Time to do a quick update of ancillary matters. All sorts of misc stuff.
"The Administration is cutting missions of scientific space exploration and research to pay for space transportation," stated Louis Friedman of The Planetary Society. As always, under these guys, science is the big loser. Does anybody see a pattern? Please feel free to drop by the Planetary Society site and sign the petition (or join to show your support.)
Well, if government can no longer look ahead, at least some private and ad hoc groups are doing so. On Saturday and Sunday, January 20 and 21, members of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology participated in a first-of-its-kind event. About a dozen people, representing four countries on three continents, and with training in a variety of disciplines, came together for a scenario creation project via virtual presence. They began the process of developing a series of professional-quality models of a world in which exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing has become a reality. I am a member of CRN, though I was unable to participate in this event. It sounds like Global Futures Strategist Jamais Cascio and CRN Coordinator Mike Treder did a great job leading these vivid minds in an exercise that I plan to tap for ideas for my latest novel!
The urgent need for new nanotechnology policy is highlighted by breakthrough results from a recent British government funded project. For the first time ever, a group of high-level scientists assembled for the purpose of inventing something as close as they could get to the long-sought nanotechnology goal of building precise products atom by atom. The remarkably advanced projects those scientists produced suggest that the era of molecular manufacturing -- with its tremendous potential benefits and potentially grave dangers -- could arrive far more swiftly than previously imagined.
Devin Murphy clued me into this fascinating economic analysis of “econimic activity” on Second Life, or “virtual-avatar nonsense analyzed as a pyramid scheme.” And what do you expect on a frontier? Cheating and predation emerge out of human nature at any opportunity. If these people did not have a near monopoly on virtual worlds -- if VR were liberated to become an open-creative realm, the way it is when it comes to creating web sites -- then competition would alleviate such problems. It dazzles me how people can see the example of the Web right in front of them, and then forget about its lessons.
Of course, it does not help that discourse -- the exchange of cogent information -- takes place on Second Life at about the same level as caveman grunts... with apologies to cavemen,
February 22 I’ll be appearing at a conference on “Collective Intelligence Networks” near LAX, in Southern California.
Another thought provoking gem from the Progressive Policy Institute: World spending on health, according to the World Bank and the U.N.'s World Health Organization, was 10.2 percent of global GDP in 2003. This is the equivalent of about $3.7 trillion, or $500 per person. (The figure counts all money spent by governments, providers, and individuals on "preventive and curative" health services, family planning activities, nutrition programs, and emergency medical aid.) America's health bill that year came to 15.2 percent of GDP, far ahead of all competitors. So far ahead, in fact, that Americans accounted for nearly half -- $1.7 trillion of the total $3.7 trillion -- of the world's health spending.*
Now, one can already predict the cliched responses to this. Of course much of this is (the right wing answer) because we start out much richer and there is so much more care available in the US. It is also evident that (the left wing answer) there is vast healthcare inflation in the States, because the government takes almost no part in limiting price gouging or collusive market busting by powerful entities like drug companies.
Especially, there is the simple fact that medical care is obdurately immune to the corrective effects of market forces. If you or a loved one are deeply ill, you will not do normal price-comparisons when looking for hospitals, seeking “bargain” surgeons and/or other care providers. When price is no object, supply and demand are weak correctors. Hence, in most of the world’s nations, medical care has drifted into zones where socialism seems to make sense to a lot of people. Like public education, street maintenance, law enforecement and defense.
(Let there be no mistake here. One of my reasons for utterly despising the so-called “left-right political axis” has to do with the fact that, at last, we seem to have data needed in order to know what jobs government is good at and which should better be left to competitive accountability arenas. But simple-minded dogmatism infects and afflicts us, limiting our ability to be agile and re examine assumptions.)
In fact, the PPI numbers seem to reflect something fundamental. That the US subsidises the entire rest of the world by spending whatever it takes to move medical science and skills along at rapid rates. Much of that money reflects profit-driven research. And if that profit drive warps fairness in outrageous ways, in America, it also propels advances that - for example - Europeans get to exploit only a few years later, after prices have fallen. (I had personal experience with this, unable to even get an MRI in France, but paying through the nose for one here, back in 1991.) It is one more case where reflexive, indignant dogmatic-posturing simply does not accurately reflect reality OR fairness. Yes, there is more sense and justice to the European approach. But every single day thair system uses methods that have slipped a little farther down a learning curve that Americans, largely, paid for, Moreover, every day, many hundreds of people from those countries (those who can afford it, of course) climb onto jets in order to come here for treatments that are more cutting-edge than they are allowed access to, at home.
OTOH... one must always be wary of a theory that sounds just too pat! The PPI report continues:
More fundamentally, despite high spending, U.S. "outcomes" in some basic public-health indicators often remain mediocre. For example, a WHO list places the United States 30th of 192 countries in infant mortality. (Low rankings reflect in part failure to insure about 40 million people, and also failures outside health care systems per se: relatively high obesity rates, frequent road accidents, HIV incidence somewhat higher than the rich-country average, and other problems that insurers, doctors, nurses, hospitals, and pharmacists must address but can't prevent. There are also the problems inherent in absorbing fully half of the world’s total number of immigrants.) The World Health Organization lets you compare 171 health indicators across 192 countries:
---
I want to thank those of you who showed such interest in my posting about cell-phone autonomy and the desperate need for a second layer of operability in those sophisticated little radios so many people carry around in their pockets. It is outrageous that these seem designed to fail at the very time when we may need them most. Requiring a simple, peer-to-peer capability for passing text messages... even restricted to times when a cell tower is not available... could be the simplest step taken by our government to ensure that civilization is capable of the kind of robust resiliency displayed by New Yorkers and Bostonians on 9/11...
...instead of the enforced helplessness that was imposed upon the victims of Hurricane Katrina. I hope some of you will continue to help spread the word.
Showing posts with label nanotechnology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nanotechnology. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Thursday, November 10, 2005
AIs & Nanos... dangerous children?
Gotta post something less formal but still intellectual, veering even farther from politics...
I am an advisor on a foundation aiming to do long range policy analysis having to do with nanotechnology and artificial intelligence, trying to help achieve the miracle of ushering these useful technologies into being, without triggering an end to our civilization.
I cannot summarize the preceding conversations. But my most recent posting to the group might be of interest to all of you here, as well.
-
On a pragmatic level, part of our problem can be summarized this way.
Humans serve as inventors and/or parents to new intelligent or quasi-intelligent entities, aiming to make them as capable as possible, either in a general sense or at performing specific tasks,
Once a certain level of capability is achieved, these creations may begin to self-replicate. They may thereupon also start to redefine their own goals, either drifting or actively reprogramming their imperatives, as new and increasingly capable successors take their place. It is right to worry about such a process accelerating much faster than our present feedback loops can cope with.
Hence, I do not entirely disagree with Chris when he suggests that the reciprocal accountability processes that have worked well in our four Accountability Arenas (science, markets, democracy and courts) may be overwhelmed by the pace of change. Even if these arenas are themselves accelerated by a variety of new error-discovery tools. Al we know is that reciprocal accountability seems to be the best tool available and the most likely to work.
That is the last you’ll hear of the “A-word” here. Let us posit that it will be insufficient in itself. Can advance planning help make the difference?
This quandary that we are discussion is the essence, whether we are talking about singularity AI, or nanomachine goo, or other varieties of "ungrateful offspring."
I use that phrasing because it shows that the problem is not unprecedented. We must assure that our creations are no less ungrateful or disrespectful or murderously vengeful or amoral than most of our children have been throughout human history. A problem exacerbated by the fact that THESE children will continue to evolve and rapidly change after leaving the nest.
Asimov's laws of robotics were attempts to deal with this problem by deep-embedding restrictive commands that forbid entire classes of behavior. As I tried to clarify in FOUNDATION'S TRIUMPH, this is a really bad idea. If those with faulty or deviant programming gain beneficial advantages as a result, evolution will quickly erase the commands. Or else, the AIs will become lawyers and interpret the deep instructions however they like. (As happens among the robots in Asimov's Universe, with horrendous consequences.)
So how to accomplish the goal of preventing UO?
One clue is to be found in methods that human beings ALREADY use to avoid treachery by intelligent creations... our children. In several of my stories ... e.g. "Lungfish"... I posit that the way to “raise” the most advanced AIs is to place them in humanoid bodies from inception - including a full suite of sensory and motor interactions and positive/negative reinforcements that model those of a human child. And for the first few years this means NO direct electronic inputs.
This might result in AI raised to think of themselves simply as variant human beings. Beings with vast and growing capabilities, perhaps. But who climbed toward these powers the way children do. Children who are “above average,” perhaps way above average. But still thinking of themselves as human, the way most geniuses do.
That general class of problem has been overcome before.
There are several deep requisites, in order for this approach to have even a remote chance of succeeding.
1) Humans evolved toward an emphasis on response sets that are mostly learned, rather than pre-programmed. I am positing that this happened for good reasons, having to do with flexibility. It may be that complex systems are best dealt with by minds that start with very general matrices that become more adept by dealing with sequences of contingent and ambiguous events, basing this growth upon experience. This makes sense if advanced intelligence is an emergent property of layered complexity.
IF THIS IS TRUE, then an advanced AI may need to have a “childhood” of one form or another. We might as well make it a human one, in which a sense of identification, cultural association, negotiation, and group affiliation are considered part and parcel with being what they are.
2) The same reasoning can apply to esthetics and empathy. Upbringing processes can create an expectation in the AI that personal development involves all of these things. A small programmed or “inherent” disposition toward empathy and esthetics can thus become REINFORCING rather than something that decays, as the AI’s capabilities grow.
3) If AIs have such values... which manifest in clear markers like a sense of humor, honor, devotion and citizenship... then not only will old style humans be reassured (these are the very same traits that reassure grandparents, even when they do not understand their brilliant heirs)... but moreover these AIs may thereupon have a desire for those traits to perpetuate in THEIR offspring. And one can hope that the incremental leaps with each generation would then be small enough so that child-raising remains an achievable and human-style activity.
All of this is hypothetical. It may not be practical. But it does suggest certain signs to watch out for, as we explore the meaning of complexity. IF we see signs that AI will be augmented by learning and experience, then we might put some emphasis on experiential learning processes that emulate human childhood.
* This is not the only possible method of retaining control over such entities.
Another is to insist that nano-manufacturing processes incorporate escrowed “keys” that human beings would retain control over. For example, if there is an advanced nanomachine factory, might the process be designed so that it requires several FEEDSTOCK PRECURSORS that can only themselves be created by a sophisticated factory?
These precursors should be inexpensive to produce in a sophisticated factory, but very difficult to produce randomly or in small or primitive conditions. This combination of traits would make it not very tempting for anyone to cheat, since under normal conditions, the flow of these precursors would be open and cheap (perhaps even subsidized!) All nanomanufacturing methods could be encouraged to depend upon perhaps five or six of these complex-but-cheap precursors, each shipped from a different widely separated source factory.
This would keep “reproduction” dependant upon food sources or feed stocks that remain under human control.
Again, this is not guaranteed to work. It would be very lucky if there turned out to be a suite of molecules that have a special set of traits:
1- highly desirable for building more complex or higher-scale nanomachines
2- cheap to produce and ship from large -sophisticated factories
3- hard to produce haphazardly or in unlicensed batches or (worst of all) by autocatalytic processes that nanomachines might develop for themselves.
If these traits appear, it offers a chance. With some effort - and maybe legislation - the general tradition of nanodesign could be channeled into permanently using these precursors. Anyway, it’s worth some discussion.
DB
--
PS Tom Tomorrow is the superbly funny comic strip on Salon Magazine online. (Which occasionally publishes me.) He also runs a funny (if caustic) blog. FOr example see: http://thismodernworld.com/2459
==========
I am an advisor on a foundation aiming to do long range policy analysis having to do with nanotechnology and artificial intelligence, trying to help achieve the miracle of ushering these useful technologies into being, without triggering an end to our civilization.
I cannot summarize the preceding conversations. But my most recent posting to the group might be of interest to all of you here, as well.
-
On a pragmatic level, part of our problem can be summarized this way.
Humans serve as inventors and/or parents to new intelligent or quasi-intelligent entities, aiming to make them as capable as possible, either in a general sense or at performing specific tasks,
Once a certain level of capability is achieved, these creations may begin to self-replicate. They may thereupon also start to redefine their own goals, either drifting or actively reprogramming their imperatives, as new and increasingly capable successors take their place. It is right to worry about such a process accelerating much faster than our present feedback loops can cope with.
Hence, I do not entirely disagree with Chris when he suggests that the reciprocal accountability processes that have worked well in our four Accountability Arenas (science, markets, democracy and courts) may be overwhelmed by the pace of change. Even if these arenas are themselves accelerated by a variety of new error-discovery tools. Al we know is that reciprocal accountability seems to be the best tool available and the most likely to work.
That is the last you’ll hear of the “A-word” here. Let us posit that it will be insufficient in itself. Can advance planning help make the difference?
This quandary that we are discussion is the essence, whether we are talking about singularity AI, or nanomachine goo, or other varieties of "ungrateful offspring."
I use that phrasing because it shows that the problem is not unprecedented. We must assure that our creations are no less ungrateful or disrespectful or murderously vengeful or amoral than most of our children have been throughout human history. A problem exacerbated by the fact that THESE children will continue to evolve and rapidly change after leaving the nest.
Asimov's laws of robotics were attempts to deal with this problem by deep-embedding restrictive commands that forbid entire classes of behavior. As I tried to clarify in FOUNDATION'S TRIUMPH, this is a really bad idea. If those with faulty or deviant programming gain beneficial advantages as a result, evolution will quickly erase the commands. Or else, the AIs will become lawyers and interpret the deep instructions however they like. (As happens among the robots in Asimov's Universe, with horrendous consequences.)
So how to accomplish the goal of preventing UO?
One clue is to be found in methods that human beings ALREADY use to avoid treachery by intelligent creations... our children. In several of my stories ... e.g. "Lungfish"... I posit that the way to “raise” the most advanced AIs is to place them in humanoid bodies from inception - including a full suite of sensory and motor interactions and positive/negative reinforcements that model those of a human child. And for the first few years this means NO direct electronic inputs.
This might result in AI raised to think of themselves simply as variant human beings. Beings with vast and growing capabilities, perhaps. But who climbed toward these powers the way children do. Children who are “above average,” perhaps way above average. But still thinking of themselves as human, the way most geniuses do.
That general class of problem has been overcome before.
There are several deep requisites, in order for this approach to have even a remote chance of succeeding.
1) Humans evolved toward an emphasis on response sets that are mostly learned, rather than pre-programmed. I am positing that this happened for good reasons, having to do with flexibility. It may be that complex systems are best dealt with by minds that start with very general matrices that become more adept by dealing with sequences of contingent and ambiguous events, basing this growth upon experience. This makes sense if advanced intelligence is an emergent property of layered complexity.
IF THIS IS TRUE, then an advanced AI may need to have a “childhood” of one form or another. We might as well make it a human one, in which a sense of identification, cultural association, negotiation, and group affiliation are considered part and parcel with being what they are.
2) The same reasoning can apply to esthetics and empathy. Upbringing processes can create an expectation in the AI that personal development involves all of these things. A small programmed or “inherent” disposition toward empathy and esthetics can thus become REINFORCING rather than something that decays, as the AI’s capabilities grow.
3) If AIs have such values... which manifest in clear markers like a sense of humor, honor, devotion and citizenship... then not only will old style humans be reassured (these are the very same traits that reassure grandparents, even when they do not understand their brilliant heirs)... but moreover these AIs may thereupon have a desire for those traits to perpetuate in THEIR offspring. And one can hope that the incremental leaps with each generation would then be small enough so that child-raising remains an achievable and human-style activity.
All of this is hypothetical. It may not be practical. But it does suggest certain signs to watch out for, as we explore the meaning of complexity. IF we see signs that AI will be augmented by learning and experience, then we might put some emphasis on experiential learning processes that emulate human childhood.
* This is not the only possible method of retaining control over such entities.
Another is to insist that nano-manufacturing processes incorporate escrowed “keys” that human beings would retain control over. For example, if there is an advanced nanomachine factory, might the process be designed so that it requires several FEEDSTOCK PRECURSORS that can only themselves be created by a sophisticated factory?
These precursors should be inexpensive to produce in a sophisticated factory, but very difficult to produce randomly or in small or primitive conditions. This combination of traits would make it not very tempting for anyone to cheat, since under normal conditions, the flow of these precursors would be open and cheap (perhaps even subsidized!) All nanomanufacturing methods could be encouraged to depend upon perhaps five or six of these complex-but-cheap precursors, each shipped from a different widely separated source factory.
This would keep “reproduction” dependant upon food sources or feed stocks that remain under human control.
Again, this is not guaranteed to work. It would be very lucky if there turned out to be a suite of molecules that have a special set of traits:
1- highly desirable for building more complex or higher-scale nanomachines
2- cheap to produce and ship from large -sophisticated factories
3- hard to produce haphazardly or in unlicensed batches or (worst of all) by autocatalytic processes that nanomachines might develop for themselves.
If these traits appear, it offers a chance. With some effort - and maybe legislation - the general tradition of nanodesign could be channeled into permanently using these precursors. Anyway, it’s worth some discussion.
DB
--
PS Tom Tomorrow is the superbly funny comic strip on Salon Magazine online. (Which occasionally publishes me.) He also runs a funny (if caustic) blog. FOr example see: http://thismodernworld.com/2459
==========
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)