Anarchism, Transhumanism, and the Singularity

The most cited example, for obvious reasons, is Moore's law; that the number of transistors that can fit on a chip has doubled every year and a half to two years. This has been going on for some time, like clockwork. However, you are quite right when you say there are limitations. Again, barring an existential disaster, it's likely we'll reach the end of Moore's law within the next 20 years, maybe sooner. You can only make these componants so small, before you reach the limit, the .1 barrier, at which point electrons start leaking out everywhere and it gets all fucked up. However, this is not set in stone. Larry Krauss (Regular contributor to Scientific American, and author of "The Physics of Star Trek.") for various reasons predicts Moore's Law could continue for over 500 years, although I haven't read anything he's published on this subject. There are other ideas, like 3 dimensional, or layered chips, of course this has the problem of exponentially increasing the heat making it difficult to keep the system from frying itself. However, as Kurzweil points out, there are always new paradigms, Moore's law is just the latest. Here's a diagram from Kurzweil;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FilePTMooresLawai.jpg
Again, we see the exponential, "J" curve. What might this new paradigm be? Well, most likely, I think, Quantum computers. The CIA has put a substantial amount of money into this. Potentially Quantum Computers would make a Cray look like a pocket calculator. However, there's the problem of keeping the electrons perfectly in line and preventing decoherence, etc.

The name has some problems, but I think it works as well as any. It was originally coined by SF author and mathematician Vernor Vinge. Indidentally, his ex-wife's book "Catspaw" is one of the greatest SF novels I've ever read.

Agreed.

 

Word.

I went back and re-read "I, Robot" a few months ago and what really amazed me was how ahead of his time he really was. Virtually all the things AI research is wrestling with today, he already thought of decades ago.

Right on.

This is what I mean when I say we need to draw a fine line between the science and the institutions that usurp it for their own purposes. Oppenheimer and Einstein were not driven to create an instrument of mass death. That's the perverse objective of the generals, politicians, and clerics when they get their hands on it.

Exactly, just like Chomsky says, the fundamental tendency in Anarchism is towards a modern, sophisticated society. At the moment machines are displacing workers creating tension and unemployment, which also has to do with the nature of predatory economic institutions, but, anyhow, I think the endpoint of this is ultimately beneficial, essentially an end to labor as we know it, freeing us up to do all sorts of other thins. Here is a compilation of videos of manufacturing robots, it's absolutely amazing, and keep in mind, they're only going to get faster and more efficient.
http://singularityhub.com/2010/02/11/no ... n-factory/

Exactly.

We should obviously continue to try and change this. However, as I've said before, I wonder if we are heading towards a point where these structures simply become untenable. For example, with inexhaustible clean energy, and so forth... To paraphrase Ozymandias, in "Watchmen"; power structures largely rest on scarcity, when resources approach infinity, the power gets diffused and much tougher to hang on to.

As for AI, I'd say there are still reasons for concern. You mentioned the three laws. This is a good first principle, to create a "friendly" AI. However, we must acknowledge that as this thing exclipses us in intelligence more and more, the more ineffectual any barriers we might design for it will be. I would think it would probably be a good idea to not connect it to the internet until we can be relatively sure it wouldn't present any problems. I think an AI would be very different. First of all, most of our attitudes and behaviors are shaped by our biological evolution. Our moral sense, romantic love, and the desire to procreate, for example, it probably wouldn't have these natural tendencies. That said, just because it has no system of morality wouldn't make it necessarily hostile. I don't think we have to worry about getting into "Hasta la vista, baby." territory anytime soon.

Maybe. Again, I think we might have to move on from this conception of the proletariat, which was constructed during a time when the west had a susbstantial manufacturing sector, and most of that labor was done by hand. This no longer applies to most workers in the west. I think we need to update this conception for the 21st century.

A very good idea.

 

I think we have many people today who are pushing those boundries. People like Noam Chomsky and Steven Hawking displaying the greater levels of human cognitive abilities, olympic and professional athletes displaying the pinnacle of physical capabilities, also artists, writers, musicians. I think the key is to help more people get to the place where they can start realizing their potential.
As for human enhancement, I'm paraphrasing, I forget the source, but, essentially, at this point in medical science there is no dividing line between medical science and human enhancement. Like aging, for example. It's very likely aging is simply the result of a few specific illnesses, or breakdowns in our biochemistry, treating these will lead to longer lifespan and eventually, perhaps "negligible senesence", an effective end to aging.
I think human enhancement, should be given serious consideration and forethought. It's sort of a general truism that the greater the potential impact of any course of action, the greater the obligation to act responsibly. I don't see this as any different. That's why we discuss these issues, to explore them, to understand them, to make the right choices.

 

I'm not advocating anything of the sort. Obviously, there's certain theoretical types of genetic engineering that should be discouraged. However, if we can isolate horrible genetic diseases like Cystic Fibrosis, or Huntington's, why wouldn't we? I have trouble believing that these horrible illnesses contribute anything vital or valuable to the human race. I don't see any justification for it, outside of some vague religious nonsense. Frankly, I think any diety whose divine plan included this degree of suffering and misery wouldn't deserve any consideration.I don't think Steven Hawking would be drastically less brilliant if he weren't crippled by a horrible disease. In fact, this kind of preemptive action could allow us to keep more of the Steven Hawking's or Picasso's that are felled by some awful sickness. In the coming years genetic medicine should become the norm. We may have the tools to rid the world of sickle-cell anemia, etc., etc., and honestly, I think it's about time.

This is an area of fundamental disagreement. I think this is a confusion of the cause and the means. Science, which is really just applied reason, is neutral at least. Monoplithic power structures use technology to oppress people because monolthic structures generally exist to oppress people. The science isn't the problem. Einstein and Oppenheimer were not naturally inclined to create an instrument of mass death, that's what the politicians, generals, and clerics want, because that's the limit of the scope of their vision.

 

I can't speak for the author, but that's essentially how I read it. Anarchism is the freedom from artificial constraints, placed on us by governments, corporations, and religion. Transhumanism is the freedom from biological constraints. Limits on how smart we can be, how strong we can be, how long we can live, and how healthy we can be for how much of that finite lifespan.

As Yudkowsky says in the essay I posted;

"Suppose you find an unconscious six-year-old girl lying on the train tracks of an active railroad. What, morally speaking, ought you to do in this situation? Would it be better to leave her there to get run over, or to try to save her? How about if a 45-year-old man has a debilitating but nonfatal illness that will severely reduce his quality of life – is it better to cure him, or not cure him?"

The point being we are morally obligated to try and save lives. You can't just let the 45-year-old die and say; "Fuck it, he had his chance." There is no magic deviding line. To paraphrase Nick Bostrom, one of the primary causes of death is aging, so if you really want to save lives, if you apply these ethical principles correctly, it's something you have to address.