Kommentarer på: När framtiden blir böjd istället för rak

Av: Människa+ » Arkiv » Troed Sångberg rapporterar från Singularity Summit 2011

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:02:55 +0000

[…] over the last few years, the Singularity Summit. In my writeup of the 2009 conference, available here, I supported the claim that the idea of the Singularity had gone mainstream. This year I was eager […]

Av: Mediaexplotioner är icke-linjära « Skiften

Mediaexplotioner är icke-linjära « Skiften — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:58:10 +0000

[…] är icke-linjära 2009 oktober 11 by Johanna Nylander Erik tar upp singulariteten i veckans skifte. Att se framtiden som exponentiell (eller ännu bättre: icke-linjär) istället för […]

Av: Singulariteten som drivkraft « Skiften

Singulariteten som drivkraft « Skiften — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:12:32 +0000

[…] exponentiell framtid, framtiden, natur, samhälle, Singulariteten, teknik by Waldemar Ingdahl I veckans skifte diskuterar vi singulariteten, en idé om att tekniken kommer att ta oss till en […]

Av: Singularity Summit 2009 – report « it’s in my head

Singularity Summit 2009 – report « it’s in my head — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:12:08 +0000

[…] var på Singularity Summit 2009 i helgen som gick, och skiften.org publicerade mina någorlunda hastigt nedskrivna tankar om det efteråt. Klicka på länken för att läsa […]

Av: Troed

Troed — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:59:59 +0000

Andy,

We have no problems with either energy nor resources in a world with exponential technical development. The Sun produces magnitudes of more energy than we can even hope to use in the near time (centuries) and there’s plenty of room on the Earth when we have plenty of energy. If we choose to upload, there’s even more 😉

(And yes, these issues are indeed discussed at events like this. There’s also lots of litterature on it – next time you’re over there’s a new book to borrow on the subject!)

Av: Anders Sandberg

Anders Sandberg — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:27:56 +0000

ajbraun: for obvious reasons there is no real research into downsides of eternal life right now. There is a number of papers by people who dislike the idea arguing against it, but it seems that this is largely rationalisations. Serious examinations of how a non-ageing society could maintain itself demographically, economically or resource-wise are rare to nonexistent.

I think there are good reasons to think a non-ageing society could be very good. Death causes massive losses of human capital, fertility seem to be much more flexible and economically elastic than most people think (hence the current declines in fertility), natural resources are used more efficiently at higher technology levels, long-lived people are likely to be more long-term oriented and so on.

But I think the real conclusion of ss09 and the subsequent workshops was that this kind of methuselarity might be overshadowed by truly fundamental shifts in human nature. If we get superintelligent AI or relatively cheap whole brain emulation it is a qualitatively new game – the old questions of resources and social structure become washed away in the intelligence explosion. And that is much more frightening and ethically worrysome. The problem is of course that we are still groping towards how to even address these questions. At ss09 we might have advanced a little bit, but only a little bit.

Av: Anders Sandberg

Anders Sandberg — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:59:16 +0000

Normalt diskonterar vi framtiden: en händelse om 10 år är bara värd 60% av dess nuvärde (om man diskonterar med 5% per år). Detta ger framtiden mindre vikt, vilket är vettigt givet osäkerhet om framtida förhållanden och risker. Det kan diskuteras en hel del vilken diskonteringstakt man ska ha.

Men om framtiden blir exponentiellt mer värd, då kan händelser om 10 år bli lika mycket värda som om de skedde nu. Särskilt om helt nya saker blir tillgängliga, som radikal livsförlängning eller personlighetsbackuper. Den avlägsna framtiden blir dominant – kanske för dominant.

Samtidigt ökar osäkerheten. Världen kring singulariteten kan mycket väl bli fantastisk, men det finns skäl att tro att den också kan bli ytterst ohygglig. Och vi vet lite om hur vi kan planera eller påverka detta. Så det blir en dragkamp mellan att satsa allt på kort sikt eftersom det är säkert, eller på det avlägsna eftersom det kan bli så enormt viktigt.

Av: ajbraun

ajbraun — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:59:41 +0000

Interestingly we often only look at the positive sides of this exponential growth. As productivity accelerates what is the effect on natural resource or energy consumption? How do we feed a world with 12 billion people instead of 6 billion? What about jobs? if productivity increases does that mean less people are needed?

I did not have a chance to visit SS09 but would be interested in any research on the downsides of eternal life.