893 replies to this topic

[mag1]

Why wasn't the in vivo aspect of CRISPR highlighted in the recent news releases?

 

There would obviously be backlash against CRISPR from us unmodifieds when we finally comprehended that relative to the CRISPRed we are now a lower primate species.

However, if CRISPR can be used in vivo, then we all stand to gain.

 

Doesn't this also speak to the question of individual choice? Much of the ethical concern related to the risks researchers would expose the unborn, in order to experiment with CRISPR. With in vivo CRISPR, the question shifts more to: Don't competent adults have the right to make choices for themselves. Consider someone coping with a serious illness. CRISPR could be very helful for such a person.    

 

Using CRISPR in vivo has very interesting possibilities. Think how different the world would be if we could actually genetically reprogram ourselves!

We could be a completely new person every day. It would be able to truly reinvent ourselves on a genetic level.

The implications for our social and global problems would be profound.

[Kalliste]

Some changes would still be better to be born with.

[mag1]

Sure, fair enough.

 

Yet, think how profoundly someone could be changed in vivo with CRISPR! They would be unrecognizable.

 

With this technology, genetic changes could be made that have never occurred in humans before.  

[Kalliste]

Yeah do we have some kind of dream-team of treatments that we want?

 

I would want those super-muscles, myotrophic hypertrophy or something it's called. Sign me up.

 

The same muscle-mass per cube centimeter as chimps. Stronger fingers so I can tear a tire to shreds with my hands.

 

Porting mito-DNA to the nucleus.

 

More endurance

 

etc

[mag1]

Be careful everyone if we have too much fun, the fun police will spoil the party!

 

Yeah, March 20, 2015, just another slow news day in the pre-singularity world.

 

 

Alzheimer's was cured.                                        http://fortune.com/2...rs-drug-so-far/

Cancer was cured.                                              http://cen.acs.org/a...erapy-Deep.html

Gene editing in humans has already happened  http://www.nytimes.c...umans.html?_r=0

 

 

We live in an abundant loving universe.

Edited by mag1, 22 March 2015 - 03:12 PM.

[mag1]

In terms of gene modifications: a permanent smile through an alteration in my serotonin/ dopamine pathway would be nice.

 

Removing a few hundred very serious stop loss / stop gain / frameshift / and mis-sense errors  would be nicer.

 

Using some of the 99% junk DNA to make new genes and augment existing ones would be nicest.  

[mag1]

In light of these extraordinary developments, I call on humanity to change its state of consciousness.

 

On April 1st, embrace the love and abundance of the universe.

 

No matter who you are or the struggles that you have had in life, know that you will experience overflowing abundance that will put the gods to shame.

The power of the ideas themselves can manifest their positivity now, even before the inevitable arrival of the technology itself.

[mag1]

Looks like the world will never be the same again. Welcome to the future everyone!

 

http://rd.springer.c...3238-015-0153-5

[Mind]

Back to the topic of the thread, Marshall Brain has new book covering all of this. http://www.marshallb...ent-species.htm

 

Easy to read. Covers similar points as in this thread. Not as good as "Manna" or "The Day You Discard Your Body", IMO, but it gets close to the heart of the issue. He suggests a "basic (system-provided) income" for everyone. That way everyone can not work and party the rest of their lives, while robots/AI, "the system" takes care of us all. Given the history of developed nations in the 21st century, it seems the vast majority of people would be very happy with this outcome (essentially being plugged into a hedonistic Matrix, like cows on a modern automated dairy farm). 

 

I don't think I would like it, because then life would lose purpose. No challenges, no struggle, no purpose. But then I am thinking like an individual human. The top-level life form on the planet in a couple decades will not be human. Whether it is pure AI, or people augment themselves into a super-mass-intelligence, it will not be anything close to current individual humans. Maybe there will be plenty of "purpose" to go around. Maybe the higher (or different) level of consciousness will be just fine. It is just disconcerting facing the unknown and having no control over it. Like always.

Edited by Mind, 26 April 2015 - 09:22 PM.

[mag1]

It seems that people who insist on the requirement of "purpose" are headed for extinction. They are the new dinosaurs.

Human life to this point has been dominated by a strongly infused utilitarianism.

 

The future will be more about existentialism.

Those who are simply unable to adapt to this new philosophical reality will be less adaptively fit.

 

The idea in the book that the minimum wage should be increased would make almost every economist squirm.

Increasing the minimum wage leads to higher unemployment of unskilled workers, it sends the wrong economic wage signal to

young people choosing between continuing their education and a minimum wage job, it increases the incentive for businesses to

replace human jobs with ... robots. The questions raised in the book will pose significant challenges to society in the years to come. However, the answers we choose for these questions could make things worse.

 

The emphasis in the book on the need for vision systems for the robotic revolution to begin in the retail sector might be misplaced. As was

mentioned on this thread previously, combining robotic cars with a centralized depot in large cities (with human workers) would profoundly 

transform the retail industry. Conceivably only a few such depots could provide for the needs of millions of people. Current technology would

be sufficient for such a scenario to be realized now. This would result in the unemployment of approximately 15 million people according

to the book's statistics.

Edited by mag1, 26 April 2015 - 11:34 PM.

[Kalliste]

Back to the topic of the thread, Marshall Brain has new book covering all of this. http://www.marshallb...ent-species.htm

 

Easy to read. Covers similar points as in this thread. Not as good as "Manna" or "The Day You Discard Your Body", IMO, but it gets close to the heart of the issue. He suggests a "basic (system-provided) income" for everyone. That way everyone can not work and party the rest of their lives, while robots/AI, "the system" takes care of us all. Given the history of developed nations in the 21st century, it seems the vast majority of people would be very happy with this outcome (essentially being plugged into a hedonistic Matrix, like cows on a modern automated dairy farm). 

 

I don't think I would like it, because then life would lose purpose. No challenges, no struggle, no purpose. But then I am thinking like an individual human. The top-level life form on the planet in a couple decades will not be human. Whether it is pure AI, or people augment themselves into a super-mass-intelligence, it will not be anything close to current individual humans. Maybe there will be plenty of "purpose" to go around. Maybe the higher (or different) level of consciousness will be just fine. It is just disconcerting facing the unknown and having no control over it. Like always.

 

I suspect that basic income won't work. The people who are robbing the poor will increase rents and other stuff to the point where it makes no difference. Did you read the Transcension hypothesis by John Smart?

 

http://accelerating....hypothesis.html

[albedo]

This article on WSJ based on an interview with experts also touches the subject matter (section "The Human Impact"):

http://www.wsj.com/a...reat-1431109025

[mag1]

I am very worried about robotic transport technology. This technology appears to already be doable (for instance, overnight deliveries within cities).

High end AI is not necessary for severe employment disruption to occur from it. (The online book noted earlier in this thread estimated 15 million American workers are employed in retail trade.)

 

Being able to rationalize the distribution of goods within an urban environment would have massive employment implications. The entire retail infrastructure of cities would immediately become obsolete. With robotic delivery, you would have an unbeatable distribution method that could outcompete everyone in terms of price, convenience, safety, variety etc. . 

 

Many on this forum likely have a fascination with technology and the possibilities that it can create. However, increasingly for me, the implications for people and how they will be employed, be part of the community etc. are taking center stage.

[Kalliste]

I'm currently reading Superintelligence by Nick Bostrom. It reminds me of the cold dread I first felt in 2008 while reading Eliezer Yudkowskys sequences on cognition, intelligence and what not.

Basically it makes me feel that I have the same chance of dying in heart attack as I run dying when a hard-takeoff AI decides to make it's first move and has it's diluted nanobots begin producing nervegas in every m2 of the Earth, scanning whatever human brain it deems interesting and then moving that information to a more secure and reliable storage-format.

 

Lets hope whatever AI shows up is nice enough to leave the Earth alone and settle with taking the other planets apart for raw materials to build it's first Matriohska brain.

 

 

Here is AI researcher Andrew Ng's engagement photo btw:

 
   

[niner]

Here is AI researcher Andrew Ng's engagement photo btw:

 

 

My first thought when I looked at the thumbnail was that Ng had built a really hot fembot.  I just saw Ex Machina, so that's kind of on my mind...

[mag1]

This thread is destroying my ratings!

Oh well, I think it is too important to ignore.

 

Robotic transport technology seems so doable with what is currently available. It could be implemented at any time. With substantial social fall-out to follow. There has been some question regarding the correct usage of the word singularity. Yet, from a social point of view robotic transport would be a singularity event. So much of the really high end science could take decades to move forward. With CRISPR, all sorts of reactionaries will try to delay it for as long as possible.

 

The scariest part of most infotech is that there is no social mechanism that exists to slow the roll out of such technology. Once such technology has been shown to function, mass roll out can then proceed immediately. Given certain conditions that point has already been reached with robotic transport. However, I do not fully understand why technology companies have not went for the low hanging fruit and instead of starting with robotic cars tried robotic shopping carts. This could greatly simplify the task of perfecting the technology. Such carts might travel on sidewalks from 4-5 am. Such a service would have a very sizable market. There could also be immediate safety improvements in residential areas, as much of the traffic safety concerns in these neighborhoods could be reduced now with such a service.  

[PWAIN]

Here is AI researcher Andrew Ng's engagement photo btw:

My first thought when I looked at the thumbnail was that Ng had built a really hot fembot. I just saw Ex Machina, so that's kind of on my mind...

Is that on in the cinema in the us atm? Don't think it has arrived in Aus yet.

[albedo]

I don't think we need sentient machines, or anything close to that, to completely disrupt the economy.

In fact, a recent review from September 12th found that nearly 50% of all jobs are susceptible to computerization.

I do agree that we'll need good artificial intelligence and machine learning.

Like niner, I too, am not so sure about how a transition to a universal basic income or post-work society will happen, though. It could be violent or peaceful, depending on how quickly policy changes.

 

An EU perspective recent study:

 

The digital transformation could add EUR 1.25 trillion to Europe's industrial value creation by 2025 – or diminish it by EUR 605 billion

http://www.rolandber..._in_europe.html

 

I read that the same consultancy group did a similar study for France and reached a similar percentage (42%) for jobs susceptible to be computerized which is similar the the number reported by the Oxford study for US in Elus's post.

 

[niner]

There has been some question regarding the correct usage of the word singularity. Yet, from a social point of view robotic transport would be a singularity event.

 

"Singularity" has a specific mathematical definition, and has been adopted to refer to the (presumed) infinity in the intelligence vs. time curve that occurs when AI becomes self-improving.   One of its characteristics is that the consequences are unpredictable.  On the other hand, a bunch of truck, bus, and taxi drivers losing their jobs, while sad in the context of today's economic system, has consequences that are rather predictable.  You are essentially creating a new definition of "singularity" that means "significant change".  I think "disruption" or "discontinuity" would be more appropriate.

[mag1]

Thank you! That's great, I was not sure how to describe the imminent unemployment and possible transition to homeless of tens of millions of workers and their families in  the industrialized world by this rapidly approaching robotic transport technology. It might be somewhat similar to rearranging the deck chairs, though I agree that disruption instead of singularity is the appropriate word in this context.

 

This strong use of the word singularity probably justifies capitalization. The Singularity would truly be the end of the world as we know it. I think it deserves capitals.

 

Regarding roboport, one of my emerging concerns is that a bad technological implementation could occur. The Google car approach seems fairly well thought out, though perhaps the roll out should use more of a shopping cart than a car and probably best to start out on the off hours. What I am worried about is the Amazon roboplane approach. It has recently been reported that this technology is being researched in Canada. The idea of swarms of noisy, polluting planes crowding out the daylight with constant 911 sorties through my bedroom window is giving me the creeps. We need to get ahead of a bad technology before its too late. Google robocars would not generate substantial such negative externalities, while the

Amazon roboplanes / robocopters could generate considerable problems to others.

Edited by mag1, 16 May 2015 - 09:32 PM.

[Elus]

40% of Workers Now Have 'Contingent' Jobs, Says U.S. Government

 

"Tucked away in the pages of a new report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office is a startling statistic: 40.4% of the U.S. workforce is now made up of contingent workers—that is, people who don’t have what we traditionally consider secure jobs."

 

New ‘deep learning’ technique enables robot mastery of skills via trial and error

 

"UC Berkeley researchers have developed algorithms that enable robots to learn motor tasks through trial and error using a process that more closely approximates the way humans learn, marking a major milestone in the field of artificial intelligence."

 

Edited by Elus, 01 June 2015 - 05:10 AM.

[Elus]

[mikeinnaples]

Not directly relevant ....but sort of in a round about way for those who haven't seen it yet.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=f0CluQiwLRg

 

 

[mag1]

If the trial and error approach could be combined with maximizing some objective function, the feedback loop could be closed and progress could be rapid.

[sthira]

Yeah, so why are we here, and where are we going as a species? It's fun to think about the eventual robot takeover of human work as less of a dystopia and more as progress for all.

[albedo]

In this article Barbara Ehrenreich analyses two books on the subject matter:

 

RISE OF THE ROBOTS

Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future

By Martin Ford

 

SHADOW WORK

The Unpaid, Unseen Jobs That Fill Your Day

By Craig Lambert

 

Interesting is an element of solution:

 

" ... In “Rise of the Robots,” Ford argues that a society based on luxury consumption by a tiny elite is not economically viable. More to the point, it is not biologically viable. Humans, unlike robots, need food, health care and the sense of usefulness often supplied by jobs or other forms of work. His solution is blindingly obvious: As both conservatives and liberals have proposed over the years, we need to institute a guaranteed annual minimum income, which he suggests should be set at $10,000 a year. This is probably not enough, and of course no amount of money can compensate for the loss of meaningful engagement. But as a first step toward a solution, Ford’s may be the best that the feeble human mind can come up with at the moment..."

 

http://www.nytimes.c...-work.html?_r=0

 

[mag1]

I am surprised that the idea of deflating into the Singularity has not gained more recognition. Improved technologies often result in rapid price reductions. How much longer will it be before we have 100 dollar genomes or 10 dollar genomes? There is a whole range of items that might start to rapidly deflate... Energy,manufactured good, food, knowledge products etc.

We might be heading for a future when not only water and air are free, but also food ,energy...

[sthira]

^^^ yeah, it's more fun and interesting to embrace the new technologies, and keep open to possibilities that these are advances. No more work -- great! Most jobs suck. No more need for money -- great! Money sucks. Free education, free food, free energy, free information available to everyone all at once, free travel to distant moons and planets to settle -- why not finally embrace freedom as a good thing for everyone? The less than 1% of the people of earth who own most of the freedom and wealth, and then choose to enslave everyone else with their technologies doesn't sound like much fun for anyone, including the wealthy 1%.

[mag1]

I was thinking of an economy of zero cost as being close to reality.

For example, 3-D printers, robotic transport technology, hydrogen producing bacteria. These technologies could drive the cost of things towards zero.

 

As I mentioned we do have a precedent for free goods in the modern economy (for example, water and air). Perhaps in the future, the list of free goods will expand.

If goods can be produced without cost, then why wouldn't they be free? The recent movement to allow free access to the scientific literature is a great example. The marginal

cost of production is essentially nothing.

[Kalliste]

Keep dreaming Mag. Economy is still going to be there. Read some of Robin Hansons papers and blogposts on EM-societies.

Edited by Cosmicalstorm, 03 June 2015 - 04:27 AM.