Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool2.mu.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: Hanson@charon.arc.nasa.gov (Robin Hanson) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Down and Out in Nanoland Message-ID: Date: 7 Jan 91 13:53:51 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 96 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In josh@cs.rutgers.edu thoughtfully writes: >Robin Hanson writes: > "My baseline image of our nanotechnology future splits into three ages, > "Replication", "Uploading" and "AI"." >I think the "AI" age will come first, and that we are already in the >beginning of it. ... uploading, which leaves you fairly sure >that the thing you've created is "really a person". However, by the >time that is possible, I believe that purely synthetic systems will >exist that can legitimately aspire to personhood. ... >Now the question is, is it economically more useful to mine your >asteroid with a crew of "full-personhood" copies of yourself, or >with partials that embody your mining expertise but don't have >your taste for expensive Venusian wines? Obviously you don't have >a choice if your only option is to make a copy; but ... In brucec@phoebus.labs.tek.com (Bruce Cohen) thoughtfully writes: >I think you are underestimating the potential of the technology. ... >you really don't need the entire mind, not even very much of it ... >I'm suggesting the use of portions of a human personality, Minsky's agents >(what I called subpersonae above) and animal personalities or portions >thereof (what I called animae [pun intended] above). ... >You could argue that I'm describing things which won't be possible until >the AI age ... Exactly. Both of you seem to be arguing that there will not be a significant time delay between the introduction of uploading technology and the ability to split off "partial" minds. And Josh thinks true AI will happen first. I don't think either of these alternatives is likely. (I'd be happy to offer betting odds if you would phrase a precise claim.) The ability to create partials which can be merged back into other partials or wholes when they are no longer economically viable would seem to require a tremendous understanding of how our brain works, and even then may not be possible. As far as AI goes, I have been a professional AI researcher for the last six years, and I think the chances of true AI coming before nanotech is quite low, even if nanotech takes forty years. And I think the vast majority of AI researchers agree with me. The progress we've made in the last thirty years is good, but nowhere near half way. Even if we disagree here, do you grant that *if* uploading comes first *then* my claim about most agents being poor is plausible? Some side points: Josh writes: >Why aren't the only living organisms bacteria? They reproduce a hell >of a sight faster than humans ... >The most successful replicators of the animal world, in terms of >biomass represented by the species, are the ants, ... Because investing in an ant body is apparently the "economically" most efficient scale for an agent until recent innovations (like mammal brains). Note that most ants *do* live near the edge of poverty. If they invest poorly and start to starve, they do not convert to being a flea or a bacteria -- they are at serious risk of dying. Why humans aren't poor now is the anomaly to be explained - my explanation is that we are creating wealth faster than we can create educated children. Bruce writes: >Just because some people may choose to make >lots of copies of themselves, it doesn't follow that many will, or that >those who don't will be seriously affected. A lot depends on ... I agree. How many people choose to make copies will depend in large part on how economically beneficial it is to do so, which is what I am trying to discuss. >there may be regulation of the copying of truehuman personalities ... >Why would a society install regulations like that? Precisely to prevent >the kind of inflation you describe. I agree that regulation can dramatically alter a society within the scope of that regulation (such as a nation) from what that society might be with a free economy. However, if that choice puts them at a significant economic disadvantage to other societies, they will lose out economically. My question is about the agents that hold the bulk of the wealth. I imagine that if there are going to be regulatory limits, they will probably happen at the level of whether people can upload at all. Uploaded people will seem, and be, very weird to most people. They will be very threatening because of their faster clock speed, potential immortality, and ability to multiply. And the fact that the uploaded state is likely to be a very alien and literally maddening experience for a while will make things worse. If uploading is allowed, most people will face the choice of jumping in no matter how alien it might be, or becoming economic bit players. Robin Hanson hanson@charon.arc.nasa.gov "Stake Your Reputation" 415-604-3361 MS244-17, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035 415-651-7483 47164 Male Terrace, Fremont, CA 94539-7921