Kurzweil, Gelerntner, Joy face off
from the lack-of-agreement dept.
Ten thinkers argued on future technology last week at Carnegie-Mellon. Excerpts from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: The result, says artificial intelligence expert Ray Kurzweil, will be "total immersion virtual reality," a system in which an individual can be mentally transported to another world, or another body, where he can experience imaginary adventures with every sense…The things that are most important to people — families, communities, schools, religion — are only modestly affected, if at all by computers, emphasized Gelertner…Some limits need to be placed on the information that individuals can access, [Joy] said…To prevent the potential apocalypse Joy fears, "you'd basically have to stop all technological development," [Kurzweil] said, and that would likely require militaristic state control.
October 23rd, 2000 at 1:19 PM
The Only Way?
Questionably, the United States military is one of the most technologically advanced organization on Earth. If this is true, shouldn't it be the Military's responsibility to protect the people of the United States from the Grey Goo Scenario? If the answer is yes, then we must find a way to make such defense possible.
This is possible using what I call the "leading edge method". The Leading Edge method is simple. First, the US Military/Government cannot just be involved in Nano research, but it MUST have the MOST advanced nanotech w/deployment ability at all times. Otherwise, if they do not, there's no telling what cataclysm could strike and not be stopped.
This brings up questions like, 'What if their efforts cause the cataclysm?', which is much in the same category as viral engineering, or 'How can we know if we're the most advanced?' which falls next to technological battles like the rush for the nuclear bomb.
In the end what this means is that we cannot hesitate to fund R & D in nanotech as a nation, nor can any other nation depend on the US. We must put all available money into the program, to ensure development progresses as fast as possible. All responsible nations must follow this strategy. Falling behind in this race doesn't get you last place, it gets you dead.
Just some thoughts..
October 23rd, 2000 at 6:11 PM
Re:The Only Way?
If the grey goo thing happens and way it is prophesized, there is no way to protect the United States, as it will affect the entire planet, and probably the whole universe as it continues to expand.
To me, the best way to avoid these kind of problems is to make nanotech open source. Even if you think that means that terrorist will get their hands on nanotech, consider the OP's scenario, where all of this technology has to be developed to prevent what was supposed to be secure, closed source technology (this is pretty much a given if the R & D parts of the military are involved). At least with open source nanotech, anyone will be able to fix the problem, not just those elite few who have had the opertunity to edit the nanocode.
Would you rather have a hand full or millions of people trying to stop the grey goo (or anything else)? I'm betting on the latter.
October 24th, 2000 at 9:31 AM
Open Source
There's a problem with Open Source and Nanotechnology that you might not have realized.
In the near future to do 'good' nano one would need highly sophisticated and extremely expensive equipment, and while this may not be true eventually–when nanotech is more widespread and cheap–it will be true during the first few crucial generations of the technology. And these first few generations will be nano's 'trial by fire'… during these next decades, if things go as planned, nano will either prove itself as useful or it won't, as a deadly and potentially more harmful than helpful tech.
So 'open sourcing' nano, which to me sounds absurd, because nobody is going to agree with doing that, especially the paranoid and militaristic factions of the world population, probably won't happen during the most important time that it should.
There are always people that push for open sourcing technology in every new technology that comes, from here to eternity, and then there are those who choose to hide their work, their brainchild and their last ounce of protection from an unknown (trust that open source is the most advanced tech and you're probably in for a surprise) threat, for good reason.
Those who choose to hide are those people that have the greatest and most advanced nanotechnology and will be the ones who wield the greatest danger.
This is why open source will not fix the problem.
October 24th, 2000 at 5:37 PM
Re:Open Source
First of all, "the paranoid and militaristic factions of the world" are going to do whatever they want anyway, so I'd rather have everyone knowing what they are basing their developments off of than not knowing at all.
Your point about it taking time to develop cheap nanotech is well taken, but I would point out computer history here. Computers exist as they do today because, in the early days, hackers shared source code (or at least when it was practicle because it was not tied to certain hardware). We will never see the kind of nanotech that gives the power to the people if it is kept proprietary and in the hands of militaries and corporations (because when the people have power, militaries and corporations have less).
By no means to I intend that open source will fix the problem. It only offers a better chance of fixing the problem, since there can be more people trying to solve it.
October 25th, 2000 at 9:11 AM
Why it may not Matter
You make some good points about hackers and how computers became the way they are today, even though source code (computer virus) is naturally less capable of violence than an infinite swarm of tiny deconstructing robots. I agree it would benefit everyone if everyone had the 'code' or design of the nanotech. But I stand fast that this will not happen, at least not right away during the crucial moments.
However, I was just thinking about the Open Source vs. "closed" source argument when I realized something obvious. Any 'most advanced technology' in the world will always be used in secrecy, never widespread and available; else the creator purposefully betrays the intuitive or revolutionary aspect or design of the tech. and defeats the tech's superiority because others in the field who haven't seen the technique will soon pick it up, and more will follow. This effect is what I call source effusion: the process of knowledge and information flow with relation to human tech which ultimately trickles down to all levels of society.
Companies or organizations with a secret agenda have zero source effusion, but if they use their tech in view of others to whom they would've preferred be to be invisible their source effusion is no longer zero and they cannot change that. Furthermore, if a secretive organization were to release any form of cataclysmic nanotech, or if an accidental release were to occur, it would soon become world knowledge and then the organizations source effusion would skyrocket. Thus, soon everyone would know and would be working on a fix, at least in theory.
This is why I'm not particularly worried about this thing to which others have words of near-panic. (B. Joy, for instance)
October 26th, 2000 at 4:46 PM
Re:Why it may not Matter
Hmmm. Two things strike me here: 1: Source effusion is only a threat to the effusing source when the observers realize that there is something effusing (not necessarily true during the opening phases of, say, a global nanostrike) and when the observers have time to react (again, not necessarily true). The 'correct' first strike with nanotech is to render the enemy incapable of striking back in an effective manner, which essentially means 'eat all the people'. No people, and by your thesis, noone to observe the effusion, means the apocalyptic scenarios are quite definitely in play.
October 27th, 2000 at 8:48 AM
Re:Why it may not Matter
Indeed. But while Source Effusion is not necessarily present during the opening phase of a nanostrike this doesn't automatically rule out source effusion, QED, as a potential help. And as far as the 'correct' first strike and eating all the people, I find it quite improbable that it would be possible to launch a strike of global proportions without garnering the unwanted attention of other organizations/people.
However, you have brought up a good point in that the observers and or receivers of this S.E. will have limited amount of time, and an unknown amount of time, to react to the strike and adapt, or die. Thus they will naturally work at their maximum potential on a fix. And this is probably the best we can hope for.
P.S. I'm pleased to find other people have been reading this thread — I was pretty certain I was yelling words into a formles void.