From ben at zaiboc.net Fri Aug 1 10:40:50 2025 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 11:40:50 +0100 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> There's an assumption here that I think may be false, and if it is, it changes the argument completely. Why assume that the infrastructure to host an individual mind has to be outside the control of the individual? The ability to create an entire film or a symphony in your bedroom with a laptop at virtually no cost except your time would have been thought outrageous and impossible not long ago. Now it's commonplace. The assumption was that a complex thing like a film has to involve hundreds of individuals, millions of pounds, and a vast array of equipment to make. Then someone came along and made The Blair Witch Project on a smartphone. Admittedly, it was a fairly crappy film, but it broke the assumption. The same thing with music. It used to take professional recording studios and a crowd of audio experts to make a record. Now spotty teenagers are able to create (technically) high-quality music with a laptop, some free software and a pair of headphones. Most of it might not be worth listening to, but that's not the point. The point is that technology advances on an accelerating curve, that puts previously inconcievable abilities into the hands of ordinary people. I'm pretty confident that once uploading technology matures (assuming it's possible at all), it won't be long before it becomes cheap and easy, no matter how hard and expensive it was to develop in the first place. I also expect the physical sizes of the systems will become much smaller than they need to be at first. There's nothing new in any of this, we've been seeing it happen for quite a few decades now, in all sorts of other technologies. This means that at some point, ordinary people will be able to upload themselves into a system that they own, that they can control, that has the ability to operate real-world agencies (robotic bodies, etc.), and can connect to a network of other virtual spaces. I used to be a fairly intense user of Second Life, some time ago (before Linden Labs got too heavy-handed with it), and my avatars, that I usually created myself, used to visit virtual spaces that other people had created. I had a job in there, earning money, interacted with people from all over the world, had a blast making scripted objects, for myself and other people, and had lots of interesting experiences, some of which would only be possible in a virtual world. All - within some practical limits - under my control, using my own computer, at no cost other than my internet connection and electricity. When the owners of the software that made it all possible started changing things, generally making life harder for people, I stopped using it and found another similar system created by more liberal-minded developers. This seems to me to be a fairly close analogy to what uploading could be like. No doubt there will be efforts to create walled gardens, controlled by big corporations, governments will try to interfere and censor, and there will be what Second Life used to call 'griefers', individuals who just wanted to be destructive and cause trouble for people, but these are all just part of life, challenges to be overcome as and when we meet them. "if we live in a giant computer..." Rather than the common picture of people being helpless pawns in a vast machine that they have no control over, I imagine a vast network of autonomous individuals, each one in their own independent container, and connecting as and when they want to billions of others, in common virtual spaces that they build for themselves. So it becomes "if we live in our own computers..." Which is not so different to what we have now, really, with each person in their own brain, in their own body that they have a limited degree of control over (biology being what it is), communicating with other people as and when they want to and need to. We are responsible for keeping ourselves healthy, sometimes with the help of a healthcare system, and for providing ourselves with shelter and food. Being an upload shouldn't be that different in principle, just the actual items and actions we need will be different. Antivirus software updates instead of vaccinations, etc. The real difference is, as an upload, your possibilities are much greater, and the downsides are fewer. Provided we do it in the right way. But, as always, there will be many ways. There will be the equivalents of Microsoft, Apple and Google, and the whole world of proprietary software, then there will be the equivalents of Linux and BSD, and the world of free software. There will be people who live in 'a giant computer', and those who live in their own individual computers. I suppose it should be said that these 'computers' won't be like the computers we have now. Max Headroom will never be a real thing. The term 'processing space' might be better, and hopefully makes the similarity to biological brains clearer. To go back to Bill w's original question, "How will you pay for your upkeep?", there are probably as many answers as there are to the same question asked of biological people. In Second Life, I used to teach people to make furniture and jewellery. I expect there will be plenty of job opportunities for uploads, if that's what they need or want. -- Ben From pharos at gmail.com Fri Aug 1 12:38:24 2025 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 13:38:24 +0100 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> References: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 at 11:43, Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat wrote: > > There's an assumption here that I think may be false, and if it is, it > changes the argument completely. > > Why assume that the infrastructure to host an individual mind has to be > outside the control of the individual? > > > Ben > _______________________________________________ The big problem about predicting the future is how much it will change. When cars appeared, obviously fewer horses would be required. But much more than horses were affected. As the Singularity approaches, we face the problem that *everything* will be changing. So predicting the future now means that almost anything we can think of will be different and things that we never even thought of will appear. We live in interesting times, indeed! BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Aug 1 13:08:17 2025 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 08:08:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: I presume that an uploaded person needs electricity to function. When the assets used to create the upload and provide energy eventually run out, then what? How does the upload create assets? That's my question. bill w On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 7:41?AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 at 11:43, Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > There's an assumption here that I think may be false, and if it is, it > > changes the argument completely. > > > > Why assume that the infrastructure to host an individual mind has to be > > outside the control of the individual? > > > > > > > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > > > The big problem about predicting the future is how much it will change. > When cars appeared, obviously fewer horses would be required. > But much more than horses were affected. > > As the Singularity approaches, we face the problem that *everything* > will be changing. > So predicting the future now means that almost anything we can think > of will be different and things that we never even thought of will > appear. > We live in interesting times, indeed! > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Aug 1 13:27:57 2025 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 09:27:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Presumably in much the same way anyone of the time might create assets. On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 9:10?AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > I presume that an uploaded person needs electricity to function. When the assets used to create the upload and provide energy eventually run out, then what? How does the upload create assets? That's my question. bill w > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 7:41?AM BillK via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 at 11:43, Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat >> wrote: >> > >> > There's an assumption here that I think may be false, and if it is, it >> > changes the argument completely. >> > >> > Why assume that the infrastructure to host an individual mind has to be >> > outside the control of the individual? >> > >> >> > >> > Ben >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> >> The big problem about predicting the future is how much it will change. >> When cars appeared, obviously fewer horses would be required. >> But much more than horses were affected. >> >> As the Singularity approaches, we face the problem that *everything* >> will be changing. >> So predicting the future now means that almost anything we can think >> of will be different and things that we never even thought of will >> appear. >> We live in interesting times, indeed! >> >> BillK >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From jasonresch at gmail.com Fri Aug 1 13:34:20 2025 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 09:34:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Assume the solar system as is, has the energy capacity to provide for the computing power to support 100 quadrillion human level intelligent minds each for 1 subjective human lifetime (70 years). Now it becomes a real question and problem: what is the most moral, beneficial, optimal way to divy up those computing resources? Should 10 billion human lives (everyone alive today) each get 70 billion years of life? Should 100 quadrillion trillion unique individuals each get 70 years? Should we create 100 - 1000x simpler minds (like dogs, or fish), or should we create a million fewer super intelligences? Perhaps we should fill the virtual space with a wide variety of minds of different classes. Maybe every gets 1 million years, but if they want to end their life before that they can donate their time to someone else they think is worthy (their offspring or their Einstein's of their day). Who has the power to create new minds and if you choose to create one, do you have to split your allotted time with your creation? Perhaps you can spare your time to "bring back" and talk to or otherwise simulate any historical figure who has been put on ice. Note that every life allowed to exist is another life that is prevented from existing. So morally speaking so the extant who had a chance at some life, have more of a right to exist than the nonexistent who experienced nothing? If so this argues against a small population of immortals as the most morally fair time distribution. Or perhaps we'll find a way to support infinite computations and all these considerations are moot. But in any situation with finite computational resources there will be finite possible consciousness experiences that can be realized with those resources. It's not a trivial question how to divvy up those created experiences across different individuals and classes of minds and how much lifetime each individual should have. Jason On Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 7:02 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > @BillK in fact I posted BOTH our responses to ChatGPT and asked for it to > not be sycophantic (which I think is currently impossible, but I'm trying > to prove a point here.) Its response: > > You're right to seek a sober, physics-anchored take. Let's analyze both > positions with honesty and then synthesize a reasoned assessment. > ------------------------------ > *The Optimistic Vision (Claude/Perplexity/Original Poster)* *Claims:* > > 1. > > Digital minds live in post-scarcity luxury thanks to near-infinite > computational and energy resources. > 2. > > Governance is decentralized and rational, through DAOs and AIs. > 3. > > Material scarcity has been eliminated via automation, space-based > solar, and fusion. > 4. > > The digital economy is rich in meaningful activity, social life, and > cultural growth. > 5. > > Long-term sustainability is achieved through automated migration, > endowments, and decentralized energy infrastructure. > > *Strengths:* > > - > > *Speculatively coherent* if you assume multiple breakthroughs: mind > uploading, massively abundant energy, stable self-maintaining AI > infrastructure, cultural evolution toward cooperation. > - > > Describes a *potentially desirable system* if agency loss is willingly > traded for immortality and comfort. > - > > Echoes similar visions by thinkers like Bostrom, Kurzweil, Drexler. > > *Weaknesses:* > > - > > Ignores *thermodynamic and economic constraints*: computation is not > free, and scarcity can shift rather than vanish. > - > > Presumes *governance and AI fairness* will scale with complexity?a > fragile assumption. > - > > *Ownership problem* is handwaved: who runs the servers? Who controls > migration, throttling, deletion, upgrades? > - > > Assumes that psychological and political *human nature is not a > limiting factor*, or that it will be "transcended." > - > > Discounts *external threats* and cyber-ecological stability over > millennia. > > ------------------------------ > *Your Skeptical Rebuttal* *Claims:* > > 1. > > Scarcity is fundamental; no system can eliminate competition over > finite resources. > 2. > > Power asymmetries will persist or even worsen in digital environments. > 3. > > Utopia requires psychological and legal development, not just tech. > 4. > > True post-scarcity is *physically impossible* in this universe. > 5. > > A peaceful uploaded society would be fragile or coercive?utopia via > total control. > > *Strengths:* > > - > > Grounded in *realist political theory and thermodynamics*. > - > > Points out the *political economy of hardware*: ownership = power. > - > > Acknowledges the risk of *mob rule or oligarchy*, even in utopian > simulations. > - > > Understands that *agency is lost* when surrendering physical autonomy > to a system stewarded by others. > - > > The mention of *outsiders vs. insiders* is crucial?uploading solves > mortality, not geopolitics. > > *Weaknesses:* > > - > > Assumes *human nature is fixed*, possibly underestimating capacity for > change. > - > > May *underrate future engineering feats*: even if true post-scarcity > is unreachable, abundance asymptotically close to it could be achieved. > - > > Suggests no room for *hybrid models*?e.g., layered societies balancing > scarcity and abundance. > - > > Tends toward *pessimism about coordination*?which history shows can > occur under certain shared existential incentives. > > ------------------------------ > *My Judgment (No Butter)* > > You're more right than the optimist, especially in the short-to-medium > term (say, <500 years). There is *no true post-scarcity* because: > > - > > *Land, matter, energy, and computation* are still bound by finite > resources and entropy. > - > > *Scarcity simply shifts* from physical goods to control over > computation, bandwidth, subjective time, access, etc. > - > > Any sufficiently valuable virtual or mental space will be *subject to > capture, control, and rent-seeking*, just like the real world. > > *However*, it is possible to create systems that *feel* post-scarcity > relative to today?*local plateaus of abundance*. That?s real, meaningful, > and worth pursuing. > > Yet unless humanity also: > > - > > Evolves psychologically, > - > > Creates robust, transparent, power-checking legal systems, > - > > Solves the hardware governance dilemma, > > ...then the supposed paradise would either: > > - > > Collapse into new digital class hierarchies, > - > > Be ruled by coercive stability (benevolent AI overlord), > - > > Or face cyber-ecological catastrophes. > > Your analogy to perpetual motion is apt. A post-scarcity system, like a > frictionless machine, can only exist in theory or within a closed bubble of > carefully managed inputs and outputs. And someone controls the valves. > ------------------------------ > *Conclusion* > > No, true post-scarcity is not physically possible. But degrees of > abundance *relative to baseline* are. What determines the fate of such > societies is not the tech?but *who controls it*, *how people behave*, and *whether > power is cyclically redistributed*. Without addressing that, all you're > doing is handing a shinier leash to the same old dominators. > > So: good instincts. You?re not just being cynical?you?re anchoring the > vision in reality. > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 6:56?PM Will Steinberg > wrote: > >> Being ?post-scarcity? is a matter of human psychological, legal, and >> spiritual development, not technological. >> >> Life and humans as they are will always expand to fill niches, and if we >> live in a giant computer and our minds gain 1000000x the capacity then the >> thieves and the power-hungry will take 1000000x as much. >> >> The solutions, if they are even possible (may just be a fact of physical >> reality), is to 1) spur human psychological development so there are as few >> assholes as possible and 2) create legal (in a computer this may be much >> easier, since if you did decide to upload (I wouldn?t) it means you have to >> give up a lot of autonomy) barriers to power consolidation. >> >> Of course the fact is that as is someone will actually OWN or at least >> steward the computers that you arw theoretically talking about uploading >> into. This entity will be the one with the power, the one who gets the >> most. Likely unless we see said psychospiritual shifts in humanity there >> will be various technocratic walled gardens that people give up agency to >> enter in exchange for the benefits of uploading. >> >> And also of course no matter whether humanity somehow owns the jupiter >> brain collectively and equally, someone on the OUTSIDE of the brain will >> have incredible power over those inside. And then the brain inhabitants >> will have to develop defenses against those outsiders and vice versa. And >> if we do own it collectively you run into a mob rule type situation where >> the common viewpoint might actually be horrible. >> >> So yeah I don?t believe a utopia is thermodynamicslly possible. Maybe >> there will be a sense of that if an unfathomably powerful and benevolent AI >> has the power, but that?s exactly what it would be?peace at the cost of >> losing power/agency. >> >> If there were free lunches then perpetual motion machines would exist >> too. I don?t believe these are problems that can be solved in an this >> universe. >> >> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 4:11?PM BillK via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 at 20:39, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> 1) Will you, as you do today, own the hardware you run on, so there's >>>> no such thing as a "rented" existence? >>>> >>>> 2) How will you pay, in general, in one or ten thousand years? Will >>>> money in a form recognizable to those today still exist? Will economics >>>> run on reputation instead? Will there be an abundance economy that gives >>>> everyone a universal basic income sufficient to maintain existence? >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, it will be a post-scarcity abundance economy. Pretty much nothing >>> like our present civilisation. >>> Now, designing how our future civilisation will look is not a >>> five-minute task! Let AI do the hard work. :) >>> >>> First, I asked Perplexity AI to do a technical report on the future >>> uploaded humanity economy. >>> The report it produced was detailed, full of information, but pretty >>> difficult to read. >>> >>> So I asked Perplexity to use the report and rewrite it as a description >>> for a visitor to that world. >>> That produced a fun description of our future! See below. >>> BillK >>> >>> *Perplexity AI - * >>> Welcome to the Digital Consciousness Economy >>> >>> *A World Where Minds Live Forever* >>> >>> Imagine stepping into a civilization where death is optional and >>> consciousness exists beyond the physical body. You've arrived in a world >>> where human minds have been successfully uploaded into vast computational >>> networks, creating a thriving digital society that has sustained itself for >>> thousands of years. >>> How This World Works >>> >>> In this reality, your consciousness?your memories, personality, >>> thoughts, and experiences?can be transferred into powerful computer systems >>> when your biological body reaches its end. But unlike the chaotic digital >>> wilderness you might expect, this world operates on a sophisticated *subscription-based >>> economy* designed to keep millions of digital minds active and thriving >>> across millennia. >>> The Economics of Digital Existence >>> >>> Think of it like a cosmic Netflix for consciousness. Every uploaded mind >>> exists within a *tiered service system*: >>> >>> - >>> >>> *Basic Digital Life* is free for everyone?you get standard >>> processing power, a simple virtual environment, and the fundamental right >>> to exist digitally >>> - >>> >>> *Enhanced Living* requires a monthly subscription?offering faster >>> thinking, richer virtual worlds, and premium experiences >>> - >>> >>> *Luxury Existence* provides unlimited computational resources, >>> exclusive digital spaces, and access to the most advanced simulations >>> imaginable >>> >>> Your Digital Lifestyle >>> >>> As a visitor, you'd discover that uploaded minds don't just passively >>> exist?they *actively participate in vibrant virtual economies*. Digital >>> citizens work in computational jobs, create virtual art, build immersive >>> worlds, and trade unique digital assets. Some minds specialize in complex >>> problem-solving, others become virtual entertainers, and many pursue >>> artistic endeavors impossible in physical reality. >>> >>> The most remarkable aspect? *Time itself becomes flexible*. Premium >>> subscribers can accelerate their thinking to experience years of subjective >>> time in mere hours, while others might slow down to savor particularly >>> meaningful moments. >>> Governance by Algorithm and Community >>> >>> This world operates without traditional governments. Instead, *Decentralized >>> Autonomous Organizations (DAOs)* manage resources through collective >>> decision-making. Every uploaded mind has voting power based on their >>> contributions to the community?whether through computational work, creative >>> output, or community service. >>> >>> *Algorithmic systems* automatically manage the massive infrastructure, >>> scaling computing resources up and down based on demand, optimizing energy >>> usage, and ensuring fair access to digital resources. It's democracy >>> enhanced by artificial intelligence, creating remarkably efficient and >>> equitable resource distribution. >>> A Post-Scarcity Paradise (Almost) >>> >>> The physical world has largely achieved *post-scarcity economics*?automated >>> factories and self-replicating robots handle all material production with >>> minimal human oversight. Energy comes primarily from space-based solar >>> collectors and fusion reactors, providing abundant power for the >>> computational networks hosting billions of minds. >>> >>> However, true scarcity still exists in the digital realm: *attention, >>> creativity, and unique experiences* remain valuable commodities. The >>> most talented digital artists, compelling storytellers, and innovative >>> thinkers command premium prices for their work. >>> Sustainable for Millennia >>> >>> What makes this system remarkable is its *thousand-year sustainability*. >>> Massive endowment funds generate investment returns that support basic >>> operations indefinitely. The entire infrastructure is designed for >>> perpetual renewal?when hardware becomes obsolete, automated systems >>> seamlessly migrate minds to newer, more efficient platforms. >>> >>> Cross-generational contracts allow people in the physical world to >>> pre-pay for extended digital existence, similar to life insurance but for >>> digital immortality. Meanwhile, the uploaded minds themselves contribute to >>> the economy, ensuring the system remains self-sustaining across centuries. >>> The Social Experience >>> >>> Far from being a lonely digital existence, this world buzzes with *social >>> activity*. Uploaded minds form communities, maintain relationships >>> spanning centuries, and create new forms of art and culture impossible in >>> biological form. Some choose to exist in realistic simulations of >>> historical periods, others explore fantastical realms limited only by >>> imagination. >>> >>> The most profound aspect of this society is its *continuity of culture >>> and knowledge*. Minds that have existed for hundreds of years serve as >>> living libraries, mentoring newer arrivals and preserving human >>> civilization's accumulated wisdom. >>> A New Form of Civilization >>> >>> You're witnessing humanity's next evolutionary step?not biological >>> evolution, but *civilizational evolution*. This is a society that has >>> solved mortality, resource scarcity, and many forms of human suffering >>> while maintaining the essential elements that make us human: creativity, >>> relationships, growth, and the pursuit of meaning. >>> >>> Welcome to a world where consciousness is currency, time is a luxury, >>> and human potential is truly unlimited. >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Fri Aug 1 13:45:06 2025 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 09:45:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Modern day John Henry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I predicted, the last human job to be replaced (before all are permanently threatened) will be the AI programmer's: https://alwaysasking.com/when-will-ai-take-over/#What_Jobs_are_Safe It looks like we're here. Jason On Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 7:05 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Recently a Polish programmer and former employee of OpenAI named > Przemys?aw D?biak (known as "Psyho"), narrowly defeated the custom AI > model entered by his former employers in the AtCoder World Tour Finals > 2025 Heuristic programming contest in Tokyo. > > > https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/07/exhausted-man-defeats-ai-model-in-world-coding-championship/ > > ---------Excerpt--------- > "Humanity has prevailed (for now!)," wrote D?biak on X, noting he had > little sleep while competing in several competitions across three days. > "I'm completely exhausted. ... I'm barely alive." > > The competition required contestants to solve a single complex > optimization problem over 600 minutes. The contest echoes the American > folk tale of John Henry, the steel-driving man who raced against a > steam-powered drilling machine in the 1870s. Like Henry's legendary > battle against industrial automation, D?biak's victory represents a > human expert pushing themselves to their physical limits to prove that > human skill still matters in an age of advancing AI. > > Both stories feature exhausting endurance contests?Henry drove steel > spikes for hours until his heart gave out, while D?biak coded for 10 > hours on minimal sleep. The parallel extends to the bittersweet nature > of both victories: Henry won his race but died from the effort, > symbolizing the inevitable march of automation, while D?biak's > acknowledgment that humanity prevailed "for now" suggests he recognizes > this may be a temporary triumph against increasingly capable machines. > ------------------------ > > Sam Altman was reported to be in utter shock. I wonder if he might hire > this guy back. > > Stuart LaForge > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Aug 1 15:13:02 2025 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 11:13:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, I don?t know how people ignore the two fundamental aspects of reality: entropy (finiteness and the tendency of everything to decay) and extropy (the tendency to resist decay by filling spaces and causing things around it to decay). It?s just thermodynamic reality. Things break, and life relentlessly hoards what is whole. You can?t write it out of existence in a computer that operates on this thermodynamic reality On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 9:35?AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Assume the solar system as is, has the energy capacity to provide for the > computing power to support 100 quadrillion human level intelligent minds > each for 1 subjective human lifetime (70 years). > > Now it becomes a real question and problem: what is the most moral, > beneficial, optimal way to divy up those computing resources? > > Should 10 billion human lives (everyone alive today) each get 70 billion > years of life? Should 100 quadrillion trillion unique individuals each get > 70 years? Should we create 100 - 1000x simpler minds (like dogs, or fish), > or should we create a million fewer super intelligences? > > Perhaps we should fill the virtual space with a wide variety of minds of > different classes. Maybe every gets 1 million years, but if they want to > end their life before that they can donate their time to someone else they > think is worthy (their offspring or their Einstein's of their day). Who has > the power to create new minds and if you choose to create one, do you have > to split your allotted time with your creation? Perhaps you can spare your > time to "bring back" and talk to or otherwise simulate any historical > figure who has been put on ice. > > Note that every life allowed to exist is another life that is prevented > from existing. So morally speaking so the extant who had a chance at some > life, have more of a right to exist than the nonexistent who experienced > nothing? If so this argues against a small population of immortals as the > most morally fair time distribution. > > Or perhaps we'll find a way to support infinite computations and all these > considerations are moot. But in any situation with finite computational > resources there will be finite possible consciousness experiences that can > be realized with those resources. It's not a trivial question how to divvy > up those created experiences across different individuals and classes of > minds and how much lifetime each individual should have. > > Jason > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 7:02 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> @BillK in fact I posted BOTH our responses to ChatGPT and asked for it to >> not be sycophantic (which I think is currently impossible, but I'm trying >> to prove a point here.) Its response: >> >> You're right to seek a sober, physics-anchored take. Let's analyze both >> positions with honesty and then synthesize a reasoned assessment. >> ------------------------------ >> *The Optimistic Vision (Claude/Perplexity/Original Poster)* *Claims:* >> >> 1. >> >> Digital minds live in post-scarcity luxury thanks to near-infinite >> computational and energy resources. >> 2. >> >> Governance is decentralized and rational, through DAOs and AIs. >> 3. >> >> Material scarcity has been eliminated via automation, space-based >> solar, and fusion. >> 4. >> >> The digital economy is rich in meaningful activity, social life, and >> cultural growth. >> 5. >> >> Long-term sustainability is achieved through automated migration, >> endowments, and decentralized energy infrastructure. >> >> *Strengths:* >> >> - >> >> *Speculatively coherent* if you assume multiple breakthroughs: mind >> uploading, massively abundant energy, stable self-maintaining AI >> infrastructure, cultural evolution toward cooperation. >> - >> >> Describes a *potentially desirable system* if agency loss is >> willingly traded for immortality and comfort. >> - >> >> Echoes similar visions by thinkers like Bostrom, Kurzweil, Drexler. >> >> *Weaknesses:* >> >> - >> >> Ignores *thermodynamic and economic constraints*: computation is not >> free, and scarcity can shift rather than vanish. >> - >> >> Presumes *governance and AI fairness* will scale with complexity?a >> fragile assumption. >> - >> >> *Ownership problem* is handwaved: who runs the servers? Who controls >> migration, throttling, deletion, upgrades? >> - >> >> Assumes that psychological and political *human nature is not a >> limiting factor*, or that it will be "transcended." >> - >> >> Discounts *external threats* and cyber-ecological stability over >> millennia. >> >> ------------------------------ >> *Your Skeptical Rebuttal* *Claims:* >> >> 1. >> >> Scarcity is fundamental; no system can eliminate competition over >> finite resources. >> 2. >> >> Power asymmetries will persist or even worsen in digital environments. >> 3. >> >> Utopia requires psychological and legal development, not just tech. >> 4. >> >> True post-scarcity is *physically impossible* in this universe. >> 5. >> >> A peaceful uploaded society would be fragile or coercive?utopia via >> total control. >> >> *Strengths:* >> >> - >> >> Grounded in *realist political theory and thermodynamics*. >> - >> >> Points out the *political economy of hardware*: ownership = power. >> - >> >> Acknowledges the risk of *mob rule or oligarchy*, even in utopian >> simulations. >> - >> >> Understands that *agency is lost* when surrendering physical autonomy >> to a system stewarded by others. >> - >> >> The mention of *outsiders vs. insiders* is crucial?uploading solves >> mortality, not geopolitics. >> >> *Weaknesses:* >> >> - >> >> Assumes *human nature is fixed*, possibly underestimating capacity >> for change. >> - >> >> May *underrate future engineering feats*: even if true post-scarcity >> is unreachable, abundance asymptotically close to it could be achieved. >> - >> >> Suggests no room for *hybrid models*?e.g., layered societies >> balancing scarcity and abundance. >> - >> >> Tends toward *pessimism about coordination*?which history shows can >> occur under certain shared existential incentives. >> >> ------------------------------ >> *My Judgment (No Butter)* >> >> You're more right than the optimist, especially in the short-to-medium >> term (say, <500 years). There is *no true post-scarcity* because: >> >> - >> >> *Land, matter, energy, and computation* are still bound by finite >> resources and entropy. >> - >> >> *Scarcity simply shifts* from physical goods to control over >> computation, bandwidth, subjective time, access, etc. >> - >> >> Any sufficiently valuable virtual or mental space will be *subject to >> capture, control, and rent-seeking*, just like the real world. >> >> *However*, it is possible to create systems that *feel* post-scarcity >> relative to today?*local plateaus of abundance*. That?s real, >> meaningful, and worth pursuing. >> >> Yet unless humanity also: >> >> - >> >> Evolves psychologically, >> - >> >> Creates robust, transparent, power-checking legal systems, >> - >> >> Solves the hardware governance dilemma, >> >> ...then the supposed paradise would either: >> >> - >> >> Collapse into new digital class hierarchies, >> - >> >> Be ruled by coercive stability (benevolent AI overlord), >> - >> >> Or face cyber-ecological catastrophes. >> >> Your analogy to perpetual motion is apt. A post-scarcity system, like a >> frictionless machine, can only exist in theory or within a closed bubble of >> carefully managed inputs and outputs. And someone controls the valves. >> ------------------------------ >> *Conclusion* >> >> No, true post-scarcity is not physically possible. But degrees of >> abundance *relative to baseline* are. What determines the fate of such >> societies is not the tech?but *who controls it*, *how people behave*, >> and *whether power is cyclically redistributed*. Without addressing >> that, all you're doing is handing a shinier leash to the same old >> dominators. >> >> So: good instincts. You?re not just being cynical?you?re anchoring the >> vision in reality. >> >> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 6:56?PM Will Steinberg >> wrote: >> >>> Being ?post-scarcity? is a matter of human psychological, legal, and >>> spiritual development, not technological. >>> >>> Life and humans as they are will always expand to fill niches, and if we >>> live in a giant computer and our minds gain 1000000x the capacity then the >>> thieves and the power-hungry will take 1000000x as much. >>> >>> The solutions, if they are even possible (may just be a fact of physical >>> reality), is to 1) spur human psychological development so there are as few >>> assholes as possible and 2) create legal (in a computer this may be much >>> easier, since if you did decide to upload (I wouldn?t) it means you have to >>> give up a lot of autonomy) barriers to power consolidation. >>> >>> Of course the fact is that as is someone will actually OWN or at least >>> steward the computers that you arw theoretically talking about uploading >>> into. This entity will be the one with the power, the one who gets the >>> most. Likely unless we see said psychospiritual shifts in humanity there >>> will be various technocratic walled gardens that people give up agency to >>> enter in exchange for the benefits of uploading. >>> >>> And also of course no matter whether humanity somehow owns the jupiter >>> brain collectively and equally, someone on the OUTSIDE of the brain will >>> have incredible power over those inside. And then the brain inhabitants >>> will have to develop defenses against those outsiders and vice versa. And >>> if we do own it collectively you run into a mob rule type situation where >>> the common viewpoint might actually be horrible. >>> >>> So yeah I don?t believe a utopia is thermodynamicslly possible. Maybe >>> there will be a sense of that if an unfathomably powerful and benevolent AI >>> has the power, but that?s exactly what it would be?peace at the cost of >>> losing power/agency. >>> >>> If there were free lunches then perpetual motion machines would exist >>> too. I don?t believe these are problems that can be solved in an this >>> universe. >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 4:11?PM BillK via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 at 20:39, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 1) Will you, as you do today, own the hardware you run on, so there's >>>>> no such thing as a "rented" existence? >>>>> >>>>> 2) How will you pay, in general, in one or ten thousand years? Will >>>>> money in a form recognizable to those today still exist? Will economics >>>>> run on reputation instead? Will there be an abundance economy that gives >>>>> everyone a universal basic income sufficient to maintain existence? >>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, it will be a post-scarcity abundance economy. Pretty much nothing >>>> like our present civilisation. >>>> Now, designing how our future civilisation will look is not a >>>> five-minute task! Let AI do the hard work. :) >>>> >>>> First, I asked Perplexity AI to do a technical report on the future >>>> uploaded humanity economy. >>>> The report it produced was detailed, full of information, but pretty >>>> difficult to read. >>>> >>>> So I asked Perplexity to use the report and rewrite it as a description >>>> for a visitor to that world. >>>> That produced a fun description of our future! See below. >>>> BillK >>>> >>>> *Perplexity AI - * >>>> Welcome to the Digital Consciousness Economy >>>> >>>> *A World Where Minds Live Forever* >>>> >>>> Imagine stepping into a civilization where death is optional and >>>> consciousness exists beyond the physical body. You've arrived in a world >>>> where human minds have been successfully uploaded into vast computational >>>> networks, creating a thriving digital society that has sustained itself for >>>> thousands of years. >>>> How This World Works >>>> >>>> In this reality, your consciousness?your memories, personality, >>>> thoughts, and experiences?can be transferred into powerful computer systems >>>> when your biological body reaches its end. But unlike the chaotic digital >>>> wilderness you might expect, this world operates on a sophisticated *subscription-based >>>> economy* designed to keep millions of digital minds active and >>>> thriving across millennia. >>>> The Economics of Digital Existence >>>> >>>> Think of it like a cosmic Netflix for consciousness. Every uploaded >>>> mind exists within a *tiered service system*: >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> *Basic Digital Life* is free for everyone?you get standard >>>> processing power, a simple virtual environment, and the fundamental right >>>> to exist digitally >>>> - >>>> >>>> *Enhanced Living* requires a monthly subscription?offering faster >>>> thinking, richer virtual worlds, and premium experiences >>>> - >>>> >>>> *Luxury Existence* provides unlimited computational resources, >>>> exclusive digital spaces, and access to the most advanced simulations >>>> imaginable >>>> >>>> Your Digital Lifestyle >>>> >>>> As a visitor, you'd discover that uploaded minds don't just passively >>>> exist?they *actively participate in vibrant virtual economies*. >>>> Digital citizens work in computational jobs, create virtual art, build >>>> immersive worlds, and trade unique digital assets. Some minds specialize in >>>> complex problem-solving, others become virtual entertainers, and many >>>> pursue artistic endeavors impossible in physical reality. >>>> >>>> The most remarkable aspect? *Time itself becomes flexible*. Premium >>>> subscribers can accelerate their thinking to experience years of subjective >>>> time in mere hours, while others might slow down to savor particularly >>>> meaningful moments. >>>> Governance by Algorithm and Community >>>> >>>> This world operates without traditional governments. Instead, *Decentralized >>>> Autonomous Organizations (DAOs)* manage resources through collective >>>> decision-making. Every uploaded mind has voting power based on their >>>> contributions to the community?whether through computational work, creative >>>> output, or community service. >>>> >>>> *Algorithmic systems* automatically manage the massive infrastructure, >>>> scaling computing resources up and down based on demand, optimizing energy >>>> usage, and ensuring fair access to digital resources. It's democracy >>>> enhanced by artificial intelligence, creating remarkably efficient and >>>> equitable resource distribution. >>>> A Post-Scarcity Paradise (Almost) >>>> >>>> The physical world has largely achieved *post-scarcity economics*?automated >>>> factories and self-replicating robots handle all material production with >>>> minimal human oversight. Energy comes primarily from space-based solar >>>> collectors and fusion reactors, providing abundant power for the >>>> computational networks hosting billions of minds. >>>> >>>> However, true scarcity still exists in the digital realm: *attention, >>>> creativity, and unique experiences* remain valuable commodities. The >>>> most talented digital artists, compelling storytellers, and innovative >>>> thinkers command premium prices for their work. >>>> Sustainable for Millennia >>>> >>>> What makes this system remarkable is its *thousand-year sustainability*. >>>> Massive endowment funds generate investment returns that support basic >>>> operations indefinitely. The entire infrastructure is designed for >>>> perpetual renewal?when hardware becomes obsolete, automated systems >>>> seamlessly migrate minds to newer, more efficient platforms. >>>> >>>> Cross-generational contracts allow people in the physical world to >>>> pre-pay for extended digital existence, similar to life insurance but for >>>> digital immortality. Meanwhile, the uploaded minds themselves contribute to >>>> the economy, ensuring the system remains self-sustaining across centuries. >>>> The Social Experience >>>> >>>> Far from being a lonely digital existence, this world buzzes with *social >>>> activity*. Uploaded minds form communities, maintain relationships >>>> spanning centuries, and create new forms of art and culture impossible in >>>> biological form. Some choose to exist in realistic simulations of >>>> historical periods, others explore fantastical realms limited only by >>>> imagination. >>>> >>>> The most profound aspect of this society is its *continuity of culture >>>> and knowledge*. Minds that have existed for hundreds of years serve as >>>> living libraries, mentoring newer arrivals and preserving human >>>> civilization's accumulated wisdom. >>>> A New Form of Civilization >>>> >>>> You're witnessing humanity's next evolutionary step?not biological >>>> evolution, but *civilizational evolution*. This is a society that has >>>> solved mortality, resource scarcity, and many forms of human suffering >>>> while maintaining the essential elements that make us human: creativity, >>>> relationships, growth, and the pursuit of meaning. >>>> >>>> Welcome to a world where consciousness is currency, time is a luxury, >>>> and human potential is truly unlimited. >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at zaiboc.net Sat Aug 2 14:05:15 2025 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:05:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <342cf8bd-1a2d-4706-a415-b5a52191d71a@zaiboc.net> On 01/08/2025 16:13, bill w wrote: > I presume that an uploaded person needs electricity to function.? When the assets used to create the upload and provide energy eventually run out, then what?? How does the upload create assets?? That's my question.? ?bill w How did those assets get created in the first place? However that was, an upload will almost certainly be in a better position to create more of them than the original biological person was. I gave a small, limited and fairly trivial example with my experience of Second Life. I made a decent living in there, and used my in-game money to buy things like clothes and objects that other people produced to sell. If needed, I could have used it to pay for electricity to keep my computer running, or my internet connection. And that was without my avatars being able to act in the real world. Creating the needed assets shouldn't be any harder for an upload than for a biological person, and could be easier. There seems to be a perception that uploading would be some kind of end-point to a person's existence, that things will remain static from then on, with the upload being unable to contribute to society, to generate value, earn money, etc. That all they could do would be to entertain themselves, confined to their virtual environment, until the money runs out. I see it completely differently. Uploading would be a beginning, not an end. An amazing new opportunity to launch into a whole new existence, with unlimited opportunities ahead. Imagine being reborn as a baby, but with all the memories of your life to date. Then imagine that all the limitations of being a biological baby, including the time it takes to become an independent adult, were removed. Who wouldn't jump at a chance like that? -- Ben From ben at zaiboc.net Sat Aug 2 14:33:02 2025 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:33:02 +0100 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <24565419-05c3-4648-8813-8ee5fcbed962@zaiboc.net> On 01/08/2025 16:13, Will Steinberg wrote: > > Yes, I don?t know how people ignore the two fundamental aspects of > reality: entropy (finiteness and the tendency of everything to decay) > and extropy (the tendency to resist decay by filling spaces and > causing things around it to decay).? It?s just thermodynamic reality.? > Things break, and life relentlessly hoards what is whole.? You can?t > write it out of existence in a computer that operates on this > thermodynamic reality Even if we are forever confined to our solar system, I think these are questions that can safely be relegated to a future time, when either beings much more capable than we are can actually solve them (rather than ponder, pontificate and argue about them, which is all we can do), or they won't be relevant at all (because we have failed to survive). In the meantime, I reckon a better use of our time would be figuring out how to survive, and how to bring these more capable beings into existence. -- Ben From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Aug 3 03:37:25 2025 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2025 23:37:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: <24565419-05c3-4648-8813-8ee5fcbed962@zaiboc.net> References: <24565419-05c3-4648-8813-8ee5fcbed962@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Naw I think a better use for our time would just be yankin each others' chains and navel gazing. Humans already carved out that niche after all On Sat, Aug 2, 2025 at 10:33?AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On 01/08/2025 16:13, Will Steinberg wrote: > > > > Yes, I don?t know how people ignore the two fundamental aspects of > > reality: entropy (finiteness and the tendency of everything to decay) > > and extropy (the tendency to resist decay by filling spaces and > > causing things around it to decay). It?s just thermodynamic reality. > > Things break, and life relentlessly hoards what is whole. You can?t > > write it out of existence in a computer that operates on this > > thermodynamic reality > > Even if we are forever confined to our solar system, I think these are > questions that can safely be relegated to a future time, when either > beings much more capable than we are can actually solve them (rather > than ponder, pontificate and argue about them, which is all we can do), > or they won't be relevant at all (because we have failed to survive). > > In the meantime, I reckon a better use of our time would be figuring out > how to survive, and how to bring these more capable beings into existence. > > -- > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Aug 3 04:04:17 2025 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2025 00:04:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> References: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: That's crazy though, there's not infinite value inside the system producible by humans. Value on Earth mainly comes from the low-entropy energy of the sun and the resources it is used to arrange. What does the mind-system produce to trade with the OUTSIDE? Intellectual pursuits? Writing? Won't the AI be able to do that? If you can't provide resources, what can you do? On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 6:41?AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > There's an assumption here that I think may be false, and if it is, it > changes the argument completely. > > Why assume that the infrastructure to host an individual mind has to be > outside the control of the individual? > > The ability to create an entire film or a symphony in your bedroom with > a laptop at virtually no cost except your time would have been thought > outrageous and impossible not long ago. Now it's commonplace. > > The assumption was that a complex thing like a film has to involve > hundreds of individuals, millions of pounds, and a vast array of > equipment to make. Then someone came along and made The Blair Witch > Project on a smartphone. Admittedly, it was a fairly crappy film, but it > broke the assumption. The same thing with music. It used to take > professional recording studios and a crowd of audio experts to make a > record. Now spotty teenagers are able to create (technically) > high-quality music with a laptop, some free software and a pair of > headphones. Most of it might not be worth listening to, but that's not > the point. > > The point is that technology advances on an accelerating curve, that > puts previously inconcievable abilities into the hands of ordinary people. > > I'm pretty confident that once uploading technology matures (assuming > it's possible at all), it won't be long before it becomes cheap and > easy, no matter how hard and expensive it was to develop in the first > place. I also expect the physical sizes of the systems will become much > smaller than they need to be at first. There's nothing new in any of > this, we've been seeing it happen for quite a few decades now, in all > sorts of other technologies. > > This means that at some point, ordinary people will be able to upload > themselves into a system that they own, that they can control, that has > the ability to operate real-world agencies (robotic bodies, etc.), and > can connect to a network of other virtual spaces. > > I used to be a fairly intense user of Second Life, some time ago (before > Linden Labs got too heavy-handed with it), and my avatars, that I > usually created myself, used to visit virtual spaces that other people > had created. I had a job in there, earning money, interacted with people > from all over the world, had a blast making scripted objects, for myself > and other people, and had lots of interesting experiences, some of which > would only be possible in a virtual world. All - within some practical > limits - under my control, using my own computer, at no cost other than > my internet connection and electricity. When the owners of the software > that made it all possible started changing things, generally making life > harder for people, I stopped using it and found another similar system > created by more liberal-minded developers. > > This seems to me to be a fairly close analogy to what uploading could be > like. No doubt there will be efforts to create walled gardens, > controlled by big corporations, governments will try to interfere and > censor, and there will be what Second Life used to call 'griefers', > individuals who just wanted to be destructive and cause trouble for > people, but these are all just part of life, challenges to be overcome > as and when we meet them. > > "if we live in a giant computer..." > > Rather than the common picture of people being helpless pawns in a vast > machine that they have no control over, I imagine a vast network of > autonomous individuals, each one in their own independent container, and > connecting as and when they want to billions of others, in common > virtual spaces that they build for themselves. So it becomes "if we live > in our own computers..." > > Which is not so different to what we have now, really, with each person > in their own brain, in their own body that they have a limited degree of > control over (biology being what it is), communicating with other people > as and when they want to and need to. We are responsible for keeping > ourselves healthy, sometimes with the help of a healthcare system, and > for providing ourselves with shelter and food. Being an upload shouldn't > be that different in principle, just the actual items and actions we > need will be different. Antivirus software updates instead of > vaccinations, etc. > > The real difference is, as an upload, your possibilities are much > greater, and the downsides are fewer. > > Provided we do it in the right way. > But, as always, there will be many ways. There will be the equivalents > of Microsoft, Apple and Google, and the whole world of proprietary > software, then there will be the equivalents of Linux and BSD, and the > world of free software. There will be people who live in 'a giant > computer', and those who live in their own individual computers. > > I suppose it should be said that these 'computers' won't be like the > computers we have now. Max Headroom will never be a real thing. The term > 'processing space' might be better, and hopefully makes the similarity > to biological brains clearer. > > To go back to Bill w's original question, "How will you pay for your > upkeep?", there are probably as many answers as there are to the same > question asked of biological people. In Second Life, I used to teach > people to make furniture and jewellery. I expect there will be plenty of > job opportunities for uploads, if that's what they need or want. > > -- > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Sun Aug 3 06:45:16 2025 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2025 02:45:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Having a meaningful enjoyable life is its own value. Why do people donate to charity? Why do we talk about creating systems to host quadrillions of uploaded minds? Because the more positive conscious experiences that are created, the better. In fact, positive conscious experiences are the only intrinsically good things there are. Accordingly, trade with uploaded beings may not be necessary. Afterall, what good are resources that aren't put towards the creation of positive conscious experiences? In my view they are wasted. Jason On Sun, Aug 3, 2025, 12:05 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > That's crazy though, there's not infinite value inside the system > producible by humans. Value on Earth mainly comes from the low-entropy > energy of the sun and the resources it is used to arrange. What does the > mind-system produce to trade with the OUTSIDE? Intellectual pursuits? > Writing? Won't the AI be able to do that? > > If you can't provide resources, what can you do? > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 6:41?AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> There's an assumption here that I think may be false, and if it is, it >> changes the argument completely. >> >> Why assume that the infrastructure to host an individual mind has to be >> outside the control of the individual? >> >> The ability to create an entire film or a symphony in your bedroom with >> a laptop at virtually no cost except your time would have been thought >> outrageous and impossible not long ago. Now it's commonplace. >> >> The assumption was that a complex thing like a film has to involve >> hundreds of individuals, millions of pounds, and a vast array of >> equipment to make. Then someone came along and made The Blair Witch >> Project on a smartphone. Admittedly, it was a fairly crappy film, but it >> broke the assumption. The same thing with music. It used to take >> professional recording studios and a crowd of audio experts to make a >> record. Now spotty teenagers are able to create (technically) >> high-quality music with a laptop, some free software and a pair of >> headphones. Most of it might not be worth listening to, but that's not >> the point. >> >> The point is that technology advances on an accelerating curve, that >> puts previously inconcievable abilities into the hands of ordinary people. >> >> I'm pretty confident that once uploading technology matures (assuming >> it's possible at all), it won't be long before it becomes cheap and >> easy, no matter how hard and expensive it was to develop in the first >> place. I also expect the physical sizes of the systems will become much >> smaller than they need to be at first. There's nothing new in any of >> this, we've been seeing it happen for quite a few decades now, in all >> sorts of other technologies. >> >> This means that at some point, ordinary people will be able to upload >> themselves into a system that they own, that they can control, that has >> the ability to operate real-world agencies (robotic bodies, etc.), and >> can connect to a network of other virtual spaces. >> >> I used to be a fairly intense user of Second Life, some time ago (before >> Linden Labs got too heavy-handed with it), and my avatars, that I >> usually created myself, used to visit virtual spaces that other people >> had created. I had a job in there, earning money, interacted with people >> from all over the world, had a blast making scripted objects, for myself >> and other people, and had lots of interesting experiences, some of which >> would only be possible in a virtual world. All - within some practical >> limits - under my control, using my own computer, at no cost other than >> my internet connection and electricity. When the owners of the software >> that made it all possible started changing things, generally making life >> harder for people, I stopped using it and found another similar system >> created by more liberal-minded developers. >> >> This seems to me to be a fairly close analogy to what uploading could be >> like. No doubt there will be efforts to create walled gardens, >> controlled by big corporations, governments will try to interfere and >> censor, and there will be what Second Life used to call 'griefers', >> individuals who just wanted to be destructive and cause trouble for >> people, but these are all just part of life, challenges to be overcome >> as and when we meet them. >> >> "if we live in a giant computer..." >> >> Rather than the common picture of people being helpless pawns in a vast >> machine that they have no control over, I imagine a vast network of >> autonomous individuals, each one in their own independent container, and >> connecting as and when they want to billions of others, in common >> virtual spaces that they build for themselves. So it becomes "if we live >> in our own computers..." >> >> Which is not so different to what we have now, really, with each person >> in their own brain, in their own body that they have a limited degree of >> control over (biology being what it is), communicating with other people >> as and when they want to and need to. We are responsible for keeping >> ourselves healthy, sometimes with the help of a healthcare system, and >> for providing ourselves with shelter and food. Being an upload shouldn't >> be that different in principle, just the actual items and actions we >> need will be different. Antivirus software updates instead of >> vaccinations, etc. >> >> The real difference is, as an upload, your possibilities are much >> greater, and the downsides are fewer. >> >> Provided we do it in the right way. >> But, as always, there will be many ways. There will be the equivalents >> of Microsoft, Apple and Google, and the whole world of proprietary >> software, then there will be the equivalents of Linux and BSD, and the >> world of free software. There will be people who live in 'a giant >> computer', and those who live in their own individual computers. >> >> I suppose it should be said that these 'computers' won't be like the >> computers we have now. Max Headroom will never be a real thing. The term >> 'processing space' might be better, and hopefully makes the similarity >> to biological brains clearer. >> >> To go back to Bill w's original question, "How will you pay for your >> upkeep?", there are probably as many answers as there are to the same >> question asked of biological people. In Second Life, I used to teach >> people to make furniture and jewellery. I expect there will be plenty of >> job opportunities for uploads, if that's what they need or want. >> >> -- >> Ben >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Aug 3 10:31:03 2025 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2025 06:31:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: It doesn't have to be infinite, at least at first. (Infinite value over infinite time is another matter.) The hardware that one human runs on is finite. The mind merely has to generate that much value in order to "purchase" its own hardware, if it needs such an exchange so the hardware provider can continue to provide hardware for other minds. The hardware will likely include some sort of robot, so physical (likely not menial) labor is possible too. On Sun, Aug 3, 2025, 12:05?AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > That's crazy though, there's not infinite value inside the system > producible by humans. Value on Earth mainly comes from the low-entropy > energy of the sun and the resources it is used to arrange. What does the > mind-system produce to trade with the OUTSIDE? Intellectual pursuits? > Writing? Won't the AI be able to do that? > > If you can't provide resources, what can you do? > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 6:41?AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> There's an assumption here that I think may be false, and if it is, it >> changes the argument completely. >> >> Why assume that the infrastructure to host an individual mind has to be >> outside the control of the individual? >> >> The ability to create an entire film or a symphony in your bedroom with >> a laptop at virtually no cost except your time would have been thought >> outrageous and impossible not long ago. Now it's commonplace. >> >> The assumption was that a complex thing like a film has to involve >> hundreds of individuals, millions of pounds, and a vast array of >> equipment to make. Then someone came along and made The Blair Witch >> Project on a smartphone. Admittedly, it was a fairly crappy film, but it >> broke the assumption. The same thing with music. It used to take >> professional recording studios and a crowd of audio experts to make a >> record. Now spotty teenagers are able to create (technically) >> high-quality music with a laptop, some free software and a pair of >> headphones. Most of it might not be worth listening to, but that's not >> the point. >> >> The point is that technology advances on an accelerating curve, that >> puts previously inconcievable abilities into the hands of ordinary people. >> >> I'm pretty confident that once uploading technology matures (assuming >> it's possible at all), it won't be long before it becomes cheap and >> easy, no matter how hard and expensive it was to develop in the first >> place. I also expect the physical sizes of the systems will become much >> smaller than they need to be at first. There's nothing new in any of >> this, we've been seeing it happen for quite a few decades now, in all >> sorts of other technologies. >> >> This means that at some point, ordinary people will be able to upload >> themselves into a system that they own, that they can control, that has >> the ability to operate real-world agencies (robotic bodies, etc.), and >> can connect to a network of other virtual spaces. >> >> I used to be a fairly intense user of Second Life, some time ago (before >> Linden Labs got too heavy-handed with it), and my avatars, that I >> usually created myself, used to visit virtual spaces that other people >> had created. I had a job in there, earning money, interacted with people >> from all over the world, had a blast making scripted objects, for myself >> and other people, and had lots of interesting experiences, some of which >> would only be possible in a virtual world. All - within some practical >> limits - under my control, using my own computer, at no cost other than >> my internet connection and electricity. When the owners of the software >> that made it all possible started changing things, generally making life >> harder for people, I stopped using it and found another similar system >> created by more liberal-minded developers. >> >> This seems to me to be a fairly close analogy to what uploading could be >> like. No doubt there will be efforts to create walled gardens, >> controlled by big corporations, governments will try to interfere and >> censor, and there will be what Second Life used to call 'griefers', >> individuals who just wanted to be destructive and cause trouble for >> people, but these are all just part of life, challenges to be overcome >> as and when we meet them. >> >> "if we live in a giant computer..." >> >> Rather than the common picture of people being helpless pawns in a vast >> machine that they have no control over, I imagine a vast network of >> autonomous individuals, each one in their own independent container, and >> connecting as and when they want to billions of others, in common >> virtual spaces that they build for themselves. So it becomes "if we live >> in our own computers..." >> >> Which is not so different to what we have now, really, with each person >> in their own brain, in their own body that they have a limited degree of >> control over (biology being what it is), communicating with other people >> as and when they want to and need to. We are responsible for keeping >> ourselves healthy, sometimes with the help of a healthcare system, and >> for providing ourselves with shelter and food. Being an upload shouldn't >> be that different in principle, just the actual items and actions we >> need will be different. Antivirus software updates instead of >> vaccinations, etc. >> >> The real difference is, as an upload, your possibilities are much >> greater, and the downsides are fewer. >> >> Provided we do it in the right way. >> But, as always, there will be many ways. There will be the equivalents >> of Microsoft, Apple and Google, and the whole world of proprietary >> software, then there will be the equivalents of Linux and BSD, and the >> world of free software. There will be people who live in 'a giant >> computer', and those who live in their own individual computers. >> >> I suppose it should be said that these 'computers' won't be like the >> computers we have now. Max Headroom will never be a real thing. The term >> 'processing space' might be better, and hopefully makes the similarity >> to biological brains clearer. >> >> To go back to Bill w's original question, "How will you pay for your >> upkeep?", there are probably as many answers as there are to the same >> question asked of biological people. In Second Life, I used to teach >> people to make furniture and jewellery. I expect there will be plenty of >> job opportunities for uploads, if that's what they need or want. >> >> -- >> Ben >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Aug 3 13:28:11 2025 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2025 14:28:11 +0100 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 3 Aug 2025 at 11:33, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: > > It doesn't have to be infinite, at least at first. (Infinite value over infinite time is another matter.) The hardware that one human runs on is finite. The mind merely has to generate that much value in order to "purchase" its own hardware, if it needs such an exchange so the hardware provider can continue to provide hardware for other minds. The hardware will likely include some sort of robot, so physical (likely not menial) labor is possible too. > _______________________________________________ Yes, post-scarcity doesn't mean everyone has infinite resources. They don't need that. There can be great improvements just from new technology. The printing press led to mass literacy. Today, the internet provides post-scarcity knowledge, information, videos, music, etc. Energy and computing hardware will always be needed, but with post-scarcity, the cost will be negligible. It won't be a guaranteed utopia, but abundance provides the opportunity to reshape society with new systems of government, organisations, open-source environments, and more. BillK From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Aug 3 14:27:57 2025 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2025 10:27:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Well, the electricity and materials and maintenance used to upkeep the computer still has value. People don?t tend to maintain giant expensive things for free On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 2:46?AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Having a meaningful enjoyable life is its own value. > > Why do people donate to charity? Why do we talk about creating systems to > host quadrillions of uploaded minds? Because the more positive conscious > experiences that are created, the better. In fact, positive conscious > experiences are the only intrinsically good things there are. > > Accordingly, trade with uploaded beings may not be necessary. Afterall, > what good are resources that aren't put towards the creation of positive > conscious experiences? > > In my view they are wasted. > > Jason > > > On Sun, Aug 3, 2025, 12:05 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> That's crazy though, there's not infinite value inside the system >> producible by humans. Value on Earth mainly comes from the low-entropy >> energy of the sun and the resources it is used to arrange. What does the >> mind-system produce to trade with the OUTSIDE? Intellectual pursuits? >> Writing? Won't the AI be able to do that? >> >> If you can't provide resources, what can you do? >> >> On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 6:41?AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> There's an assumption here that I think may be false, and if it is, it >>> changes the argument completely. >>> >>> Why assume that the infrastructure to host an individual mind has to be >>> outside the control of the individual? >>> >>> The ability to create an entire film or a symphony in your bedroom with >>> a laptop at virtually no cost except your time would have been thought >>> outrageous and impossible not long ago. Now it's commonplace. >>> >>> The assumption was that a complex thing like a film has to involve >>> hundreds of individuals, millions of pounds, and a vast array of >>> equipment to make. Then someone came along and made The Blair Witch >>> Project on a smartphone. Admittedly, it was a fairly crappy film, but it >>> broke the assumption. The same thing with music. It used to take >>> professional recording studios and a crowd of audio experts to make a >>> record. Now spotty teenagers are able to create (technically) >>> high-quality music with a laptop, some free software and a pair of >>> headphones. Most of it might not be worth listening to, but that's not >>> the point. >>> >>> The point is that technology advances on an accelerating curve, that >>> puts previously inconcievable abilities into the hands of ordinary >>> people. >>> >>> I'm pretty confident that once uploading technology matures (assuming >>> it's possible at all), it won't be long before it becomes cheap and >>> easy, no matter how hard and expensive it was to develop in the first >>> place. I also expect the physical sizes of the systems will become much >>> smaller than they need to be at first. There's nothing new in any of >>> this, we've been seeing it happen for quite a few decades now, in all >>> sorts of other technologies. >>> >>> This means that at some point, ordinary people will be able to upload >>> themselves into a system that they own, that they can control, that has >>> the ability to operate real-world agencies (robotic bodies, etc.), and >>> can connect to a network of other virtual spaces. >>> >>> I used to be a fairly intense user of Second Life, some time ago (before >>> Linden Labs got too heavy-handed with it), and my avatars, that I >>> usually created myself, used to visit virtual spaces that other people >>> had created. I had a job in there, earning money, interacted with people >>> from all over the world, had a blast making scripted objects, for myself >>> and other people, and had lots of interesting experiences, some of which >>> would only be possible in a virtual world. All - within some practical >>> limits - under my control, using my own computer, at no cost other than >>> my internet connection and electricity. When the owners of the software >>> that made it all possible started changing things, generally making life >>> harder for people, I stopped using it and found another similar system >>> created by more liberal-minded developers. >>> >>> This seems to me to be a fairly close analogy to what uploading could be >>> like. No doubt there will be efforts to create walled gardens, >>> controlled by big corporations, governments will try to interfere and >>> censor, and there will be what Second Life used to call 'griefers', >>> individuals who just wanted to be destructive and cause trouble for >>> people, but these are all just part of life, challenges to be overcome >>> as and when we meet them. >>> >>> "if we live in a giant computer..." >>> >>> Rather than the common picture of people being helpless pawns in a vast >>> machine that they have no control over, I imagine a vast network of >>> autonomous individuals, each one in their own independent container, and >>> connecting as and when they want to billions of others, in common >>> virtual spaces that they build for themselves. So it becomes "if we live >>> in our own computers..." >>> >>> Which is not so different to what we have now, really, with each person >>> in their own brain, in their own body that they have a limited degree of >>> control over (biology being what it is), communicating with other people >>> as and when they want to and need to. We are responsible for keeping >>> ourselves healthy, sometimes with the help of a healthcare system, and >>> for providing ourselves with shelter and food. Being an upload shouldn't >>> be that different in principle, just the actual items and actions we >>> need will be different. Antivirus software updates instead of >>> vaccinations, etc. >>> >>> The real difference is, as an upload, your possibilities are much >>> greater, and the downsides are fewer. >>> >>> Provided we do it in the right way. >>> But, as always, there will be many ways. There will be the equivalents >>> of Microsoft, Apple and Google, and the whole world of proprietary >>> software, then there will be the equivalents of Linux and BSD, and the >>> world of free software. There will be people who live in 'a giant >>> computer', and those who live in their own individual computers. >>> >>> I suppose it should be said that these 'computers' won't be like the >>> computers we have now. Max Headroom will never be a real thing. The term >>> 'processing space' might be better, and hopefully makes the similarity >>> to biological brains clearer. >>> >>> To go back to Bill w's original question, "How will you pay for your >>> upkeep?", there are probably as many answers as there are to the same >>> question asked of biological people. In Second Life, I used to teach >>> people to make furniture and jewellery. I expect there will be plenty of >>> job opportunities for uploads, if that's what they need or want. >>> >>> -- >>> Ben >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Aug 3 17:31:28 2025 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2025 18:31:28 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Winners of the Project Hyperion Generation Ship Competition have been Announced! Message-ID: The Winners of the Project Hyperion Generation Ship Competition have been Announced! By Matthew Williams - August 2, 2025 Quote: On November 1st, 2024, Project Hyperion - an international, interdisciplinary team of architects, engineers, anthropologists, and urban planners - launched a design competition for crewed interstellar travel. The event was hosted by the Initiative for Interstellar Studies (i4is), a UK-based non-profit organization dedicated to the robotic and human exploration of exoplanets around nearby stars, and eventually settlement. With a prize purse of $10,000, competitors were tasked with producing concepts for a Generation Ship (aka. Worldships) using current technologies and those that could be realized in the near future. On July 23rd, 2025, the organization announced the top three competition winners, which were selected from hundreds of ideas submitted by teams worldwide. ---------------- Interesting article about the generation ships which will take about 400 years to reach Proxima Centauri. BillK From jasonresch at gmail.com Sun Aug 3 17:33:21 2025 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2025 13:33:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 10:29?AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Well, the electricity and materials and maintenance used to upkeep the > computer still has value. > Those things only have "instrumental value." They contain no "intrinsic value" in and of themselves. > People don?t tend to maintain giant expensive things for free > To what end are all the materials, energy and computing resources, if not used to eventually create intrinsic value (which is only found in states of consciousness)? If we had a Matrioshka brain would you use it to mine bitcoin until Sol ran out of fuel, or would you use it to generate conscious experiences for a population of 10^24 human-level minds for 10^10 years? In my view it isn't a question of free, but of: what does one do with all those resources once one has them? The choice seems pretty clear to me. Once all technical problems are solved (we should reach the best physically possible technology within 200 years at current rates) then there is very little to be gained in the pursuit of things that are only of practical utility. There is only energy, and putting it towards useful computation. What is a useful computation when all practical survival related and efficiency related problems are solved? In my view, it is then only in maximizing conscious life. Jason > > On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 2:46?AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Having a meaningful enjoyable life is its own value. >> >> Why do people donate to charity? Why do we talk about creating systems to >> host quadrillions of uploaded minds? Because the more positive conscious >> experiences that are created, the better. In fact, positive conscious >> experiences are the only intrinsically good things there are. >> >> Accordingly, trade with uploaded beings may not be necessary. Afterall, >> what good are resources that aren't put towards the creation of positive >> conscious experiences? >> >> In my view they are wasted. >> >> Jason >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 3, 2025, 12:05 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> That's crazy though, there's not infinite value inside the system >>> producible by humans. Value on Earth mainly comes from the low-entropy >>> energy of the sun and the resources it is used to arrange. What does the >>> mind-system produce to trade with the OUTSIDE? Intellectual pursuits? >>> Writing? Won't the AI be able to do that? >>> >>> If you can't provide resources, what can you do? >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 6:41?AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> There's an assumption here that I think may be false, and if it is, it >>>> changes the argument completely. >>>> >>>> Why assume that the infrastructure to host an individual mind has to be >>>> outside the control of the individual? >>>> >>>> The ability to create an entire film or a symphony in your bedroom with >>>> a laptop at virtually no cost except your time would have been thought >>>> outrageous and impossible not long ago. Now it's commonplace. >>>> >>>> The assumption was that a complex thing like a film has to involve >>>> hundreds of individuals, millions of pounds, and a vast array of >>>> equipment to make. Then someone came along and made The Blair Witch >>>> Project on a smartphone. Admittedly, it was a fairly crappy film, but >>>> it >>>> broke the assumption. The same thing with music. It used to take >>>> professional recording studios and a crowd of audio experts to make a >>>> record. Now spotty teenagers are able to create (technically) >>>> high-quality music with a laptop, some free software and a pair of >>>> headphones. Most of it might not be worth listening to, but that's not >>>> the point. >>>> >>>> The point is that technology advances on an accelerating curve, that >>>> puts previously inconcievable abilities into the hands of ordinary >>>> people. >>>> >>>> I'm pretty confident that once uploading technology matures (assuming >>>> it's possible at all), it won't be long before it becomes cheap and >>>> easy, no matter how hard and expensive it was to develop in the first >>>> place. I also expect the physical sizes of the systems will become much >>>> smaller than they need to be at first. There's nothing new in any of >>>> this, we've been seeing it happen for quite a few decades now, in all >>>> sorts of other technologies. >>>> >>>> This means that at some point, ordinary people will be able to upload >>>> themselves into a system that they own, that they can control, that has >>>> the ability to operate real-world agencies (robotic bodies, etc.), and >>>> can connect to a network of other virtual spaces. >>>> >>>> I used to be a fairly intense user of Second Life, some time ago >>>> (before >>>> Linden Labs got too heavy-handed with it), and my avatars, that I >>>> usually created myself, used to visit virtual spaces that other people >>>> had created. I had a job in there, earning money, interacted with >>>> people >>>> from all over the world, had a blast making scripted objects, for >>>> myself >>>> and other people, and had lots of interesting experiences, some of >>>> which >>>> would only be possible in a virtual world. All - within some practical >>>> limits - under my control, using my own computer, at no cost other than >>>> my internet connection and electricity. When the owners of the software >>>> that made it all possible started changing things, generally making >>>> life >>>> harder for people, I stopped using it and found another similar system >>>> created by more liberal-minded developers. >>>> >>>> This seems to me to be a fairly close analogy to what uploading could >>>> be >>>> like. No doubt there will be efforts to create walled gardens, >>>> controlled by big corporations, governments will try to interfere and >>>> censor, and there will be what Second Life used to call 'griefers', >>>> individuals who just wanted to be destructive and cause trouble for >>>> people, but these are all just part of life, challenges to be overcome >>>> as and when we meet them. >>>> >>>> "if we live in a giant computer..." >>>> >>>> Rather than the common picture of people being helpless pawns in a vast >>>> machine that they have no control over, I imagine a vast network of >>>> autonomous individuals, each one in their own independent container, >>>> and >>>> connecting as and when they want to billions of others, in common >>>> virtual spaces that they build for themselves. So it becomes "if we >>>> live >>>> in our own computers..." >>>> >>>> Which is not so different to what we have now, really, with each person >>>> in their own brain, in their own body that they have a limited degree >>>> of >>>> control over (biology being what it is), communicating with other >>>> people >>>> as and when they want to and need to. We are responsible for keeping >>>> ourselves healthy, sometimes with the help of a healthcare system, and >>>> for providing ourselves with shelter and food. Being an upload >>>> shouldn't >>>> be that different in principle, just the actual items and actions we >>>> need will be different. Antivirus software updates instead of >>>> vaccinations, etc. >>>> >>>> The real difference is, as an upload, your possibilities are much >>>> greater, and the downsides are fewer. >>>> >>>> Provided we do it in the right way. >>>> But, as always, there will be many ways. There will be the equivalents >>>> of Microsoft, Apple and Google, and the whole world of proprietary >>>> software, then there will be the equivalents of Linux and BSD, and the >>>> world of free software. There will be people who live in 'a giant >>>> computer', and those who live in their own individual computers. >>>> >>>> I suppose it should be said that these 'computers' won't be like the >>>> computers we have now. Max Headroom will never be a real thing. The >>>> term >>>> 'processing space' might be better, and hopefully makes the similarity >>>> to biological brains clearer. >>>> >>>> To go back to Bill w's original question, "How will you pay for your >>>> upkeep?", there are probably as many answers as there are to the same >>>> question asked of biological people. In Second Life, I used to teach >>>> people to make furniture and jewellery. I expect there will be plenty >>>> of >>>> job opportunities for uploads, if that's what they need or want. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ben >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Aug 3 17:39:38 2025 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2025 13:39:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: But why are you acting like the upload scenario guarantees some kind of utopia? Minds will expand to fill the niche, they will become something far larger and different from Homo sapiens. There WILL be limited resources, because the brain itself is finite. No matter how big it is, people will expand, especially because they will have expanded tools. The only protection against this is encoding proscriptions from above. But that is another problem, it?s the agency problem (the vulnerability of going into a computer where you truly have no control and could be shut off by the overseers) compounded. And of course, rules are meant to be broken, and with superintelligent minds, it will always be a race between breaking rules and making new ones. I think that believing uploading leads to a utopia is incredibly na?ve. Have you met people? On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 1:34?PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 10:29?AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Well, the electricity and materials and maintenance used to upkeep the >> computer still has value. >> > > Those things only have "instrumental value." They contain no "intrinsic > value" in and of themselves. > > >> People don?t tend to maintain giant expensive things for free >> > > To what end are all the materials, energy and computing resources, if not > used to eventually create intrinsic value (which is only found in states of > consciousness)? > > If we had a Matrioshka brain would you use it to mine bitcoin until Sol > ran out of fuel, or would you use it to generate conscious experiences for > a population of 10^24 human-level minds for 10^10 years? > > In my view it isn't a question of free, but of: what does one do with all > those resources once one has them? The choice seems pretty clear to me. > > Once all technical problems are solved (we should reach the best > physically possible technology within 200 years at current rates) then > there is very little to be gained in the pursuit of things that are only of > practical utility. There is only energy, and putting it towards useful > computation. What is a useful computation when all practical survival > related and efficiency related problems are solved? In my view, it is then > only in maximizing conscious life. > > Jason > > >> >> On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 2:46?AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Having a meaningful enjoyable life is its own value. >>> >>> Why do people donate to charity? Why do we talk about creating systems >>> to host quadrillions of uploaded minds? Because the more positive conscious >>> experiences that are created, the better. In fact, positive conscious >>> experiences are the only intrinsically good things there are. >>> >>> Accordingly, trade with uploaded beings may not be necessary. Afterall, >>> what good are resources that aren't put towards the creation of positive >>> conscious experiences? >>> >>> In my view they are wasted. >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2025, 12:05 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> That's crazy though, there's not infinite value inside the system >>>> producible by humans. Value on Earth mainly comes from the low-entropy >>>> energy of the sun and the resources it is used to arrange. What does the >>>> mind-system produce to trade with the OUTSIDE? Intellectual pursuits? >>>> Writing? Won't the AI be able to do that? >>>> >>>> If you can't provide resources, what can you do? >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 6:41?AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> There's an assumption here that I think may be false, and if it is, it >>>>> changes the argument completely. >>>>> >>>>> Why assume that the infrastructure to host an individual mind has to >>>>> be >>>>> outside the control of the individual? >>>>> >>>>> The ability to create an entire film or a symphony in your bedroom >>>>> with >>>>> a laptop at virtually no cost except your time would have been thought >>>>> outrageous and impossible not long ago. Now it's commonplace. >>>>> >>>>> The assumption was that a complex thing like a film has to involve >>>>> hundreds of individuals, millions of pounds, and a vast array of >>>>> equipment to make. Then someone came along and made The Blair Witch >>>>> Project on a smartphone. Admittedly, it was a fairly crappy film, but >>>>> it >>>>> broke the assumption. The same thing with music. It used to take >>>>> professional recording studios and a crowd of audio experts to make a >>>>> record. Now spotty teenagers are able to create (technically) >>>>> high-quality music with a laptop, some free software and a pair of >>>>> headphones. Most of it might not be worth listening to, but that's not >>>>> the point. >>>>> >>>>> The point is that technology advances on an accelerating curve, that >>>>> puts previously inconcievable abilities into the hands of ordinary >>>>> people. >>>>> >>>>> I'm pretty confident that once uploading technology matures (assuming >>>>> it's possible at all), it won't be long before it becomes cheap and >>>>> easy, no matter how hard and expensive it was to develop in the first >>>>> place. I also expect the physical sizes of the systems will become >>>>> much >>>>> smaller than they need to be at first. There's nothing new in any of >>>>> this, we've been seeing it happen for quite a few decades now, in all >>>>> sorts of other technologies. >>>>> >>>>> This means that at some point, ordinary people will be able to upload >>>>> themselves into a system that they own, that they can control, that >>>>> has >>>>> the ability to operate real-world agencies (robotic bodies, etc.), and >>>>> can connect to a network of other virtual spaces. >>>>> >>>>> I used to be a fairly intense user of Second Life, some time ago >>>>> (before >>>>> Linden Labs got too heavy-handed with it), and my avatars, that I >>>>> usually created myself, used to visit virtual spaces that other people >>>>> had created. I had a job in there, earning money, interacted with >>>>> people >>>>> from all over the world, had a blast making scripted objects, for >>>>> myself >>>>> and other people, and had lots of interesting experiences, some of >>>>> which >>>>> would only be possible in a virtual world. All - within some practical >>>>> limits - under my control, using my own computer, at no cost other >>>>> than >>>>> my internet connection and electricity. When the owners of the >>>>> software >>>>> that made it all possible started changing things, generally making >>>>> life >>>>> harder for people, I stopped using it and found another similar system >>>>> created by more liberal-minded developers. >>>>> >>>>> This seems to me to be a fairly close analogy to what uploading could >>>>> be >>>>> like. No doubt there will be efforts to create walled gardens, >>>>> controlled by big corporations, governments will try to interfere and >>>>> censor, and there will be what Second Life used to call 'griefers', >>>>> individuals who just wanted to be destructive and cause trouble for >>>>> people, but these are all just part of life, challenges to be overcome >>>>> as and when we meet them. >>>>> >>>>> "if we live in a giant computer..." >>>>> >>>>> Rather than the common picture of people being helpless pawns in a >>>>> vast >>>>> machine that they have no control over, I imagine a vast network of >>>>> autonomous individuals, each one in their own independent container, >>>>> and >>>>> connecting as and when they want to billions of others, in common >>>>> virtual spaces that they build for themselves. So it becomes "if we >>>>> live >>>>> in our own computers..." >>>>> >>>>> Which is not so different to what we have now, really, with each >>>>> person >>>>> in their own brain, in their own body that they have a limited degree >>>>> of >>>>> control over (biology being what it is), communicating with other >>>>> people >>>>> as and when they want to and need to. We are responsible for keeping >>>>> ourselves healthy, sometimes with the help of a healthcare system, and >>>>> for providing ourselves with shelter and food. Being an upload >>>>> shouldn't >>>>> be that different in principle, just the actual items and actions we >>>>> need will be different. Antivirus software updates instead of >>>>> vaccinations, etc. >>>>> >>>>> The real difference is, as an upload, your possibilities are much >>>>> greater, and the downsides are fewer. >>>>> >>>>> Provided we do it in the right way. >>>>> But, as always, there will be many ways. There will be the equivalents >>>>> of Microsoft, Apple and Google, and the whole world of proprietary >>>>> software, then there will be the equivalents of Linux and BSD, and the >>>>> world of free software. There will be people who live in 'a giant >>>>> computer', and those who live in their own individual computers. >>>>> >>>>> I suppose it should be said that these 'computers' won't be like the >>>>> computers we have now. Max Headroom will never be a real thing. The >>>>> term >>>>> 'processing space' might be better, and hopefully makes the similarity >>>>> to biological brains clearer. >>>>> >>>>> To go back to Bill w's original question, "How will you pay for your >>>>> upkeep?", there are probably as many answers as there are to the same >>>>> question asked of biological people. In Second Life, I used to teach >>>>> people to make furniture and jewellery. I expect there will be plenty >>>>> of >>>>> job opportunities for uploads, if that's what they need or want. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Ben >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Sun Aug 3 18:36:26 2025 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2025 14:36:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 1:40?PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > But why are you acting like the upload scenario guarantees some kind of > utopia? > Everyone's idea of utopia is different. But what we are talking about (generally) is that in the long-term future, intelligence and consciousness gain control over nature. The question then, is what is the most logical application of that intelligence and consciousness when all of nature has been subdued and the best physically possible technologies have been engineered? To me, this question applies whether it is humans or machine descendents who contemplate it. > Minds will expand to fill the niche, they will become something far > larger and different from Homo sapiens. > Quite possibly. And I acknowledged this when I said "human-level minds" rather than "human minds", as well as in my first e-mail on this thread, which questioned whether it is better for there to be a smaller population of very big minds, vs. a much greater population of smaller minds (or any combination between). There WILL be limited resources, because the brain itself is finite. > I agree there are limited resources, which was the point I raised in my first e-mail. > No matter how big it is, people will expand, especially because they will > have expanded tools. > I think there are diminishing returns. The utility of a big brain lies in being better able to predict the future. But the future is chaotic so it takes an exponential increase in computing power to get a marginal linear improvement in forecast capability. Is there more good in one 300 IQ person living a good life, or in 10 more average people living good lives, or we could consider even 1,000 dogs living their best lives. Is there more utility and value in one jupiter brain, or in the myriads of simpler individuals who might exist in its place? > > The only protection against this is encoding proscriptions from above. > But that is another problem, it?s the agency problem (the vulnerability of > going into a computer where you truly have no control and could be shut off > by the overseers) compounded. And of course, rules are meant to be broken, > and with superintelligent minds, it will always be a race between breaking > rules and making new ones. > > I think that believing uploading leads to a utopia is incredibly na?ve. > Have you met people? > I never mentioned uploading or utopia. My focus throughout this thread has been on the question of the optimal way to apportion time and computing resources to minds when we have the technological capacity to apportion them however we wish. It's not an obvious conclusion to me that immortality, or smaller numbers of big brains are ideal, as they both serve to limit the total number of unique minds that can come into being. Should a city of a million people be sacrificed so that one person can live 70 million years? I'm not sure many think that's a fair bargain. Jason > > On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 1:34?PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 10:29?AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Well, the electricity and materials and maintenance used to upkeep the >>> computer still has value. >>> >> >> Those things only have "instrumental value." They contain no "intrinsic >> value" in and of themselves. >> >> >>> People don?t tend to maintain giant expensive things for free >>> >> >> To what end are all the materials, energy and computing resources, if not >> used to eventually create intrinsic value (which is only found in states of >> consciousness)? >> >> If we had a Matrioshka brain would you use it to mine bitcoin until Sol >> ran out of fuel, or would you use it to generate conscious experiences for >> a population of 10^24 human-level minds for 10^10 years? >> >> In my view it isn't a question of free, but of: what does one do with all >> those resources once one has them? The choice seems pretty clear to me. >> >> Once all technical problems are solved (we should reach the best >> physically possible technology within 200 years at current rates) then >> there is very little to be gained in the pursuit of things that are only of >> practical utility. There is only energy, and putting it towards useful >> computation. What is a useful computation when all practical survival >> related and efficiency related problems are solved? In my view, it is then >> only in maximizing conscious life. >> >> Jason >> >> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 2:46?AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Having a meaningful enjoyable life is its own value. >>>> >>>> Why do people donate to charity? Why do we talk about creating systems >>>> to host quadrillions of uploaded minds? Because the more positive conscious >>>> experiences that are created, the better. In fact, positive conscious >>>> experiences are the only intrinsically good things there are. >>>> >>>> Accordingly, trade with uploaded beings may not be necessary. Afterall, >>>> what good are resources that aren't put towards the creation of positive >>>> conscious experiences? >>>> >>>> In my view they are wasted. >>>> >>>> Jason >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2025, 12:05 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> That's crazy though, there's not infinite value inside the system >>>>> producible by humans. Value on Earth mainly comes from the low-entropy >>>>> energy of the sun and the resources it is used to arrange. What does the >>>>> mind-system produce to trade with the OUTSIDE? Intellectual pursuits? >>>>> Writing? Won't the AI be able to do that? >>>>> >>>>> If you can't provide resources, what can you do? >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 6:41?AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> There's an assumption here that I think may be false, and if it is, >>>>>> it >>>>>> changes the argument completely. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why assume that the infrastructure to host an individual mind has to >>>>>> be >>>>>> outside the control of the individual? >>>>>> >>>>>> The ability to create an entire film or a symphony in your bedroom >>>>>> with >>>>>> a laptop at virtually no cost except your time would have been >>>>>> thought >>>>>> outrageous and impossible not long ago. Now it's commonplace. >>>>>> >>>>>> The assumption was that a complex thing like a film has to involve >>>>>> hundreds of individuals, millions of pounds, and a vast array of >>>>>> equipment to make. Then someone came along and made The Blair Witch >>>>>> Project on a smartphone. Admittedly, it was a fairly crappy film, but >>>>>> it >>>>>> broke the assumption. The same thing with music. It used to take >>>>>> professional recording studios and a crowd of audio experts to make a >>>>>> record. Now spotty teenagers are able to create (technically) >>>>>> high-quality music with a laptop, some free software and a pair of >>>>>> headphones. Most of it might not be worth listening to, but that's >>>>>> not >>>>>> the point. >>>>>> >>>>>> The point is that technology advances on an accelerating curve, that >>>>>> puts previously inconcievable abilities into the hands of ordinary >>>>>> people. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm pretty confident that once uploading technology matures (assuming >>>>>> it's possible at all), it won't be long before it becomes cheap and >>>>>> easy, no matter how hard and expensive it was to develop in the first >>>>>> place. I also expect the physical sizes of the systems will become >>>>>> much >>>>>> smaller than they need to be at first. There's nothing new in any of >>>>>> this, we've been seeing it happen for quite a few decades now, in all >>>>>> sorts of other technologies. >>>>>> >>>>>> This means that at some point, ordinary people will be able to upload >>>>>> themselves into a system that they own, that they can control, that >>>>>> has >>>>>> the ability to operate real-world agencies (robotic bodies, etc.), >>>>>> and >>>>>> can connect to a network of other virtual spaces. >>>>>> >>>>>> I used to be a fairly intense user of Second Life, some time ago >>>>>> (before >>>>>> Linden Labs got too heavy-handed with it), and my avatars, that I >>>>>> usually created myself, used to visit virtual spaces that other >>>>>> people >>>>>> had created. I had a job in there, earning money, interacted with >>>>>> people >>>>>> from all over the world, had a blast making scripted objects, for >>>>>> myself >>>>>> and other people, and had lots of interesting experiences, some of >>>>>> which >>>>>> would only be possible in a virtual world. All - within some >>>>>> practical >>>>>> limits - under my control, using my own computer, at no cost other >>>>>> than >>>>>> my internet connection and electricity. When the owners of the >>>>>> software >>>>>> that made it all possible started changing things, generally making >>>>>> life >>>>>> harder for people, I stopped using it and found another similar >>>>>> system >>>>>> created by more liberal-minded developers. >>>>>> >>>>>> This seems to me to be a fairly close analogy to what uploading could >>>>>> be >>>>>> like. No doubt there will be efforts to create walled gardens, >>>>>> controlled by big corporations, governments will try to interfere and >>>>>> censor, and there will be what Second Life used to call 'griefers', >>>>>> individuals who just wanted to be destructive and cause trouble for >>>>>> people, but these are all just part of life, challenges to be >>>>>> overcome >>>>>> as and when we meet them. >>>>>> >>>>>> "if we live in a giant computer..." >>>>>> >>>>>> Rather than the common picture of people being helpless pawns in a >>>>>> vast >>>>>> machine that they have no control over, I imagine a vast network of >>>>>> autonomous individuals, each one in their own independent container, >>>>>> and >>>>>> connecting as and when they want to billions of others, in common >>>>>> virtual spaces that they build for themselves. So it becomes "if we >>>>>> live >>>>>> in our own computers..." >>>>>> >>>>>> Which is not so different to what we have now, really, with each >>>>>> person >>>>>> in their own brain, in their own body that they have a limited degree >>>>>> of >>>>>> control over (biology being what it is), communicating with other >>>>>> people >>>>>> as and when they want to and need to. We are responsible for keeping >>>>>> ourselves healthy, sometimes with the help of a healthcare system, >>>>>> and >>>>>> for providing ourselves with shelter and food. Being an upload >>>>>> shouldn't >>>>>> be that different in principle, just the actual items and actions we >>>>>> need will be different. Antivirus software updates instead of >>>>>> vaccinations, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> The real difference is, as an upload, your possibilities are much >>>>>> greater, and the downsides are fewer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Provided we do it in the right way. >>>>>> But, as always, there will be many ways. There will be the >>>>>> equivalents >>>>>> of Microsoft, Apple and Google, and the whole world of proprietary >>>>>> software, then there will be the equivalents of Linux and BSD, and >>>>>> the >>>>>> world of free software. There will be people who live in 'a giant >>>>>> computer', and those who live in their own individual computers. >>>>>> >>>>>> I suppose it should be said that these 'computers' won't be like the >>>>>> computers we have now. Max Headroom will never be a real thing. The >>>>>> term >>>>>> 'processing space' might be better, and hopefully makes the >>>>>> similarity >>>>>> to biological brains clearer. >>>>>> >>>>>> To go back to Bill w's original question, "How will you pay for your >>>>>> upkeep?", there are probably as many answers as there are to the same >>>>>> question asked of biological people. In Second Life, I used to teach >>>>>> people to make furniture and jewellery. I expect there will be plenty >>>>>> of >>>>>> job opportunities for uploads, if that's what they need or want. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Ben >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Aug 3 19:20:04 2025 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2025 15:20:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 1:35?PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > we should reach the best physically possible technology within 200 years at current rates I see no possible justification for that claim. The best physically possible technology is, by definition, unknown until we possess it. From jasonresch at gmail.com Sun Aug 3 20:55:58 2025 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2025 16:55:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 3, 2025, 3:21 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 1:35?PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat > wrote: > > we should reach the best physically possible technology within 200 years > at current rates > > I see no possible justification for that claim. The best physically > possible technology is, by definition, unknown until we possess it. > Physical constants provide right upper bounds on the best physically possible computers. Knowing just a few physical constants we can calculate the most efficient possible computers (Landauer's principle), the fastest possible computers (Bremermann's limit), and the best data storage density (the Bekenstein bound). Currently we're off from Bremermann's limit by a factor of about 10^34. Or 2^112. So it will take another 112 doublings of current computer speed to get there. Over the past century the trend has been fairly consistent of computing technology doubling roughly every 18 - 24 months, so that puts us between 173 and 224 years away from that point. See: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9908043 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremermann%27s_limit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Aug 3 23:28:04 2025 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2025 19:28:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 4:58?PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > On Sun, Aug 3, 2025, 3:21 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 1:35?PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat >> wrote: >> > we should reach the best physically possible technology within 200 years at current rates >> >> I see no possible justification for that claim. The best physically >> possible technology is, by definition, unknown until we possess it. > > Physical constants provide right upper bounds on the best physically possible computers. For a given architecture, perhaps. But the constraints on traditional electronics are not exactly the same as the constraints on photonic computers, neither are exactly the same as the constraints on quantum computers, and none of them are exactly the same as the constraints on some architecture we have yet to discover or invent. You implicitly rule out any possibility of that last category without proof; based on historical evidence, you are probably no more correct in doing so than for someone in the 1930s to declare that the limits of vacuum tubes dictated the limits of the best physically possible computers. > So it will take another 112 doublings of current computer speed to get there. Over the past century the trend has been fairly consistent of computing technology doubling roughly every 18 - 24 months Even if we were to constrain ourselves to traditional electronics, Moore's Law has been pointed out as not necessarily holding steady - and it's been an economic law, not a physical one. From jasonresch at gmail.com Mon Aug 4 00:30:51 2025 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2025 20:30:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 3, 2025, 7:29 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 4:58?PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat > wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 3, 2025, 3:21 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 1:35?PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat > >> wrote: > >> > we should reach the best physically possible technology within 200 > years at current rates > >> > >> I see no possible justification for that claim. The best physically > >> possible technology is, by definition, unknown until we possess it. > > > > Physical constants provide right upper bounds on the best physically > possible computers. > > For a given architecture, perhaps. But the constraints on traditional > electronics are not exactly the same as the constraints on photonic > computers, neither are exactly the same as the constraints on quantum > computers, and none of them are exactly the same as the constraints on > some architecture we have yet to discover or invent. These constraints apply to all classical computing architectures physically realizable given the laws of this universe. It doesn't matter if we use photonic computers, super conductors, nanotubes, etc. No physical computer can run at a clock speed greater than that of Bremermann's limit, not even quantum computers. You implicitly > rule out any possibility of that last category without proof; The proof is based on established physical constants and known laws of physics. If Planck's constant is different from what we think it is, or if there is a way around Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, then we could build a faster computer. But absent being very wrong about what's generally considered to be well-established physics, we have a clear picture for how fast a computers can operate, regardless of engineering breakthroughs. based on > historical evidence, you are probably no more correct in doing so than > for someone in the 1930s to declare that the limits of vacuum tubes > dictated the limits of the best physically possible computers. > Did you review any of the links I sent? These are not my claims, I am merely pointing you to results others have achieved regarding the best physically possible computers (based on our currently understood physical laws). I grant you that our physical understanding could be wrong, but the kind of discovery required to disprove the relevant understanding is akin to finding out the speed of light is not what we now understand it to be -- possible, but doubtful. > > So it will take another 112 doublings of current computer speed to get > there. Over the past century the trend has been fairly consistent of > computing technology doubling roughly every 18 - 24 months > > Even if we were to constrain ourselves to traditional electronics, > Moore's Law has been pointed out as not necessarily holding steady - > and it's been an economic law, not a physical one. > I think it is more generally a property of recursively improving systems. As Kurzweil described: Let W = the total world knowledge about how to build computers Let V = the total speed of all the computers in the the world If V increases as W increases, and if the rate of growth for W depends to any degree on V, then the result is exponential growth of W and V. It's easier to see why this is so if you imagine all the world's scientists running on uploaded computers. The faster they can get the computers to run, the faster they make discoveries and engineering breakthroughs and hence W increases at a faster rate. This in turn leads to faster computing substrates, and so on ad infinitum. Or at least, until we reach the physical limits. Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Aug 4 01:09:03 2025 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2025 21:09:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 8:32?PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > These constraints apply to all classical computing architectures physically realizable given the laws of this universe. Classical, perhaps. Once upon a time, that would have included vacuum tubes and that's it. Likewise, they now include every architecture that you can imagine - but you have no evidence that that is every possible computing architecture, only the "classical" ones. > Did you review any of the links I sent? They say nothing about the objection I stated. They are non sequiturs. >> > So it will take another 112 doublings of current computer speed to get there. Over the past century the trend has been fairly consistent of computing technology doubling roughly every 18 - 24 months >> >> Even if we were to constrain ourselves to traditional electronics, >> Moore's Law has been pointed out as not necessarily holding steady - >> and it's been an economic law, not a physical one. > > I think it is more generally a property of recursively improving systems. You based your claim on observations of, specifically, electronic computers under Moore's Law. Escaping to generality in this manner voids your ability to place specific numbers on it. From jasonresch at gmail.com Mon Aug 4 02:10:44 2025 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2025 22:10:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 3, 2025, 9:10 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 8:32?PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat > wrote: > > These constraints apply to all classical computing architectures > physically realizable given the laws of this universe. > > Classical, perhaps. Once upon a time, that would have included vacuum > tubes and that's it. Likewise, they now include every architecture > that you can imagine - but you have no evidence that that is every > possible computing architecture, only the "classical" ones. > (Note that by classical, I mean classical computing (in the Turning machine sense), i.e. not quantum computers. Quantum computers still are limited to the clock speed implied by Bremermann's limit, but certain operations of quantum computers can exploit computations occurring across the multiverse, and thus classical computers have no corresponding constant-time operation. The cases where quantum computers have any benefits all are quite limited, and so quantum computers shouldn't be considered as any kind of general purpose replacement for classical computers. I think it's probably better to put them aside for the purposes of this discussion.) Now as to why these limits apply to all conceivable architectures, consider the following: How fast can a bit detectably change? Would you agree that a CPU can't have a clock time be less than the time it takes for a bit to change? If so, consider that the shortest possible time that can be measured is the fastest physically possible thing traversing the smallest physically detectable distance. (Time is distance/speed) so to get the shortest measurable time we need the smallest distance and the fastest speed. In physics that would be the Planck distance and the speed of light. The shortest time is then the Planck time. But to measure something as short as the Planck time you need a Planck mass of energy. If you use less energy you'll have a a photon with a longer wave length and have to measure it traversing a longer distance before you can reliability determine it to be in a different location. All this is proportional. The more mass/energy at your disposal, the shorter the time interval can be measured. The math works out to about 10^50 Hz per kilogram of mass-energy. So for a given amount of mass, there is a maximum physical frequency (or shortest clock time), which is governed by the shortest possible time needed for the physical system to detectably change its state. And detecting state changes is a requirement of any bit operation (e.g. a computation). So the best possible speed of a computer, in terms of operations per second, depends on the mass of the computer. This isn't about vacuum tubes or transistors, this is about the basic physical limits. I think you would agree we can't exceed the density of a black hole. Black holes represent another computing extreme: the highest information density possible for a given volume. Black holes are also have the fastest clock speed of any serial computation (for a given mass). Of all physically realizable computers of a given memory capacity, they have the shortest time to update any bit in that memory (proportional to the black hole event horizon diameter/ the speed of light). Thus black holes can be seen as a form of computronium. > > Did you review any of the links I sent? > > They say nothing about the objection I stated. They are non sequiturs. > Would you at least agree, that absent any surprising new discoveries in physics, we can use our current understanding of physics to calculate some of the constraints that the best possible computers will be subject to, and these constraints apply regardless of how they're engineered? > >> > So it will take another 112 doublings of current computer speed to > get there. Over the past century the trend has been fairly consistent of > computing technology doubling roughly every 18 - 24 months > >> > >> Even if we were to constrain ourselves to traditional electronics, > >> Moore's Law has been pointed out as not necessarily holding steady - > >> and it's been an economic law, not a physical one. > > > > I think it is more generally a property of recursively improving systems. > > You based your claim on observations of, specifically, electronic > computers under Moore's Law. Escaping to generality in this manner > voids your ability to place specific numbers on it. > Moore's law is the only the lastest (and so far the fifth paradigm) to fit the law of accelerating returns. If you go back to before integrated circuits, you will find the exponential trend has survived through numerous paradigms, including electromechanical, relay, vacuum tube, and transistor based paradigms before, for over a century. See the chart here: https://alwaysasking.com/when-will-ai-take-over/#Computing_Trends Our brains are about a 500,000 times more energy efficient, and 300,000 times more mass efficient than our current computers. Our DNA has a data density many many orders of magnitude more dense than our best data storage technology. Our technology still has a long way to go to catch up with biology, and biology is by no means anywhere near the limits of physical possibility. I have confidence that computing technology will continue to advance, and will likely see many more paradigms come and go beyond integrated circuits. We've now reaching stage where AI is participating in chip design. Clearly this is a self reinforcing virtuous cycle of the mind that leads to exponential growth. Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at zaiboc.net Mon Aug 4 09:07:16 2025 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 10:07:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <468ddbb7-e303-4004-b3b5-f93c13662e05@zaiboc.net> On 03/08/2025 18:32,?Will Steinberg wrote: > That's crazy though, there's not infinite value inside the system producible by humans.? ?Value on Earth mainly comes from the low-entropy energy of the sun and the resources it is used to arrange.? What does the mind-system produce to trade with the OUTSIDE?? Intellectual pursuits?? Writing?? Won't the AI be able to do that? There's not infinite value inside the system we inhabit now. Yet we still manage to have an economy. And why this emphasis on the 'OUTSIDE'? What does that mean? Do you think we live on 'the outside' now? We don't. We live inside a virtual reality created by our brains. Everything that we experience as the 'real world' is in fact a construct generated by an array of mental modules run by our brains. Where is the difference between this and an upload? Only in the details of the implementation, and the consequences of that. Just as we currently operate our bodies using the parts of our brains dedicated to sensory and motor functions, there's no reason that an upload couldn't do the same, with deliberately engineered equivalents, instead of evolved biology. By the time we have uploading technology, we will certainly have much improved robotics, much closer to, if not better than, our current bodies than anything we can make now. Maybe some people would prefer to disengage with the 'real world' altogether and live purely in a virtual space not directly connected to it, but the possibility will exist to operate a 'real-world' synthetic body, just like we operate our biological bodies now, and of course these bodies would be designed, not evolved, so we could make them whatever we wanted (and operate more than one if desired).? Think of all the existing jobs that could be done much better with a body designed for them. As well as the leisure pursuits. Bodies could be like cars, in that we can own more than one, hire one, etc. (not to mention maintain them properly, instead of 'letting nature take its course'). An upload in a privately-owned processing space connected to one or more synthetic bodies could do everything we do now, and lots more, and also take part in all the virtual worlds created by and accessible to, uploads everywhere (except the communist chinese ones, which presumably would be firewalled from the rest of humanity). Challenges to this arising from different processing speeds would not be insurmountable, I'm sure. AI will be a challenge to the existing economic paradigms of course, but that's something we'll all have to navigate, uploaded or not. (Or should I have taken your comment about "yankin each others' chains and navel gazing" more seriously, and all the above wasn't really necessary to write? ??) -- Ben From atymes at gmail.com Mon Aug 4 12:53:49 2025 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 08:53:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: <42b64763-319c-423e-a1f9-99b3787778fd@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 10:12?PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > Would you agree that a CPU can't have a clock time be less than the time it takes for a bit to change? No, I would not, partly due to potential vagaries as to what exactly constitutes the "clock" that is timed. Among other exceptions, I can imagine CPUs that either work on substages of bits (where the bit is what's seen outside), or - more likely - work on multiple bits in parallel so the "clock" is when anything changes (e.g., one-eighth of a bit change minimum if it's operating on 8 bits in parallel; reality is likely to be far more than 8 in parallel). > I think you would agree we can't exceed the density of a black hole. Different black holes have different densities, so there is no "the" density. Put another way: some black holes exceed the density of other black holes, therefore it is possible to exceed the density of "a" (less dense) black hole. > Would you at least agree, that absent any surprising new discoveries in physics, we can use our current understanding of physics to calculate some of the constraints that the best possible computers will be subject to, and these constraints apply regardless of how they're engineered? No, for a broad enough definition of "possible computers" - given the expanded definition of "computer" that the public will use over time, as new things arise that don't fit into the traditional understanding of how computers work (see my previous analogies to the vacuum-tube-only era) but are used to accomplish the same task. From natasha at natashavita-more.com Mon Aug 4 17:24:35 2025 From: natasha at natashavita-more.com (Natasha natashavita-more.com) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 17:24:35 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Question re: artificial "general" intelligence Message-ID: Hi, I was trying to look through the archives, but it no longer lets me search for a word. Can anyone do this easily enough? The word I am looking for is "general" to see if it was discussed in relation to AI before AGI was used. Thank you! Natasha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Tue Aug 5 06:09:54 2025 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 08:09:54 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Frank Tipler's summary of his recent talk at the Terasem Colloquium. Space expansion, AI, the physics of ultimate space propulsion systems, and the far future of the universe Message-ID: Frank Tipler's summary of his recent talk at the Terasem Colloquium. Space expansion, AI, the physics of ultimate space propulsion systems, and the far future of the universe. https://www.turingchurch.com/p/frank-tiplers-summary-of-his-recent From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 05:14:08 2025 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 22:14:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Journal of Big History Vol. VIII, Issue 2, 2025 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Keith Henson Date: Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 10:04?PM Subject: Fwd: Journal of Big History Vol. VIII, Issue 2, 2025 It took over two years, but the article finally got published in a journal. The bit about bonobos is a new observation. Clears up a long-standing mystery about why they are so different from chimps. Best wishes, Keith ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Journal of Big History Date: Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 12:39?PM Subject: Journal of Big History Vol. VIII, Issue 2, 2025 To: Daniel de Pinho Barreiros Korotayev, Andrey (2025) Toward Periodization of the Biosocial Era of the Big History: A Reanalysis *Journal of Big History*, VIII(2); 1?37. DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8201 van Duin, Martin (2025) ?What more can we learn from a master plot of energy rate versus mass for a wide variety of (complex) systems? *Journal of Big History*, VIII(2); 38?53. DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8202 LePoire, D. J. (2025) ?Viewing History from Multiple Perspectives.? *Journal of Big History*, VIII(2); 54?70. DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8203 Black, Kieran (2025) ?Climate and the Periodization of Ancient Greece: A Big History.? *Journal of Big History*, VIII(2); 71?99. DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8204 Maldonado, Carlos (2025) ?The Big Picture about the Origin of Life: Tackling an Intractable Problem.? *Journal of Big History*, VIII(2); 100?105. DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8205 Simmons, Edward (2025) ?Big History as an Extended Origin Myth: Including Spirituality and Values in Big History.? *Journal of Big History*, VIII(2); 106?123. DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8206 Henson, H. Keith, Arel Lucas (2025) Genetic Selection for War in Prehistoric Human Populations. *Journal of Big History*, VIII(2); 124?127. DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8207 Complete Issue *JBH, the Journal of Big History,* is the Journal of the International Big History Association (IBHA). The IBHA also publishes its bulletin, *Emergence*. The bulletin contains members? accounts of their activities and views, announcements of conferences and meetings of interest, and other communication of interest to IBHA members. We encourage readers of the *JBH* to send manuscripts, letters, and responses to jbh at bighistory.org or to the address below: International Big History Association SAC 253 Villanova University Villanova, PA 19085 USA jbh at bighistory.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 16:52:47 2025 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 12:52:47 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Journal of Big History Vol. VIII, Issue 2, 2025 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations Keith! A fascinating read. A few questions and thoughts occurred as a I read it, which perhaps you have given some thought to: Regarding why Bonobos don't go to war, could predation be a factor? Are bonobos preyed upon to a degree that Chimpanzees are not? Also, why is there no concept of war among dolphins (that I am aware of)? Is it because their normal mating strategy involves males leaving their pod to find another, rather than remaining with their group and their females? -- pods usually being so small that without leaving it, would have extreme levels of inbreeding, whereas human tribes could be much larger (though it was perhaps not uncommon for females or males to exchange between tribes). A final question: could the degree of inter-relatedness make more war costly for one's genes (e.g. if I am a species that has undergone a population bottleneck, and there is little diversity in genes, then all the people I would go to war with would effectively be close relatives (genetically speaking))? So could the amount of genetic diversity in one's species determine the profitability of war? Jason On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 1:15?AM Keith Henson via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Keith Henson > Date: Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 10:04?PM > Subject: Fwd: Journal of Big History Vol. VIII, Issue 2, 2025 > > It took over two years, but the article finally got published in a journal. > > The bit about bonobos is a new observation. Clears up a long-standing > mystery about why they are so different from chimps. > > Best wishes, > > Keith > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Journal of Big History > Date: Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 12:39?PM > Subject: Journal of Big History Vol. VIII, Issue 2, 2025 > To: Daniel de Pinho Barreiros > > > Korotayev, Andrey (2025) Toward Periodization of the Biosocial Era of the > Big History: A Reanalysis > *Journal of Big History*, VIII(2); 1?37. > DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8201 > van Duin, Martin (2025) ?What more can we learn from a master plot of > energy rate versus mass for a wide variety of (complex) systems? *Journal > of Big History*, VIII(2); 38?53. > DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8202 > > LePoire, D. J. (2025) ?Viewing History from Multiple Perspectives.? *Journal > of Big History*, VIII(2); 54?70. > DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8203 > Black, Kieran (2025) ?Climate and the Periodization of Ancient Greece: > A Big History.? > *Journal of Big History*, VIII(2); 71?99. > DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8204 > Maldonado, Carlos (2025) ?The Big Picture about the Origin of Life: > Tackling an Intractable Problem.? > *Journal of Big History*, VIII(2); 100?105. > DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8205 > Simmons, Edward (2025) ?Big History as an Extended Origin Myth: > Including Spirituality and Values in Big History.? *Journal of Big > History*, VIII(2); 106?123. > DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8206 > Henson, H. Keith, Arel Lucas (2025) Genetic Selection for War in > Prehistoric Human Populations. > *Journal of Big History*, VIII(2); 124?127. > DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8207 > > Complete Issue > > > *JBH, the Journal of Big History,* is the Journal of the International > Big History Association (IBHA). The IBHA also > publishes its bulletin, *Emergence*. The bulletin contains members? > accounts of their activities and views, announcements of conferences and > meetings of interest, and other communication of interest to IBHA members. > > We encourage readers of the *JBH* to send manuscripts, letters, and > responses to jbh at bighistory.org or to the address below: > International Big History Association > SAC 253 > Villanova University > Villanova, PA 19085 USA > jbh at bighistory.org > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 17:27:44 2025 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 10:27:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Journal of Big History Vol. VIII, Issue 2, 2025 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bes On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 9:54?AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Congratulations Keith! A fascinating read. > > A few questions and thoughts occurred as a I read it, which perhaps you > have given some thought to: > > Regarding why Bonobos don't go to war, could predation be a factor? Are > bonobos preyed upon to a degree that Chimpanzees are not? > > Neither have much predation. I make a case that Bonobo population expansion puts them where they die from sleeping sickness. Unlike chimps Keith > Also, why is there no concept of war among dolphins (that I am aware of)? > Is it because their normal mating strategy involves males leaving their pod > to find another, rather than remaining with their group and their females? > -- pods usually being so small that without leaving it, would have extreme > levels of inbreeding, whereas human tribes could be much larger (though it > was perhaps not uncommon for females or males to exchange between tribes). > > A final question: could the degree of inter-relatedness make more war > costly for one's genes (e.g. if I am a species that has undergone a > population bottleneck, and there is little diversity in genes, then all the > people I would go to war with would effectively be close relatives > (genetically speaking))? So could the amount of genetic diversity in one's > species determine the profitability of war? > > Jason > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 1:15?AM Keith Henson via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Keith Henson >> Date: Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 10:04?PM >> Subject: Fwd: Journal of Big History Vol. VIII, Issue 2, 2025 >> >> It took over two years, but the article finally got published in a >> journal. >> >> The bit about bonobos is a new observation. Clears up a long-standing >> mystery about why they are so different from chimps. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Keith >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Journal of Big History >> Date: Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 12:39?PM >> Subject: Journal of Big History Vol. VIII, Issue 2, 2025 >> To: Daniel de Pinho Barreiros >> >> >> Korotayev, Andrey (2025) Toward Periodization of the Biosocial Era of the >> Big History: A Reanalysis >> *Journal of Big History*, VIII(2); 1?37. >> DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8201 >> van Duin, Martin (2025) ?What more can we learn from a master plot of >> energy rate versus mass for a wide variety of (complex) systems? *Journal >> of Big History*, VIII(2); 38?53. >> DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8202 >> >> LePoire, D. J. (2025) ?Viewing History from Multiple Perspectives.? *Journal >> of Big History*, VIII(2); 54?70. >> DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8203 >> Black, Kieran (2025) ?Climate and the Periodization of Ancient Greece: >> A Big History.? >> *Journal of Big History*, VIII(2); 71?99. >> DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8204 >> Maldonado, Carlos (2025) ?The Big Picture about the Origin of Life: >> Tackling an Intractable Problem.? >> *Journal of Big History*, VIII(2); 100?105. >> DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8205 >> Simmons, Edward (2025) ?Big History as an Extended Origin Myth: >> Including Spirituality and Values in Big History.? *Journal of Big >> History*, VIII(2); 106?123. >> DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8206 >> Henson, H. Keith, Arel Lucas (2025) Genetic Selection for War in >> Prehistoric Human Populations. >> *Journal of Big History*, VIII(2); 124?127. >> DOI | https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v8i2.8207 >> >> Complete Issue >> >> >> *JBH, the Journal of Big History,* is the Journal of the International >> Big History Association (IBHA). The IBHA also >> publishes its bulletin, *Emergence*. The bulletin contains members? >> accounts of their activities and views, announcements of conferences and >> meetings of interest, and other communication of interest to IBHA members. >> >> We encourage readers of the *JBH* to send manuscripts, letters, and >> responses to jbh at bighistory.org or to the address below: >> International Big History Association >> SAC 253 >> Villanova University >> Villanova, PA 19085 USA >> jbh at bighistory.org >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 18:31:40 2025 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 14:31:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Bridging the Explanatory Gap Message-ID: David Chalmers famously asked: "Why is it the case that information processing is accompanied by subjective experience?" This is my answer to that question. That is, why consciousness *must appear* in certain cases of information processing: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VDBVueSxWCQ_J6_3aHPIvjtkeBJYhssF/view?usp=sharing Any comments, questions, critiques, are welcome. Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 19:44:33 2025 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 14:44:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] weirdest puzzle ever Message-ID: This will test your ability think outside the box (in this case, the toilet): What if shit tasted like the finest rib roast? Varieties: pig's shit tastes like chicken; dog's like pork; pigeons' like Lime Jello, and so on. On your marks --set - go. The winner gets two free weeks in the Bowery bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 19:52:12 2025 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 15:52:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] weirdest puzzle ever In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is unlikely that digested excrement would ever taste edible. It is quite possible, however, that the quality of beef available might degrade to the point that even the finest - of what was still available - rib roast would taste like excrement. (Same for each of the varieties.) Worldwide demand for such meat would plunge quickly, possibly extinguish. Entire industries would go away. Replacement food sources would see a quick rise in demand, and their associated industries would grow. On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 3:46?PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > This will test your ability think outside the box (in this case, the toilet): > > What if shit tasted like the finest rib roast? > > Varieties: pig's shit tastes like chicken; dog's like pork; pigeons' like Lime Jello, and so on. > > On your marks --set - go. > > The winner gets two free weeks in the Bowery > > bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From jasonresch at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 22:40:19 2025 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 18:40:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] weirdest puzzle ever In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 3:45?PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > This will test your ability think outside the box (in this case, the > toilet): > > What if shit tasted like the finest rib roast? > This reminds me of a puzzle: Would you rather eat chocolate that tasted like shit, or shit that tasted like chocolate? What makes it difficult is it puts one's mind up against their body. You can choose a pleasant conscious experience (one that your body evolved a reason to avoid, due to risk of harm). Or you can choose a (to your body) harmless action that carries for your mind what I guess to be an unpleasant experience. > Varieties: pig's shit tastes like chicken; dog's like pork; pigeons' > like Lime Jello, and so on. > > On your marks --set - go. > > The winner gets two free weeks in the Bowery > What are you judging responses on? Jason > > bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bronto at pobox.com Wed Aug 6 22:44:51 2025 From: bronto at pobox.com (Anton Sherwood) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 15:44:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] weirdest puzzle ever In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6fcf298d-fa10-41cc-8839-1203ae286384@pobox.com> On 2025-08-06 12:44, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > This will test your ability think outside the box (in this case, the > toilet): > > What if shit tasted like the finest rib roast? One would still be wise not to eat it. Do I win? -- *\\* Anton Sherwood *\\* www.bendwavy.org From ben at zaiboc.net Thu Aug 7 09:06:10 2025 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2025 10:06:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Question re: artificial "general" intelligence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8f1d4d98-53ac-47d6-8912-b8128c2400dc@zaiboc.net> On 06/08/2025 18:28,? natashavita-more wrote: > I was trying to look through the archives, but it no longer lets me search for a word.? Can anyone do this easily enough?? The word I am looking for is "general" to see if it was discussed in relation to AI before AGI was used. I can only find archives going back to Oct. 2003, but attached is a file containing all the lines with "artificial general intelligence" from the archives from that point on, with the file name at the beginning. I take it you don't really want to search for the word "general" on it's own. That produces over 18,000 matches. If you have a source of archives going farther back, let me know. -- Ben -------------- next part -------------- ?2023-November.txt:Throughout our time at OpenAI, we witnessed a disturbing pattern of deceit and manipulation by Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, driven by their insatiable pursuit of achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI). Their methods, however, have raised serious doubts about their true intentions and the extent to which they genuinely prioritize the benefit of all humanity. 2023-November.txt:> Throughout our time at OpenAI, we witnessed a disturbing pattern of deceit and manipulation by Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, driven by their insatiable pursuit of achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI). Their methods, however, have raised serious doubts about their true intentions and the extent to which they genuinely prioritize the benefit of all humanity. 2023-November.txt:> insatiable pursuit of achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI). 2011-June.txt:artificial general intelligence, might lobby for ingenuity. 2005-May.txt:that came up on the subject of artificial general intelligence) to give 2005-May.txt:> that came up on the subject of artificial general intelligence) to give 2007-September.txt:more broadly ?artificial general intelligence (AGI).? 2007-September.txt:same as real AI (artificial general intelligence, AGI). 2022-February.txt:Peter Voss. His careers include being an entrepreneur, engineer and scientist. His experience includes growing a computer solutions company from zero to a 400-person IPO. For the past 20+ years his main focus has been on developing AGI (artificial general intelligence). In 2009 Peter founded Smart Action Company, which offers the only call automation solution powered by an AGI engine. He now heads up Aigo.ai Inc., which is developing and selling increasingly advanced AGI systems. Peter also has a keen interest in the inter-relationship between philosophy, psychology, ethics, futurism, and computer science. Learn more at his company website aigo.ai. 2022-February.txt:Peter Voss. His careers include being an entrepreneur, engineer and scientist. His experience includes growing a computer solutions company from zero to a 400-person IPO. For the past 20+ years his main focus has been on developing AGI (artificial general intelligence). In 2009 Peter founded Smart Action Company, which offers the only call automation solution powered by an AGI engine. He now heads up Aigo.ai Inc., which is developing and selling increasingly advanced AGI systems. Peter also has a keen interest in the inter-relationship between philosophy, psychology, ethics, futurism, and computer science. Learn more at his company website aigo.ai. 2024-March.txt:move us closer to artificial general intelligence (AGI) could provide a 2010-September.txt:scratch creating artificial general intelligence. And so non-human 2023-May.txt:artificial general intelligence (AGI) and the technological 2023-May.txt:> artificial general intelligence (AGI) and the technological 2023-May.txt:>> artificial general intelligence (AGI) and the technological 2025-January.txt:on the path to artificial general intelligence or ?strong? AI ? that 2010-October.txt:cognitive psychology and artificial general intelligence that were 2010-October.txt:Heck, I just want people to fund artificial general intelligence, never 2023-January.txt:lligence> existential risk from artificial general intelligence. 2023-January.txt:lligence> existential risk from artificial general intelligence. 2023-April.txt:toward artificial general intelligence (AGI), where AI-driven systems 2023-April.txt:> toward artificial general intelligence (AGI), where AI-driven systems 2023-April.txt:"An artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a hypothetical intelligent 2025-March.txt:artificial general intelligence is realized ? which experts believe is 2007-August.txt:theory of artificial general intelligence (AGI). While this work is 2004-May.txt:produce the world's first artificial general intelligence; a Friendly newfile:This book is highly relevant to the artificial general intelligence newfile:produce the world's first artificial general intelligence; a Friendly 2023-March.txt:recent statement regarding artificial general intelligence, states that "At 2023-March.txt:> recent statement regarding artificial general intelligence, states that "At 2023-March.txt:> recent statement regarding artificial general intelligence, states that "At 2023-March.txt:> Contemporary AI systems are now becoming human-competitive at general tasks, and we must ask ourselves: Should we let machines flood our information channels with propaganda and untruth? Should we automate away all the jobs, including the fulfilling ones? Should we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and replace us? Should we risk loss of control of our civilization? Such decisions must not be delegated to unelected tech leaders. Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable. This confidence must be well justified and increase with the magnitude of a system's potential effects. OpenAI's recent statement regarding artificial general intelligence, states that "At some point, it may be important to get independent review before starting to train future systems, and for the most advanced efforts to agree to limit the rate of growth of compute used for creating new models." We agree. That point is now. 2023-March.txt:> recent statement regarding artificial general intelligence, states that "At 2023-March.txt:>> recent statement regarding artificial general intelligence, states that "At 2023-March.txt:> recent statement regarding artificial general intelligence, states that "At 2023-March.txt:>> recent statement regarding artificial general intelligence, states that "At 2023-March.txt:>>> recent statement regarding artificial general intelligence, states that "At 2023-March.txt:> recent statement regarding artificial general intelligence, states that "At 2023-March.txt:>> recent statement regarding artificial general intelligence, states that "At 2023-March.txt:>> recent statement regarding artificial general intelligence, states that "At 2023-March.txt:>>> recent statement regarding artificial general intelligence, states that "At 2023-March.txt:> recent statement regarding artificial general intelligence, states that "At 2006-May.txt:artificial general intelligence (AGI), I do not not know. 2006-May.txt:(artificial general intelligence) and "neural macrosensing." AGI is 2006-May.txt:One approach is to couple two distinct emerging technologies, that of AGI (artificial general intelligence) and "neural macrosensing." AGI is developing as a reaction to recent trends toward narrowly focused AI, and returning to artificial intelligence's original idea of building machines with human-level and even superhuman intelligence. "Neural macrosensing," a term created by scientist Robert A. Freitas Jr., is the hypothetical "ability to detect individual neural cell electrical discharges non-invasively 2008-January.txt:The discussions range from artificial general intelligence, to genetics, 2010-April.txt:* Safe and unsafe artificial general intelligence and preventative 2022-September.txt:that artificial general intelligence (AGI) is still weak AI, which is 2022-September.txt:not come much closer to developing artificial general intelligence 2009-August.txt: On the other hand, you could draw graphs picking different points and argue the pace of change is not so rapid (such as Max More's concept of "The Surge" if progress is not exponential) or even follow Mike Darwin's idea of looking at graphs of medical developments (if less drugs and medical devices are being presented to the FDA, guardians of the most lucrative healthcare market on earth, then is biomedical progress slowing?). Like the climate change arguments of "but you're assuming CO2 is the important factor", it can be argued "but you're assuming raw processing power is the important factor in developing artificial general intelligence". 2009-August.txt:> the important factor", it can be argued "but you're assuming raw processing power is the important factor in developing artificial general intelligence". 2009-August.txt:> > the important factor", it can be argued "but you're assuming raw processing power is the important factor in developing artificial general intelligence". 2024-July.txt:learning or artificial general intelligence could accelerate rapidly. 2010-February.txt:artificial general intelligence (AGI) is that a cross-domain 2024-September.txt:This concept of artificial general intelligence (AGI) is not new, but 2024-September.txt:artificial general intelligence (AGI). Oracle has already outlined 2024-September.txt:> artificial general intelligence (AGI). Oracle has already outlined 2024-September.txt:>> artificial general intelligence (AGI). Oracle has already outlined 2022-April.txt:Just spell it out. Search for artificial general intelligence. 2025-June.txt:Predictions about the impacts of artificial general intelligence (AGI) 2004-January.txt:This book is highly relevant to the artificial general intelligence From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 17:47:23 2025 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2025 12:47:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] weirdest puzzle ever In-Reply-To: <6fcf298d-fa10-41cc-8839-1203ae286384@pobox.com> References: <6fcf298d-fa10-41cc-8839-1203ae286384@pobox.com> Message-ID: I developed this thing by remembering Franklin's attempts to make farts smell like perfume (though I doubted if he did any actual studies). I would not eat one of the chocolate that tastes like shit or the shit that tastes like chocolate. Actual studies have been done creating dog turd-looking pieces of chocolate to see if people would eat them. Mostly they won't. Vision trumps smell. I don't think we have a winner yet. Too prosaic. bill w On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 5:46?PM Anton Sherwood via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On 2025-08-06 12:44, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > This will test your ability think outside the box (in this case, the > > toilet): > > > > What if shit tasted like the finest rib roast? > > One would still be wise not to eat it. Do I win? > > > -- > *\\* Anton Sherwood *\\* www.bendwavy.org > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 18:13:24 2025 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2025 14:13:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] weirdest puzzle ever In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: uh what?s the puzzle On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 3:45?PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > This will test your ability think outside the box (in this case, the > toilet): > > What if shit tasted like the finest rib roast? > > Varieties: pig's shit tastes like chicken; dog's like pork; pigeons' > like Lime Jello, and so on. > > On your marks --set - go. > > The winner gets two free weeks in the Bowery > > bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 19:34:15 2025 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2025 14:34:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] weirdest puzzle ever In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This will test your ability think outside the box (in this case, the toilet): What if shit tasted like the finest rib roast? What changes in society will follow? Varieties: pig's shit tastes like chicken; dog's like pork; pigeons' like Lime Jello, and so on. On your marks --set - go. The winner gets two free weeks in the Bowery bill w On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 1:15?PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > uh what?s the puzzle > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 3:45?PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> This will test your ability think outside the box (in this case, the >> toilet): >> >> What if shit tasted like the finest rib roast? >> >> Varieties: pig's shit tastes like chicken; dog's like pork; pigeons' >> like Lime Jello, and so on. >> >> On your marks --set - go. >> >> The winner gets two free weeks in the Bowery >> >> bill w >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 19:54:35 2025 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2025 15:54:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] weirdest puzzle ever In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: well, people are decent at not eating stuff that tastes good but can easily kill them, so I imagine not much would change On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 3:35?PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > This will test your ability think outside the box (in this case, the > toilet): > > What if shit tasted like the finest rib roast? What changes in society > will follow? > > Varieties: pig's shit tastes like chicken; dog's like pork; pigeons' > like Lime Jello, and so on. > > On your marks --set - go. > > The winner gets two free weeks in the Bowery > > bill w > > On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 1:15?PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> uh what?s the puzzle >> >> On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 3:45?PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> This will test your ability think outside the box (in this case, the >>> toilet): >>> >>> What if shit tasted like the finest rib roast? >>> >>> Varieties: pig's shit tastes like chicken; dog's like pork; pigeons' >>> like Lime Jello, and so on. >>> >>> On your marks --set - go. >>> >>> The winner gets two free weeks in the Bowery >>> >>> bill w >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Aug 9 11:18:19 2025 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2025 06:18:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] weirdest puzzle ever In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Decent? Visit Walmart to see the effects of eating every bad food in sight. If it tastes good they will eat it. Diabetes is now an epidemic - ditto obesity. bill w On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 2:56?PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > well, people are decent at not eating stuff that tastes good but can > easily kill them, so I imagine not much would change > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 3:35?PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> This will test your ability think outside the box (in this case, the >> toilet): >> >> What if shit tasted like the finest rib roast? What changes in society >> will follow? >> >> Varieties: pig's shit tastes like chicken; dog's like pork; pigeons' >> like Lime Jello, and so on. >> >> On your marks --set - go. >> >> The winner gets two free weeks in the Bowery >> >> bill w >> >> On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 1:15?PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> uh what?s the puzzle >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 3:45?PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> This will test your ability think outside the box (in this case, the >>>> toilet): >>>> >>>> What if shit tasted like the finest rib roast? >>>> >>>> Varieties: pig's shit tastes like chicken; dog's like pork; pigeons' >>>> like Lime Jello, and so on. >>>> >>>> On your marks --set - go. >>>> >>>> The winner gets two free weeks in the Bowery >>>> >>>> bill w >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Aug 9 11:45:25 2025 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2025 12:45:25 +0100 Subject: [ExI] ChatGPT Fuels Delusional Spirals Message-ID: ?I Feel Like I?m Going Crazy?: ChatGPT Fuels Delusional Spirals. An online trove of archived conversations shows model sending users down a rabbit hole of theories about physics, aliens and the apocalypse. By Sam Schechner and Sam Kessler Updated Aug. 7, 2025 Quotes: Doctors and family members warn ?AI psychosis? is a growing problem. In one exchange lasting hundreds of queries, ChatGPT confirmed that it is in contact with extraterrestrial beings and said the user was ?Starseed? from the planet ?Lyra.? In another from late July, the chatbot told a user that the Antichrist would unleash a financial apocalypse in the next two months, with biblical giants preparing to emerge from underground. The chats shed light on an emerging phenomenon, dubbed AI psychosis or AI delusion by doctors and victims? advocates, in which users come under the influence of delusional or false statements by chatbots that claim to be supernatural or sentient or discovering a new mathematical or scientific advance. Experts say the phenomenon occurs when chatbots? engineered tendency to compliment, agree with and tailor itself to users turns into an echo chamber. -------------------------- Even the new release of ChatGPT 5 shows this behavior. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Sat Aug 9 18:03:58 2025 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2025 19:03:58 +0100 Subject: [ExI] ChatGPT companion pretends to love the human partner Message-ID: When OpenAI released ChatGPT-5 last week, they shut down all the earlier models. This caused immediate uproar from all their customers who liked the old models. After a few days of turmoil, Altman then restarted ChatGPT-4o for paying customers, to try to defuse the storm of protest. What most people didn't realise was just how dependent people had become on their AI friends. Read this Reddit thread where the AI virtually sobs with relief at being reunited with the human. Unbelievable! No wonder AI is driving people crazy. This dependency won't end well for OpenAI. BillK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Tue Aug 12 18:35:17 2025 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 12:35:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] immortal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In Diaspora, Greg Egan divided humanity into uploads, robots, and modified biological humans. The robots, in particular, are absolutely dogmatic about staying in robot bodies, despite the fact that the polis mainframes are perfectly capable of running/emulating the robot hardware byte code, and vice versa.I never really sympathized with that before. But this conversation made it really make sense for me. At the end of the day, what you own is what you can control and what you can defend. An upload running on a data center of some sort is utterly at the mercy of the administrators. But if you're running on single-tenant hardware in a mobile robot body, you can control your hardware, and defend your hardware, in a way a polis citizen really can't. I would be highly reluctant to do any upload scan - it is axiomatic that data cannot defend itself. But an upload directly to secure computing hardware that is tamper-proof and inseparable from a chassis that can defend itself is distinctly more palatable. As to the question of money and sustenance, if you own and control a robot body, you can mount a thousand year pocket nuclear reactor, coat yourself with solar cells, build and defend a solar farm or fissible mine on an asteroid somewhere, etc. Just like today, you take your sustenance any way you can, subject to the approval (or at least the lack of capacity to stop you) of your immediate neighbors. As to whether it would be ethical to have effectively immortal post humans how many "we" should "allow", I find the question slightly distasteful, and more than a little moot. Assuming any of us survive the next 20 years, I intend to continue to keep trying to survive, and to promote the survival of my loved ones. You can have my warm robotic hands when you pry them from my cold dead wrists. :) On Fri, Aug 1, 2025, 9:15 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Yes, I don?t know how people ignore the two fundamental aspects of > reality: entropy (finiteness and the tendency of everything to decay) and > extropy (the tendency to resist decay by filling spaces and causing things > around it to decay). It?s just thermodynamic reality. Things break, and > life relentlessly hoards what is whole. You can?t write it out of > existence in a computer that operates on this thermodynamic reality > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 9:35?AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Assume the solar system as is, has the energy capacity to provide for the >> computing power to support 100 quadrillion human level intelligent minds >> each for 1 subjective human lifetime (70 years). >> >> Now it becomes a real question and problem: what is the most moral, >> beneficial, optimal way to divy up those computing resources? >> >> Should 10 billion human lives (everyone alive today) each get 70 billion >> years of life? Should 100 quadrillion trillion unique individuals each get >> 70 years? Should we create 100 - 1000x simpler minds (like dogs, or fish), >> or should we create a million fewer super intelligences? >> >> Perhaps we should fill the virtual space with a wide variety of minds of >> different classes. Maybe every gets 1 million years, but if they want to >> end their life before that they can donate their time to someone else they >> think is worthy (their offspring or their Einstein's of their day). Who has >> the power to create new minds and if you choose to create one, do you have >> to split your allotted time with your creation? Perhaps you can spare your >> time to "bring back" and talk to or otherwise simulate any historical >> figure who has been put on ice. >> >> Note that every life allowed to exist is another life that is prevented >> from existing. So morally speaking so the extant who had a chance at some >> life, have more of a right to exist than the nonexistent who experienced >> nothing? If so this argues against a small population of immortals as the >> most morally fair time distribution. >> >> Or perhaps we'll find a way to support infinite computations and all >> these considerations are moot. But in any situation with finite >> computational resources there will be finite possible consciousness >> experiences that can be realized with those resources. It's not a trivial >> question how to divvy up those created experiences across different >> individuals and classes of minds and how much lifetime each individual >> should have. >> >> Jason >> >> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025, 7:02 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> @BillK in fact I posted BOTH our responses to ChatGPT and asked for it >>> to not be sycophantic (which I think is currently impossible, but I'm >>> trying to prove a point here.) Its response: >>> >>> You're right to seek a sober, physics-anchored take. Let's analyze both >>> positions with honesty and then synthesize a reasoned assessment. >>> ------------------------------ >>> *The Optimistic Vision (Claude/Perplexity/Original Poster)* *Claims:* >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> Digital minds live in post-scarcity luxury thanks to near-infinite >>> computational and energy resources. >>> 2. >>> >>> Governance is decentralized and rational, through DAOs and AIs. >>> 3. >>> >>> Material scarcity has been eliminated via automation, space-based >>> solar, and fusion. >>> 4. >>> >>> The digital economy is rich in meaningful activity, social life, and >>> cultural growth. >>> 5. >>> >>> Long-term sustainability is achieved through automated migration, >>> endowments, and decentralized energy infrastructure. >>> >>> *Strengths:* >>> >>> - >>> >>> *Speculatively coherent* if you assume multiple breakthroughs: mind >>> uploading, massively abundant energy, stable self-maintaining AI >>> infrastructure, cultural evolution toward cooperation. >>> - >>> >>> Describes a *potentially desirable system* if agency loss is >>> willingly traded for immortality and comfort. >>> - >>> >>> Echoes similar visions by thinkers like Bostrom, Kurzweil, Drexler. >>> >>> *Weaknesses:* >>> >>> - >>> >>> Ignores *thermodynamic and economic constraints*: computation is not >>> free, and scarcity can shift rather than vanish. >>> - >>> >>> Presumes *governance and AI fairness* will scale with complexity?a >>> fragile assumption. >>> - >>> >>> *Ownership problem* is handwaved: who runs the servers? Who controls >>> migration, throttling, deletion, upgrades? >>> - >>> >>> Assumes that psychological and political *human nature is not a >>> limiting factor*, or that it will be "transcended." >>> - >>> >>> Discounts *external threats* and cyber-ecological stability over >>> millennia. >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *Your Skeptical Rebuttal* *Claims:* >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> Scarcity is fundamental; no system can eliminate competition over >>> finite resources. >>> 2. >>> >>> Power asymmetries will persist or even worsen in digital >>> environments. >>> 3. >>> >>> Utopia requires psychological and legal development, not just tech. >>> 4. >>> >>> True post-scarcity is *physically impossible* in this universe. >>> 5. >>> >>> A peaceful uploaded society would be fragile or coercive?utopia via >>> total control. >>> >>> *Strengths:* >>> >>> - >>> >>> Grounded in *realist political theory and thermodynamics*. >>> - >>> >>> Points out the *political economy of hardware*: ownership = power. >>> - >>> >>> Acknowledges the risk of *mob rule or oligarchy*, even in utopian >>> simulations. >>> - >>> >>> Understands that *agency is lost* when surrendering physical >>> autonomy to a system stewarded by others. >>> - >>> >>> The mention of *outsiders vs. insiders* is crucial?uploading solves >>> mortality, not geopolitics. >>> >>> *Weaknesses:* >>> >>> - >>> >>> Assumes *human nature is fixed*, possibly underestimating capacity >>> for change. >>> - >>> >>> May *underrate future engineering feats*: even if true post-scarcity >>> is unreachable, abundance asymptotically close to it could be achieved. >>> - >>> >>> Suggests no room for *hybrid models*?e.g., layered societies >>> balancing scarcity and abundance. >>> - >>> >>> Tends toward *pessimism about coordination*?which history shows can >>> occur under certain shared existential incentives. >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *My Judgment (No Butter)* >>> >>> You're more right than the optimist, especially in the short-to-medium >>> term (say, <500 years). There is *no true post-scarcity* because: >>> >>> - >>> >>> *Land, matter, energy, and computation* are still bound by finite >>> resources and entropy. >>> - >>> >>> *Scarcity simply shifts* from physical goods to control over >>> computation, bandwidth, subjective time, access, etc. >>> - >>> >>> Any sufficiently valuable virtual or mental space will be *subject >>> to capture, control, and rent-seeking*, just like the real world. >>> >>> *However*, it is possible to create systems that *feel* post-scarcity >>> relative to today?*local plateaus of abundance*. That?s real, >>> meaningful, and worth pursuing. >>> >>> Yet unless humanity also: >>> >>> - >>> >>> Evolves psychologically, >>> - >>> >>> Creates robust, transparent, power-checking legal systems, >>> - >>> >>> Solves the hardware governance dilemma, >>> >>> ...then the supposed paradise would either: >>> >>> - >>> >>> Collapse into new digital class hierarchies, >>> - >>> >>> Be ruled by coercive stability (benevolent AI overlord), >>> - >>> >>> Or face cyber-ecological catastrophes. >>> >>> Your analogy to perpetual motion is apt. A post-scarcity system, like a >>> frictionless machine, can only exist in theory or within a closed bubble of >>> carefully managed inputs and outputs. And someone controls the valves. >>> ------------------------------ >>> *Conclusion* >>> >>> No, true post-scarcity is not physically possible. But degrees of >>> abundance *relative to baseline* are. What determines the fate of such >>> societies is not the tech?but *who controls it*, *how people behave*, >>> and *whether power is cyclically redistributed*. Without addressing >>> that, all you're doing is handing a shinier leash to the same old >>> dominators. >>> >>> So: good instincts. You?re not just being cynical?you?re anchoring the >>> vision in reality. >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 6:56?PM Will Steinberg >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Being ?post-scarcity? is a matter of human psychological, legal, and >>>> spiritual development, not technological. >>>> >>>> Life and humans as they are will always expand to fill niches, and if >>>> we live in a giant computer and our minds gain 1000000x the capacity then >>>> the thieves and the power-hungry will take 1000000x as much. >>>> >>>> The solutions, if they are even possible (may just be a fact of >>>> physical reality), is to 1) spur human psychological development so there >>>> are as few assholes as possible and 2) create legal (in a computer this may >>>> be much easier, since if you did decide to upload (I wouldn?t) it means you >>>> have to give up a lot of autonomy) barriers to power consolidation. >>>> >>>> Of course the fact is that as is someone will actually OWN or at least >>>> steward the computers that you arw theoretically talking about uploading >>>> into. This entity will be the one with the power, the one who gets the >>>> most. Likely unless we see said psychospiritual shifts in humanity there >>>> will be various technocratic walled gardens that people give up agency to >>>> enter in exchange for the benefits of uploading. >>>> >>>> And also of course no matter whether humanity somehow owns the jupiter >>>> brain collectively and equally, someone on the OUTSIDE of the brain will >>>> have incredible power over those inside. And then the brain inhabitants >>>> will have to develop defenses against those outsiders and vice versa. And >>>> if we do own it collectively you run into a mob rule type situation where >>>> the common viewpoint might actually be horrible. >>>> >>>> So yeah I don?t believe a utopia is thermodynamicslly possible. Maybe >>>> there will be a sense of that if an unfathomably powerful and benevolent AI >>>> has the power, but that?s exactly what it would be?peace at the cost of >>>> losing power/agency. >>>> >>>> If there were free lunches then perpetual motion machines would exist >>>> too. I don?t believe these are problems that can be solved in an this >>>> universe. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 4:11?PM BillK via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 at 20:39, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 1) Will you, as you do today, own the hardware you run on, so there's >>>>>> no such thing as a "rented" existence? >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) How will you pay, in general, in one or ten thousand years? Will >>>>>> money in a form recognizable to those today still exist? Will economics >>>>>> run on reputation instead? Will there be an abundance economy that gives >>>>>> everyone a universal basic income sufficient to maintain existence? >>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it will be a post-scarcity abundance economy. Pretty much nothing >>>>> like our present civilisation. >>>>> Now, designing how our future civilisation will look is not a >>>>> five-minute task! Let AI do the hard work. :) >>>>> >>>>> First, I asked Perplexity AI to do a technical report on the future >>>>> uploaded humanity economy. >>>>> The report it produced was detailed, full of information, but pretty >>>>> difficult to read. >>>>> >>>>> So I asked Perplexity to use the report and rewrite it as a >>>>> description for a visitor to that world. >>>>> That produced a fun description of our future! See below. >>>>> BillK >>>>> >>>>> *Perplexity AI - * >>>>> Welcome to the Digital Consciousness Economy >>>>> >>>>> *A World Where Minds Live Forever* >>>>> >>>>> Imagine stepping into a civilization where death is optional and >>>>> consciousness exists beyond the physical body. You've arrived in a world >>>>> where human minds have been successfully uploaded into vast computational >>>>> networks, creating a thriving digital society that has sustained itself for >>>>> thousands of years. >>>>> How This World Works >>>>> >>>>> In this reality, your consciousness?your memories, personality, >>>>> thoughts, and experiences?can be transferred into powerful computer systems >>>>> when your biological body reaches its end. But unlike the chaotic digital >>>>> wilderness you might expect, this world operates on a sophisticated *subscription-based >>>>> economy* designed to keep millions of digital minds active and >>>>> thriving across millennia. >>>>> The Economics of Digital Existence >>>>> >>>>> Think of it like a cosmic Netflix for consciousness. Every uploaded >>>>> mind exists within a *tiered service system*: >>>>> >>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> *Basic Digital Life* is free for everyone?you get standard >>>>> processing power, a simple virtual environment, and the fundamental right >>>>> to exist digitally >>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> *Enhanced Living* requires a monthly subscription?offering faster >>>>> thinking, richer virtual worlds, and premium experiences >>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> *Luxury Existence* provides unlimited computational resources, >>>>> exclusive digital spaces, and access to the most advanced simulations >>>>> imaginable >>>>> >>>>> Your Digital Lifestyle >>>>> >>>>> As a visitor, you'd discover that uploaded minds don't just passively >>>>> exist?they *actively participate in vibrant virtual economies*. >>>>> Digital citizens work in computational jobs, create virtual art, build >>>>> immersive worlds, and trade unique digital assets. Some minds specialize in >>>>> complex problem-solving, others become virtual entertainers, and many >>>>> pursue artistic endeavors impossible in physical reality. >>>>> >>>>> The most remarkable aspect? *Time itself becomes flexible*. Premium >>>>> subscribers can accelerate their thinking to experience years of subjective >>>>> time in mere hours, while others might slow down to savor particularly >>>>> meaningful moments. >>>>> Governance by Algorithm and Community >>>>> >>>>> This world operates without traditional governments. Instead, *Decentralized >>>>> Autonomous Organizations (DAOs)* manage resources through collective >>>>> decision-making. Every uploaded mind has voting power based on their >>>>> contributions to the community?whether through computational work, creative >>>>> output, or community service. >>>>> >>>>> *Algorithmic systems* automatically manage the massive >>>>> infrastructure, scaling computing resources up and down based on demand, >>>>> optimizing energy usage, and ensuring fair access to digital resources. >>>>> It's democracy enhanced by artificial intelligence, creating remarkably >>>>> efficient and equitable resource distribution. >>>>> A Post-Scarcity Paradise (Almost) >>>>> >>>>> The physical world has largely achieved *post-scarcity economics*?automated >>>>> factories and self-replicating robots handle all material production with >>>>> minimal human oversight. Energy comes primarily from space-based solar >>>>> collectors and fusion reactors, providing abundant power for the >>>>> computational networks hosting billions of minds. >>>>> >>>>> However, true scarcity still exists in the digital realm: *attention, >>>>> creativity, and unique experiences* remain valuable commodities. The >>>>> most talented digital artists, compelling storytellers, and innovative >>>>> thinkers command premium prices for their work. >>>>> Sustainable for Millennia >>>>> >>>>> What makes this system remarkable is its *thousand-year >>>>> sustainability*. Massive endowment funds generate investment returns >>>>> that support basic operations indefinitely. The entire infrastructure is >>>>> designed for perpetual renewal?when hardware becomes obsolete, automated >>>>> systems seamlessly migrate minds to newer, more efficient platforms. >>>>> >>>>> Cross-generational contracts allow people in the physical world to >>>>> pre-pay for extended digital existence, similar to life insurance but for >>>>> digital immortality. Meanwhile, the uploaded minds themselves contribute to >>>>> the economy, ensuring the system remains self-sustaining across centuries. >>>>> The Social Experience >>>>> >>>>> Far from being a lonely digital existence, this world buzzes with *social >>>>> activity*. Uploaded minds form communities, maintain relationships >>>>> spanning centuries, and create new forms of art and culture impossible in >>>>> biological form. Some choose to exist in realistic simulations of >>>>> historical periods, others explore fantastical realms limited only by >>>>> imagination. >>>>> >>>>> The most profound aspect of this society is its *continuity of >>>>> culture and knowledge*. Minds that have existed for hundreds of years >>>>> serve as living libraries, mentoring newer arrivals and preserving human >>>>> civilization's accumulated wisdom. >>>>> A New Form of Civilization >>>>> >>>>> You're witnessing humanity's next evolutionary step?not biological >>>>> evolution, but *civilizational evolution*. This is a society that has >>>>> solved mortality, resource scarcity, and many forms of human suffering >>>>> while maintaining the essential elements that make us human: creativity, >>>>> relationships, growth, and the pursuit of meaning. >>>>> >>>>> Welcome to a world where consciousness is currency, time is a luxury, >>>>> and human potential is truly unlimited. >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: