Monthly Archives: September 2007

May / December

It appears that old guys hooking up with younger women may be a key to increasing human lifespan:

Women often lose their reproductive capacity around age 50, but if men can still reproduce into their 70s, Darwin would say it’s advantageous for males to live longer lives providing they can hook up with a woman capable of reproducing. Natural selection should favor longevity-boosting genes, which would get passed down from fathers to both sons and daughters. So women would benefit as well in future generations, the scientists say.

Result: Over time, the older-guy-with-younger-gal lifestyle would lift the lifespan ceiling for both men and women in the next generations and so on.

“By increasing the survival of men you have a spillover effect on women because men pass their genes to children of both sexes,” said Cedric Puleston, a doctoral candidate at Stanford University.

At a mere 12 years older than my bride, I’m apparently not doing that much to help. It turns out that a 5-15 year age difference within married couples has been the norm in traditional societies throughout history, so Suraya and I are just normal (or perhaps old school).

Anyhow, this probably isn’t going to prove a very effective means of extending human lifespan going forward — seeing as we have more direct methods available — but it might explain how we got here.

The Golden Ticket

As luck would have it, my cobloggers Phil, Kathy Hanson, Michael Sargent, Ben Young and I all won golden tickets to tour the super-secretive EEStor factory in Cedar Park, Texas.

As we arrived we gathered just outside the huge iron factory gate. After what seemed an eternity, the gate swung open and we were all greeted by diminutive orange teamsters and the factory’s elusive caretaker Richard Weir.

OompaLoompas1971 small.JPGThroughout the day we toured a wonderland of futuristic paradigm-altering technology. But, strangely, our party kept shrinking. Michael’s incessant gum-chewing, Ben’s handheld television, and Kathy’s nonstop shouting “But I want a supercapacitor NOW!” caused them all to be asked to step away from the tour. And those tiny workers seemed weirdly disappointed that the new Phil wasn’t tempted by the river of chocolate at the lunch buffet.

Phil would have made it to the end of the tour, but he got sidetracked by the Fizzy Lifting Flying Car Project (FLFCP).

Only I, being pure of heart, was allowed to see the entire factory…


Okay. Obviously frustration has sent me a little over the edge. Is EEStor about to change the world, or is this all an elaborate tease? Since January we’ve been waiting for EEStor to deliver their supercapacitors for use in ZENN electric cars. If what they’ve claimed is true, it will be a real game changer:

The Achilles heel of [currently available] ultracapacitors is their specific energy density — they don’t hold nearly as much energy per unit weight as batteries. Lithium ion batteries produce around 120 watt hours per kilogram, whereas commercially available ultracapacitors produce around 6 Wh/kg, some 20 times less. That won’t cut it for vehicles, much less for industrial-grade renewable energy storage.

[But EEStor] system claims a specific energy of about 280 watt hours per kilogram, compared with around 120 watt hours per kilogram for lithium-ion and 32 watt hours per kilogram for lead-acid gel batteries.

Forget hybrids, if EEStor delivers this, we’ll all jump straight to 100% electric vehicles. Supercapaciters are environmentally clean, charge as fast as you can fill a tank with gasoline, and would be cheap to operate.

EEStor has not produced (at least for the public) a working prototype. Perhaps they’re worried about the Slugworth’s of the world who could steal their invention. But they do have a patent. Comeon guys, show your cards!

Maybe they don’t feel the need to demonstrate their technology because they have sufficient investment already. ZENN Motor Company has invested $3.8 million and the venture capitalist firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers (known for wise early investments in Google and Amazon) has invested another $3 million.

These high-end investors must know more than the public. But other critics are publicly doubtful that EEStor’s announced breakthrough is even technically possible.

I remain hopeful and optimistic because the guys that founded EEStor have a good track record. When a prototype is delivered we will learn either that EEStor is living in a world of pure imagination, or that we’ve all got a golden ticket.

Scenes from the Summit

As I have mentioned, I did a number of interviews and captured quite a few video clips of the sessions at last week’s Singularity Summit. I got two of the speakers, Christine Peterson and Eliezer Yudkowsky, in their entirety and will be posting their talks along with some video montages of the 15 interviews I did with attendees. Two of the of the attendee interviews were with old friends of The Speculist with whom we’ve spoken before: Michael Anissimov and Alex Lightman. These interviews follow the same basic set of questions that I developed for all the attendee interviews, but there’s so much content there that I thought they could stand on their own.

So here, more or less in its entirety, is my chat with futurist and entrepreneur Alex Lightman. You might find Alex to be outspoken, perhaps even outrageous. But you certainly never have to worry that he’s holding back on you. His views are unique and though-provoking.

Plus you gotta love a guy who, on the one hand, wants to start a religion but, on the other hand, has had it with all this “morality” talk. Now there’s a combo you don’t see every day!


UPDATE: The video is currently down while I make a quick correction. Alex’s company is called Innofone, not Innophone.

UPDATE II: The video is back.

Doomsday Machine

Eve Matelan provided us a link to this intriguing article delving into whether the Soviets ever actually built a version of the Doomsday Machine discussed in the movie Doctor Strangelove:

In Strangelove, the doomsday machine was a Soviet system that automatically detonated some 50 cobalt-jacketed hydrogen bombs pre-positioned around the planet if the doomsday system’s sensors detected a nuclear attack on Russian soil. Thus, even an accidental or (as in Strangelove) an unauthorized U.S. nuclear bomb could set off the doomsday machine bombs, releasing enough deadly cobalt fallout to make the Earth uninhabitable for the human species for 93 years. No human hand could stop the fully automated apocalypse.

An extreme fantasy, yes. But according to a new book called Doomsday Men and several papers on the subject by U.S. analysts, it may not have been merely a fantasy. According to these accounts, the Soviets built and activated a variation of a doomsday machine in the mid-’80s. And there is no evidence Putin’s Russia has deactivated the system.

Well, um, yikes.

Okay, everybody — have a great weekend!

BTW, Eve has some thoughts of her own on the Doomsday Machine and other less terrifying future-related topics. You can catch her in one of my (still-being-edited) video montages from the Singularity Summit.

Linkathon

It's a New Phil, Weeks 85 and 86

The Transformation of Desire

Charles Harper’s talk at the Singularity Summit had particular resonance for the New Phil series. Here’s the abstract from the relevant portion of his talk:

People use power to pursue ends they desire. Therefore the increase of personal power calls for the transformation of personal desire. Science, however, knows next to nothing of the transformation of desire. Monks, hermits, fasters, counterculturals – the athletes of the spirit; these are the sorts of people who work on and know about the transformation of desire. A wise approach towards the development of superintelligence probably should include serious consideration on how to transform desire so that enhanced powers are not abused to serve un-enhanced desires. The transformation of desire for humans involves what in virtue ethics is called “habitus” – the formation of habituated character through devoted, willful practice within a space of real freedom. Virtue is not a matter of either knowledge or “programming.” And it also often is not limited to only individual lives. It occurs in group contexts such as families, teams, monastic orders, communities. Also, people who engage in the transformation of desire often are involved in worship and prayer. They seek inspiration and transformative power from God. In view of such issues, what would be the “transformation of desire” for a superintelligence?

The national tendency towards obesity is a small but revealing example of what Harper is talking about. The “power” in question here is both technological and economic.We can produce and have access to far more food than we actually need to eat. I’ve been chronicling an attempt to create my own habitus. Who knew?

Next time — a long overdue (and dreaded) weigh in. Stay tuned.

It’s a New Phil, Weeks 85 and 86

The Transformation of Desire

Charles Harper’s talk at the Singularity Summit had particular resonance for the New Phil series. Here’s the abstract from the relevant portion of his talk:

People use power to pursue ends they desire. Therefore the increase of personal power calls for the transformation of personal desire. Science, however, knows next to nothing of the transformation of desire. Monks, hermits, fasters, counterculturals – the athletes of the spirit; these are the sorts of people who work on and know about the transformation of desire. A wise approach towards the development of superintelligence probably should include serious consideration on how to transform desire so that enhanced powers are not abused to serve un-enhanced desires. The transformation of desire for humans involves what in virtue ethics is called “habitus” – the formation of habituated character through devoted, willful practice within a space of real freedom. Virtue is not a matter of either knowledge or “programming.” And it also often is not limited to only individual lives. It occurs in group contexts such as families, teams, monastic orders, communities. Also, people who engage in the transformation of desire often are involved in worship and prayer. They seek inspiration and transformative power from God. In view of such issues, what would be the “transformation of desire” for a superintelligence?

The national tendency towards obesity is a small but revealing example of what Harper is talking about. The “power” in question here is both technological and economic.We can produce and have access to far more food than we actually need to eat. I’ve been chronicling an attempt to create my own habitus. Who knew?

Next time — a long overdue (and dreaded) weigh in. Stay tuned.

Summit Day 2

More great stuff on the second day of the event.

The morning opened with Google’s Peter Norvig, who discussed the question of whether innovation has stopped. He looked at some trends that don’t appear to be accelerating — life extension and economic growth.

Next came J. Storrs Hall, who discussed the need for a revised Three Laws of Robotics. He came up with four, actually:

1. Robots shall be be built according to evolutionarily stable strategies

2. Robots shall be open source

3. A robot shall be economically sentient (that is, consider the value placed on things by others)

4. Robots shall be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent…and shall do a good turn daily.

Josh Hall was on a panel with Peter Thiel, who took us through the recent history of economic booms and busts — pointing out their amplitude has gotten bigger. Thiel’s take is that the booms can’t all be fake. He explains it this way:

One of them is going to be real, or the world is going to end.

Given those choices, our investment choices are somewhat different than they have been. To say the least!

[Wired is reporting this morning on Peter Thiel's speech. - Stephen]

The third member of the panel was Charles Harper form the John Templeton Foundation. He took us through three basic questions that have to be addressed:

1. What does a slug know of Mozart? And, by extension, what if AIs quickly become as fard removed from us as we are from slugs?

2. How serious is the dilemma of power? The problem is that the acquisition of power seems to outpace the ability to use power safely an responsibly.

3. How important is the transformation of Desire? Here Harper sites a book by Leon Kass (someone we have had our share of disagreements with on this site) entitled The Hungry Soul. Might have to check that one out.

Over Lunch, we saw a presentation from Michael Lindsay of the X Prize Foundation. The Foundation is considering doing a prize for education. They’re looking at starting out by measuring Algebra, Reading Comprehension, and Second Language acquisition. Lindsay’s intent was to gather feedback from the Singularity Summit crowd. There was a good deal of push-back, particularly concerning the fact that the Foundation plans to use standardized tests to measure the results. It will be interesting to see whether an X-Prize for education ever materializes.

Next came Steve Jurvetson, talking about the dichotomy of design and evolution paths to AI futures. There are strengths and weaknesses to both potential paths, with some possibility that the two approach may converge. Take a look at this site to get an idea of how effective the evolutionary approach may prove to be.

The final panel included Eliezer Yudkowsky, Christine Peterson, and James Hughes, Executive Director or the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. I made a video recording of both Eliezer and Christine’s presentations in their entirety, so look for those after I edit them and get them posted. Hughes talked about the potential dangers of AGI, particularly the dangers arising from the fact that AGI’s will be completely alien. He pointed out that inaddition to Jurvetson’s two categories, there is a third category — emergent AI, which may be the most alien (and dangerous) of all. He noted that an emergent AI rising out of (for example) Google wouldn’t have to have human level intelligence. Rats and cockroaches have far less than human intelligence, but they can be pretty annoying.

The day wrapped with a Q&A session with Ray Kurzweil, otherwise occupied with Aubrey de Grey’s SENS conference, but not too busy to show up at the Singularity Summit in virtual form.

All told, it was a fantastic two days. Got to meet Speculist reader and sometimes commenter D. Vision in person, although I missed out on seeing the small Colorado contingent who were here. I’ve suggested we have a Colorado singularity get-together in the near future. I did video interviews with a number of attendees, and have video clips from virtually all of the sessions. I also have full audio transcripts of most of the sessions, but I doubt these will have much use other than personal — SIAI will be publishing all this content anyway, in much higher quality. However, I will be putting my video clips together into something not unlike what I did at the library conference last May.

So stay tuned.

The Summit So Far

A well-timed invitation to have dinner with the lovely Iveta Brigis and the — if not lovely, let’s just say personable – John Smart, along with a gaggle of Bay Area futurist acquaintances both old and new, plus Wendell Wallach from Yale (more on him later) and at least one dude from L.A. significantly slowed my blogging last night, so now I’m running to catch up. Not that I regret anything. Yummy Thai food and fascinating company. I love the Singularity Summit.

Anyhow, here’s a quick recap of yesterday’s events.

Cyborgs v. Grobycs

Will Brown emails us with a link to an Al Fin’s post:

Introducing the grobyC–the Inverse of a Cyborg

The “grobyc” ….clever name, but I’m hopeful it doesn’t catch on. It doesn’t roll off the tongue. While a cyborg is a biological organism that has had one or more biological functions replaced or enhanced by machinery, a grobyc is a machine with biological parts.

The problem of devising linear actuators for autonomous robots is an interesting one. Several artificial substitutes for muscle have been devised and tested. Scientists from South Korea have decided to avoid the substitutes and go straight to the real thing–using actual living muscle tissue as robot actuators!

According to Chemical Science, Sukho Park of the Nano/Micro System Laboratory at the Seoul National University and his colleagues “made the robot by growing heart muscle tissue from a rat onto tiny robotic skeletons made from polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS).”

Al Fin mentioned a previous biologic/machine hybrid – the ratbrained F-22. I’m not sure that project would qualify as a grobyc. If the brain is biological, shouldn’t it be a cyborg, or would it be something else completely? This area may end up with as many classifications and subclassifications as the Animal Kingdom.

-Linkathon.