[extropy-chat] American Humanists Association 2004 conference report - complete!

[Michael Anissimov]

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>Yes Vegas has its negative side (not the least of which is the
>cigarette smoke).  But this is slowly changing.  The NY Times
>had an article today on the decline in smoking in NYC due to
>tax hikes and a restaurant ban and one quite populated county
>here in WA state recently banned public smoking (now the subject
>of active court fights).  So progress is being made.
>

This is true - probably only 1% or so of the gamblers were even smoking 
at all, quite amazing since I was assuming there would be "Fear and 
Loathing in Las Vegas" levels of cigarette smoking.

>However without a doubt Vegas over the last 20 years has transformed
>itself into an entertainment capital.  The rides at the Luxor are
>cool, the shops and restaurants in Caesar's Palace are very nice
>and one could spend hours watching the fountains or artwork at
>the Biagio or browsing through the memorabilia at the Hard Rock.
>And let us not forget things like Siegfried & Roy & the tigers
>(if they ever come back) or the Starlight Express show...
>

Yeah, to some extent I agree with this.  Vegas is like a Disneyland for 
adults.  Lots of seniors and Midwesterners go crazy for it.  The 
sculpture and fountain design for Biagio and Ceasar's Palace were 
extremely impressive.  The interiors of Luxor, Treasure Island, and 
Mandalay Bay were gorgeous and very modern, even futuristic-looking in 
places. 

But the tens of *billions* of dollars stolen from people over the course 
of decades through the practice of gambling speak to me through the 
marble floors and fancy woodwork.  Most of the people who lose money in 
Vegas do not have huge salaries - they are the multitudes of working 
middle-class people who come to Vegas just to have a little "fun".  But 
they are hopelessly clueless about statistics, addicted to the rush of 
gambling, and it is straightforward for the casinos to coax away their 
life savings, resulting in their long-term suffering.  These fancy 
casinos and tourist attractions have been erected here in the middle of 
the desert - but at what cost?

>Now I realize that Michael may have been unable to take advantage
>of some of these things which is unfortunate.  But Las Vegas
>is to a large extent what a significant part of what life may
>look like when serious life extension kicks in.  According to
>my handy dandy spreadsheet that I have here -- if you stick $5000
>into a reasonable mutual fund earning ~6% after inflation (reasonable
>given historic long term stock market returns) when you are 21 then
>by the time you hit 130 years you are a multi-millionaire.  And
>this doesn't even take into account increased living standards
>due to nanotech development over the next 130 years.
>

Serious life extension requires sophisticated nanomedicine.  
Nanomedicine implies bountiful nanocomputers.  Bountiful nanocomputers 
probably implies that recursively self-improving transhuman intelligence 
has already been created, and created *correctly*.  This would mean that 
benevolent superintelligences would probably be around to grant human 
wishes.  Benevolent superintelligence would entail a post-Singularity 
culture of novelty and intelligence surpassing trillions of Homo sapiens 
cultures every... second.  Or picosecond.  Or femtosecond.  I can't 
really say, I'm only a human at the moment.

"Increased living standards" sounds like the most radical understatement 
in the universe when you are talking about a 10^17 ops/sec, 
*evolution-designed*, mortal homonine running on biological neurons 
potentially being upgraded to a superfast, totally reprogrammable, 
computronium-based immortal being... there is absolutely no comparison.  
Trying to quantify the desirability in terms of traditional utility 
metrics boggles the human mind.  All of this could of course be possible 
shortly after the creation of the first benevolent smarter-than-human 
intelligence.  If we play our cards right, this might be possible within 
the next 10 or 20 years.  So I feel very odd when you are talk about the 
future being anything like Vegas.

>So Michael -- next time you get to go to Las Vegas don't be afraid
>to go out and explore a little.  There is more there than one
>might expect at first glance.
>

I did explore a "little"; I spent at least 3-5 hours per day I was there 
walking around and checking stuff out.  I stayed at a hostel and went 
out with some interesting Australian backpackers I met there.  I spent 
at least of half of my time in Vegas just exploring the interiors of 
casinos.  The conference included few talks so the vast bulk of my time 
in Vegas was spent out and about.  I may be a geek but I'm not a nerd.  :)

My earlier comment still holds - casinos' funding comes from exploiting 
an unfortunate human weakness, a weakness likely to be quickly 
eliminated once we gain access to our own neurology.

-- 
Michael Anissimov                               http://singinst.org/
Advocacy Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence

--
Subscribe to our free eBulletin for research and community news:
http://www.singinst.org/news/subscribe.html