the same time, using the same amount of resources then we will have improved our lives if we agree to work half the hours we worked before. If one of us decides to instead work the same hours as before and produces twice as many widgets the other will have to follow (and he will), to re-establish our equilibrium. This competition was senseless because in the end we're still stuck in the same equilibrium (neither of us gained more power or attention from females). Now, of course our lives could improve if having twice as many widgets improves our lives more than having more spare time would, but that has nothing to do with competition and in practice those extra widgets will end up in some rich executive or politician's pocket, not ours, anyway.
"My question is, if it doesn’t go to science or to bettering our lives (and again, having twice as many stuff doesn’t better a person’s life if he has to work twice as hard to get it and can’t choose to opt out of this rat race)"
Why would he not be able to choose to opt out? Does some law exist that determines how hard a person has to work.
"but instead goes to bettering the lives of a small, undeserving elite, then why would we, and especially EMs who are 100x smarter than us, even bother?"
If the elite were "undeserving", how did they become the elite? What is your universal value system that defines "deserving", and what if you can't get everybody to agree on it? Also what prevents the EMs who are 200x (rather than only 100x) smarter than us from re-establishing the same power structure? And wouldn't the 200x smarter elites try squash your squashing of capitalism?
There seems to be a lot of holes in your thoughts, Poelmo.
"But the factors that make a modern day workaholic’s life worth living (making lots of money, generating positive externalities, making a big difference in the world) would not exist in a Malthusian future."
But if the things that make a workaholics meaningful don't exist anymore, then nobody will become a workaholic in the first place and the problem will take care of itself.
"Anyway, the gist of my rant was that competition for the sake of competition is senseless."
So? Everything is senseless. Why should I want to stay alive? Why should I want ease? It seems everybody wants to be "happy", but what gives rise to happiness? The answer is that happiness IS the increase in power or influence. Everybody wants to live long and live easy because those things facilitate an increase in the power of their ego to persist and control. Everything is will to power.
You say you don't like "senseless" competition? Then why are you here arguing for your ideas? Show me the person who doesn't compete for competition's sake. In fact, show me any human action that isn't rooted in that. It's what we are.
@mjgeddes
Exactly, that was my point also.
@Evan
EM society would likely limit copying because server capacity is limited (if EMs start copying themselves there will be less server capacity per EM to process thoughts and/or their virtual environment would shrink). So EM society will do anything in its power to prevent the workaholic EMs from copying themselves.
If there are even a few ems psychopathic enough to spend all their time working, copies of them could come to dominate the population, even if the other ems are sane enough to see that a life spent doing nothing but working for subsistence is a life devoid of value.
Fortunately, since ems think a thousand times faster, they may be able to coordinate to stop the workaholic psychopaths from taking over. They could quickly invent nonsentient software that could outcompete the workaholics on all fronts, or they could use plain old fashioned violence to make sure copies are made in a more restricted and egalitarian fashion.
Now, Robin might object that this would be bad because the lives of workaholics are worth living. But the factors that make a modern day workaholic's life worth living (making lots of money, generating positive externalities, making a big difference in the world) would not exist in a Malthusian future. Drawing an analogy between modern workaholics and Malthusian ems is a bad comparison, a Malthusian em world would be like living in a concentration camp, not an office.
And in any case, the idea that because an individual finds their life worth living, it is good for them to exist, is a blatant example of the Fallacy of Composition. Ted Bundy probably thought his life was worth living.
The Overall Utility of a society is determined by factoring in the total utility, average utility, equality of utility, and similar factors of a society, with each factor being subject to diminishing returns. Creating a world of Malthusian ems would decrease Overall Utility because the gains in total utility are subject to diminishing returns and would be offset by the losses in average utility and equality. That's why the Repugnant Conclusion is dead wrong and a world of Malthusian ems is a Bad Future.
I hope the rest of you are right in thinking that someone will be able to coordinate to stop it from happening.
>I’m convinced the EMs will ask themselves the same question and decide to end the madness, as, one day, flesh and blood humans will.
Damn right. I just laugh at Robin's ultra-Libertarian EM scenarios.
If I found out I was an EM and I was asked to work 80 hours per week performing 'tasks' in a 'virtual office' to maximize the profits of good old American corporations, what do you think my reponse is going to be?
I can think 1000x as fast as the 'investors', and they want me to work 80 hours per week to maximize profits for them? Gee, I guess I've got nothing better to do right?
In actual fact, after I've handed their testicles back to them as an appropriate 'return' on their investment, kicked in the whole rotten system and squashed capitalism, taken over the world, punished wrong-doers etc., there would finally be time for the fun stuff...
...finding suitable punishments for Libertarian economist bloggers and the people who used to ridicule me on transhumanist forums. And here I might actually borrow one of Robin's better ideas...I really like the idea of public floggings to demonstate my new-found EM status.
@MattC
You could probably count literature, other forms of art and philosophy too. As well as our ability (at least in theory) to deflect an incoming asteroid and cure more ilnesses (then again, those are really just applications of science). My point was that these things take up a small percentage of our resources (yes health care costs a fortune but only a fraction of that costs goes to actual medicine). So there should be plenty left for "hedonistic utility", but in practice this part often gets gobbled up by parasitic elites.
So I'm not saying we should labor ourselves to death to promote science and the arts, I'm saying any society that has increasingly more room for "hedonistic utility", science, the arts, etc... should periodically ask itself if it actually sees an increase of those things, to keep tabs on the parasites.
Agreed. I was just puzzled because it seems like you think that hedonistic utility and science are two independent terminal values. In other words, science and improving people's lives are both good things to do, even though they don't always overlap; having a good time doesn't necessarily increase scientific knowledge, and doing scientific research doesn't necessarily, or doesn't necessarily optimally, enable people to have a good time.
Is that what you're saying? If so, why does science and only science, out of all activities, get promoted to equal status with utility as a terminal value?
@MattC
At least science enriches people's lives somewhat. Even when it is not of direct benefit it at least inspires (the same way as art) and satisfies our curiosity. And it usually does offer ways of improving life, even though the powers that be often decide not to use it in that manner.
My question is, if it doesn’t go to science or to bettering our lives...
Why enumerate science separately? Should we care about science that doesn't improve people's lives?
The sexual motivation for fast run times may be realistic, but not for the reason Henson anticipates: It would simply allow the person to have more good experiences in the same objective time, many of which will obviously be sexual - unless and until the mental phenotypes have become too different from humans to be interested in carnal pleasure, simulated or otherwise.
Anyway, the gist of my rant was that competition for the sake of competition is senseless. If, for the overwhelming majority of the population (including the inventors) life hasn't become easier, richer (not in a financial sense) and better since the stone age (as was the case around the world well into the 20th century, still is the case in the 3rd world and may again become the case in the 1st world if certain people get their way) then what was the purpose of all the progress in between? There is no cosmic price for the civilization with the biggest GDP and you don't get to take your wealth to the next life...
Why work all day to buy stuff you never get to enjoy because you work all day? And don't talk to me about science: science gets only a tiny fraction of global GDP so most of what we do every day doesn't go towards increasing humanity's understanding of the universe.
My question is, if it doesn't go to science or to bettering our lives (and again, having twice as many stuff doesn't better a person's life if he has to work twice as hard to get it and can't choose to opt out of this rat race), but instead goes to bettering the lives of a small, undeserving elite, then why would we, and especially EMs who are 100x smarter than us, even bother?
I'm convinced the EMs will ask themselves the same question and decide to end the madness, as, one day, flesh and blood humans will.