I think we are all over the place about speed because we are making unspoken assumptions about performance over cost. Here are a couple of real life examples. If an em runs on hardware with the same kind of profile as the HD 4870 (first graph), the economically optimal choice will be to run as fast as possible; if it's more like the GeForce GTX 260 (second graph) it will prefer to work at the lower "sweet spot" rate.

As long as we don't know what the hardware is like, we can imagine all sorts of profiles, including weird, monotonically decreasing ones. How much any of that will matter depends on how steep the graph is, i.e. on marginal cost. Larger slopes will cause more herding at the optimal rate. If I had to bet, I would bet on that kind of tight range, with ems down-clocking only if idle and up-clocking (if at all possible) only to cope with temporary spikes in workload too small to warrant delegation. But, who knows what the real profile will be like.

I dont't have a strong opinion (yet...) on the feasibility of scanning, but I think we should at least be aware of what the guy says who currently seems closest to actually doing it: "The key insights that allowed us to bring the HBP [Human Brain Project] to fruition were the realisation that it is just not possible to map the brain experimentally [...]". :/

James,

You honestly think that 7 billion women have given birth to 7 billion inferior brains? Then why did nature choose to create brains in this fashion? Why did nature create Hanson's brain that allowed Hanson to develop a superior brain to the one he was born with? Why did nature not grant you that same gift? The existence of God has never been proven in any court of law despite the fact that there is a standing reward of $1 million for the first parson that can provide such proof. Why do you need a fabricated intelligence to help you to prove that your God exists?

Joe Fisher

Robert, I agree we shouldn't be overconfident, that many past predictions were bad, that my scenario is just one of many to consider, and that other big changes could also make big differences. But even so, it still seems we should try our best to think through each scenario that we consider, using all the best standard results from all relevant fields.

I'd be happy to share my 94K word book draft with you, and would seriously consider any specific critiques you might have. But there isn't much one can say in response to "we can't possibly know" or "surely things won't stay recognizably the same." Those seem to me to be conversation-enders, and I want to continue the conversation. We can't be trying our best if we just quit merely because we realize that eventually we must reach limits to our abilities to foresee. Instead, we should only quit when the complexity of the task exceeds our patience to work through the many relevant details.

Robin,

What if there were a far larger and immediate problem such as a financial medium designed to siphon value out of virtually the rest of the economy and store it as notational promises and this system was going parabolic, resulting in ever more social and environmental resources being consumed to power it. Wouldn't this be a problem for the actual generation involved to deal with?

Wouldn't both social engineers and even mechanical engineers view this as the elephant in the room? Yet most entries seem obsessed with what amounts to science fiction.

Regards,

John Merryman

    I certainly don't want to end the conversation, Robin. I would love to see the draft of your book. My point was not that we can't know the future and shouldn't bother speculating. In fact, I think it is very important to speculate in the way you do. My point was rather that we need to recognize that our speculation is speculation. We have a strong cognitive tendency to imagine that the plausible scenarios we invent are necessary futures. But because of our limited ability to see the future, we need to plan and prepare for a wide range of contingencies.

    Robert, I agree we must watch for overconfidence. I can't find your email online, so email me at rhanson@gmu.edu for book draft.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #25

    So honestly, you are surprised to find that there are websites which do not exclusively focus on your favorite issue?

    Robin,

    That was the most fascinating essay so far. Thank you. I certainly agree with your log scenario too.

    But one question; Do you think our real human brains are well enough developed to focus on ..cloning? from them, rather than focus on improving the way we use them, so improve their capability?

    I think I perhaps see a long term plan hatching, 100 years to evolve our intellect more by better training us how to think, (to steer that log better), then when we're ready we'll have a much more useful em's!

    I'll definitely look out for your book. I can't score at present for some reason, but look out for a boost when my powers return.

    I see you have a physics masters so hope you'll read mine, a combination of.... well, you'll see I hope.

    Well done and I hope your essay rises during the impending malestrom.

    Peter Jackson

    (full name given as though the system tells me I'm logged in I don't think AI's quite truthful enough yet!)

      Humans are very useful today. In fact, they are the most useful part of the world economy. So copies of humans must also be very useful, even if they aren't improved over their current abilities.

      Robin,

      True, but I propose we could be far more useful if we also learned to use our on-board computers properly, including by thinking outside the Earth-centric frame. You queried if steering to a 'quantum leap' in understanding of nature (unification of classical and quantum physics) answered the question (on my blog) I responded as below;

      Robin,

      I'm an enabler. I 'implement' near impossible projects, in energy, defence etc. See my post on Sabine's essay. I've learned that most of what mankind does, if not just theorising, is to treat symptoms. Unintended and reverse outcomes are common because we don't think deep enough or think through implications.

      Many of the essays here either consider symptoms, or don't actually propose how to move ahead at all. Just saying; 'we must do this or that' is useless. That's why we stumble from crisis to crisis, one of which may be our end.

      Uniting classical and quantum physics is now almost 100 years overdue. It will have the most fundamental effects on all scientific understanding, so also technology of any other discovery or advancement; certainly QG, and I'm afraid also AI, because it will enable major leaps in both. We will then understand exactly which of ALL the u isseus facing us must be addressed AND how to address them.

      Also our most fundamental understanding is advanced. The same model informs cosmology at the widest level. Have read of this papers, just accepted (but not in a major journal), if you're interested in the first evolutionary sequence of galaxy types ever produced, and a credible re-interpretation of the so called 'big bang' with pre-'BB' condition logically implicit. The whole construct in empirical and coherent, resolving dozens of anomalies. Preprint; HJ Vol.6 2014.

      Now this can all be 'action today!' But none of the 'discrete field dynamics' model will be accepted by mainstream science in the near future because physicists neural networks are imprinted with the present paradigm so reject alternatives despite evidence and logic. Of course that's no evidence that it's wrong. It is in fact self evident. So I (we) must find a clear cut 'way in' to get people used to the different concepts. Success would give a clear direction, impetus and certain advancement. Now how many other essays can do that? Despite many good ones, very very few. (please point any out I've missed so far.)

      Best wishes

      Peter

      Hi Robin,

      Great essay! I enjoyed your river analogy. I agree with you, the first step in solving humanity's problems is identifying those problems, and foreseeing their effect. In my essay , I touch upon a similar idea.

      best regards,

      Mohammed

      P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate the essays of authors who tell me that they have rated my essay:

      10 - the essay is perfection and I learned a tremendous amount

      9 - the essay was extremely good, and I learned a lot

      8 - the essay was very good, and I learned something

      7 - the essay was good, and it had some helpful suggestions

      6 - slightly favorable indifference

      5 - unfavorable indifference

      4 - the essay was pretty shoddy and boring

      3 - the essay was of poor quality and boring

      2 - the essay was of very poor quality and boring

      1 - the essay was of shockingly poor quality and extremely flawed

      After all, that is essentially what the numbers mean.

      The following is a general observation:

      Is it not ironic that so many authors who have written about how we should improve our future as a species, to a certain extent, appear to be motivated by self-interest in their rating practices? (As evidence, I offer the observation that no article under 3 deserves such a rating, and nearly every article above 4 deserves a higher rating.)

      15 days later

      Robin,

      Interesting read and a novel approach to a daunting problem. Your parable of the river aptly describes our mindset concerning the environment, thinking we can remake our river (environment) rather than managing and predicting long-term damage -- in terms of survival and damage. Ems and AI implementation seems beyond a viable survival.

      My essay speaks of "looking beyond" in terms of conventional science and Earth and "looking within" regarding the mind's untapped capabilities, the mind being a microcosm of the universe.

      I would like to hear your thoughts.

      Jim

        Hi Robin,

        I was looking at your bio and noted your stint at Lockheed. There is a chance that you worked with or met Doug Engelbart there. Doug was the founder of the ARC (Augmentation Research Center) at SRI International. The ARC group competed with the AI group at SRI. Doug's thesis was that AI was the stuff of science fiction, but computers were best used at augmenting human intellect, rather than imitating it. Doug was correct, his group essentially developed the personal computer in 1968, the AI group developed Robbie the robot which could stack boxes.

        Now AI has improved and computer software (deep blue etc.) can beat a grand master in chess. But teams of human players using computers can beat any single computer in chess.... Augmentation still wins.

        I have very real doubts about the current abilities and future abilities of EMS or Uploading.

        Your essay had both a very practical suggestion for steering the future (Look Hard, Then Steer Slightly)

        And it had a very science fiction aspect (Uploading). Making for a very interesting read.

        Most impressive,

        Don Limuti

          Robin,

          I am revisiting those reviewed and found that I rated yours on May 24th.

          Jim

          I did meet Doug Engelbart, though not at Lockheed. I helped encourage him to raise his profile; he had given up for a while on thinking anyone cared about what he had to say. I agree that we are a very long way from being able to write human level AI software, and I agree that uploads/ems are many decades away. But within a century or so, they will probably be feasible, and we should think ahead.

          Robin,

          I see you haven't yet responded to the above. I hope you can now see that I've used the evidence of history to focus on what's really most effectively steered our advancement. I'm also suggesting the less Earth-centric thinking we'll need to understand the greater universe.

          My scoring powers have returned so I'm pleased to give you a deserved boost.

          Best wishes

          Peter

          Write a Reply...