3 ms·

I actually think that IBM just did more to fight aging than any aging science can do in the foreseeable future. Biological cells are "designed" for failure, the

by kika 12y ago

I actually think that IBM just did more to fight aging than any aging science can do in the foreseeable future. Biological cells are "designed" for failure, they can not live forever (except in some simplest forms). What would happen eventually, I think, is this: biological aging research will progress until some practical limit and we will live until like 150 years or something, then we will dump backup to some future S3 and restore from there to ever advancing neuro-chips. So if I were Larry I'd invest billions into neurophysiology, developing means to actually do this backup. The first restore would be to device the size of the Google datacenter, drawing megawatts of energy and with the run rate of $10.000/hour. That's okay, we've been there before and we'll fix it rather quickly. What's really interesting is what would happen next: let's say I died, my last backup was restored into some device and it costs a mere $5000/month to support. Of course I need to work to earn these money. I don't need sleep, I don't feel tired, I'm directly connected to the Internet (I don't need to type into Google, I _know_ everything Google knows) and I have 250 years of experience developing, hm, C++ applications for, hmmm, Windows. Now, what are the chances for a mortal, organic fresh grad to get a job (even if he can connect to Google directly too)?

loup-vaillant 12y ago
Three things. First, I have been to a conference a year ago when the researcher claimed to have restored senescent cells back to a "young" state. This kind of things completely bypasses any "programmed to die" scheme, and gives hope for actual biological immortality. Second, I call the future you outlined a "Hansonian dystopia", with rich people running at a faster rate than poorer people, and mass duplication/murder in the name of productivity. I'd rather avoid those drawbacks. Third, if we ever get to full blown mind uploading, we will probably have de-novo AI to contend with, and the intelligence explosion that it will likely imply. At this point, we can throw out just everything we know about economics and politics, and pray the AI is programmed for our own good (lest it turns Skynet and kills us all in 5 seconds —if we're lucky). Oh, and one last thing: backup is already an option right now: it's called cryonics. It's not exactly reliable (no one has been revived yet), but that's a genuine cause for hope (unlike joining your hands and look up the sky).
- kika 12y ago
  1. I remember that research, but it deals only with "programmed self-destruction". To completely fix the mortality problem we'd need to redesign the human organism from the ground up, which might not be feasible. Kind of "second system syndrome". 2. Right, having attained technological immortality, rich people could completely isolate themselves from the poor, getting richer and richer (in the broad sense of the word - more experienced, more advanced in studies, etc) and poor would lose even the theoretical path into this "rich bubble". You can't "rather avoid the drawbacks" by stopping progress, you'll have to use the progress to avoid drawbacks, but I do not see how. Cryonics is not a backup. Backup implies working restore procedure. Cryonics is like removing platters from the hard drive with a screwdriver and putting them into file cabinet somewhere in someone's basement, hoping that they would be just okay. Yeah, possible.
  - loup-vaillant 12y ago
    2. Friendly AI seems to be a solution. Depends what will happen. Either we will have an intelligence explosion, and the "winner takes all" scenario that it implies —in which case all we have to do is ensure the first AI is Friendly —yeah, piece of cake… Or, we won't have intelligence explosion, and I don't see how to avoid the Hansonian outcome either. (Those interested in guessing what is more likely to happen may be interested by the Yudkowsky-Hanson debate.) Cryonics: agreed. I wouldn't bet my life on it if I could help it. Cryonicists often say that cryonics is the second worst thing that can happen to you (just after certain death).
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
Downvoted for hypesterism ;-). Why? Because IBM's so-called "neuro-chips" are actually just specialized hardware for running Spiking Neural Networks, AFAICT. They have jack-all to do with brain uploading. Now stop drooling.
- kika 12y ago
  Intel 4004 was just specialized hardware for some Japan calculator (the size of the modern desktop). And it was just 40 years ago.
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    And, as a matter of fact, the modern desktop PC still isn't a world-dominating artificial general intelligence. Because the two things have nothing to do with each-other. No amount of advancement in hardware, quality or quantity, will turn artificial neural networks into the phlebotinum from Charles Stross novels.

by kika 12y ago

loup-vaillant 12y ago

Three things. First, I have been to a conference a year ago when the researcher claimed to have restored senescent cells back to a "young" state. This kind of things completely bypasses any "programmed to die" scheme, and gives hope for actual biological immortality. Second, I call the future you outlined a "Hansonian dystopia", with rich people running at a faster rate than poorer people, and mass duplication/murder in the name of productivity. I'd rather avoid those drawbacks. Third, if we ever get to full blown mind uploading, we will probably have de-novo AI to contend with, and the intelligence explosion that it will likely imply. At this point, we can throw out just everything we know about economics and politics, and pray the AI is programmed for our own good (lest it turns Skynet and kills us all in 5 seconds —if we're lucky). Oh, and one last thing: backup is already an option right now: it's called cryonics. It's not exactly reliable (no one has been revived yet), but that's a genuine cause for hope (unlike joining your hands and look up the sky).

kika 12y ago
1. I remember that research, but it deals only with "programmed self-destruction". To completely fix the mortality problem we'd need to redesign the human organism from the ground up, which might not be feasible. Kind of "second system syndrome". 2. Right, having attained technological immortality, rich people could completely isolate themselves from the poor, getting richer and richer (in the broad sense of the word - more experienced, more advanced in studies, etc) and poor would lose even the theoretical path into this "rich bubble". You can't "rather avoid the drawbacks" by stopping progress, you'll have to use the progress to avoid drawbacks, but I do not see how. Cryonics is not a backup. Backup implies working restore procedure. Cryonics is like removing platters from the hard drive with a screwdriver and putting them into file cabinet somewhere in someone's basement, hoping that they would be just okay. Yeah, possible.
- loup-vaillant 12y ago
  2. Friendly AI seems to be a solution. Depends what will happen. Either we will have an intelligence explosion, and the "winner takes all" scenario that it implies —in which case all we have to do is ensure the first AI is Friendly —yeah, piece of cake… Or, we won't have intelligence explosion, and I don't see how to avoid the Hansonian outcome either. (Those interested in guessing what is more likely to happen may be interested by the Yudkowsky-Hanson debate.) Cryonics: agreed. I wouldn't bet my life on it if I could help it. Cryonicists often say that cryonics is the second worst thing that can happen to you (just after certain death).

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

Downvoted for hypesterism ;-). Why? Because IBM's so-called "neuro-chips" are actually just specialized hardware for running Spiking Neural Networks, AFAICT. They have jack-all to do with brain uploading. Now stop drooling.

kika 12y ago
Intel 4004 was just specialized hardware for some Japan calculator (the size of the modern desktop). And it was just 40 years ago.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  And, as a matter of fact, the modern desktop PC still isn't a world-dominating artificial general intelligence. Because the two things have nothing to do with each-other. No amount of advancement in hardware, quality or quantity, will turn artificial neural networks into the phlebotinum from Charles Stross novels.