[ExI] destructive uploading was AI class

[Keith Henson]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:40 AM,  Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 08:48:56AM -0700, Keith Henson wrote:
>
>> That seems awfully dogmatic to me.  People who are 20 and reading this
>
> People reading this list include me (1966) and you (1942), who
> co-authored with Drexler in 1977. Looking back 30 years, and looking
> at who's still working on machine-phase, what are your estimates
> and you and me see http://nanomedicine.com/ like capabilities in
> what is left of our lifetimes?

Looking back 30 years what are the odds the human genome project would
be finished by now?

You just can't tell when some technological development will take off.

I find it to be downright weird to be both the oldest and the most
optimistic on the list.

> The way things are going we're not
> even going to get a cryosuspension by the time we need it.
> Which could be far sooner than either one of us care to speculate.
>
>> list could well be here in 2100, they would only have to make it to
>> 89.

Sorry, 109.  Even so, that might not even be considered old in 2100.

> Tell that to Sasha Chislenko, Hara Ra, Robert Bradbury and
> dozens of people we knew but are no longer there.

Hara Ra got one of the best suspensions on record.  Sasha and Robert
were not signed up.  Cryonic suspension is not as good as just living
long enough to "catch the wave" but it's a backup plan.  If I live as
long as my parents, I have another 20 years.  I think the odds are
fair that life extension treatments might start adding more than a
year per year within that time frame.  If not, being signed up gives
me a chance to see the deep future.

>> What makes you so certain that nanotechnology will not come into
>> existence by the end of the century?  (Convince me, I would like to be
>> convinced.)
>
> I don't know what will happen by end of century. What
> I do know is that none of it will be relevant for you and me
> and most other people on this list (sadly, also no longer
> spring chicken).

You are 24 years younger than I am.  I could live into the 2030s
without help, you into the 2050s.  It would take only modest life
extension for you to reach the end of the century.

> I have another hunch: there are probably less than 5 people
> reading this list who're 20 or below. You might wonder what
> it indicates, and it's not merely email being a dead medium.
>
> But, hey, it doesn't matter, as long as you can click the Facebook
> "like" button, or upboat the orange-red.

I am only lightly connected to the current culture so this makes no sense.

>> >> I know Hans Moravec proposed that decades ago and it became a
>> >> pervasive meme, but it's an awful concept and a serious marketing
>> >> burden for transhumanism.
>> >
>> > Doesn't affect cryonics, as this side of suspension process is
>> > resurrection-agnostic.
>>
>> I was not talking about cryonics.
>
> Keith, I doubt you and I even get a shitty suspension. Hope I'm wrong, of course.

It is my widely known intention to move next to Alcor if in a terminal
condition.  Far as I know, everyone who has done so has had a decent
suspension.

> Machine-phase will happen eventually (unless things go seriously sour),
> but unless you subscribe to an AI-driven Singularity, which is a particularly
> pernicious cult for futurists to embrace, as it greatly enhances their
> private, personal chances to encounter the information-theoretic Grim Reaper
> not on our watch. Sorry.

Hmm.  It is my opinion that actions rather than beliefs are what
counts.  Of course if you are convinced that the singularity will come
along within your biological lifespan and don't make backup plans
because of this belief, I see your point.

>> >> I have reasons to think it would be a lot harder than infiltrating the
>> >> brain with nanotech monitoring posts and learning how to emulate it.
>> >
>> > It would be a lot harder since there isn't any medical nantechnology,
>> > nor will there be any for anyone reading this message right now.
>>
>> If anyone cares about marketing transhumanism in the present, we
>> should quit talking about destructive uploading.  It is a really
>
> In order to market you must first have a product. Unless you're
> in the religion business. I'm not.
>
>> distasteful and (to my way of thinking) stupid way to upload when
>> there are conceivable options that provide a path to reversible
>> uploading as slick as boiling a frog.
>
> There are many conceivable options. Unfortunately, none of them
> relevant to us reading these lines. You all can disagree. The obits
> will tell us who's right soon enough.

The obits have been a bummer.  Last few years everyone close to me who
has died was younger.

Keith Henson