[FoRK] A singular event
eugen at leitl.org
Mon Oct 12 07:13:55 PDT 2009
October 08, 2009
A singular event
Aubrey, Eliezer, Peter and Michael
Just back from the Singularity Summit and subsequent workshop. I am glad to
say it exceeded my expectations - the conference had a intensity and
concentration of interesting people I have rarely seen in a general
I of course talked about whole brain emulation, sketching out my usual
arguments for how complex the undertaking is. Randall Koene presented more on
the case for why we should go for it, and in an earlier meeting Kenneth
Hayworth and Todd Huffman told us about some of the simply amazing progress
on the scanning side. Ed Boyden described the amazing progress of optically
controlled neurons. I can hardly wait to see what happens when this is
combined with some of the scanning techniques. Stuart Hameroff of course
thought we needed microtubuli quantum processing; I had the fortune to
participate in a lunch discussion with him and Max Tegmark on this. I think
Stuart's model suffers from the problem that it seems to just explain global
gamma synchrony; the quantum part doesn't seem to do any heavy lifting.
Overall, among the local neuroscientists there were some discussion about how
many people in the singularity community make rather bold claims about
neuroscience that are not well supported; even emulation enthusiasts like me
get worried when the auditory system just gets reduced to a signal processing
Crystallization protocolMichael Nielsen gave a very clear talk about quantum
computing and later a truly stimulating talk on collaborative science. Ned
Seeman described how to use DNA self assembly to make custom crystals.
William Dickens discussed the Flynn effect and what caveats it raises about
our concepts of intelligence and enhancement. I missed Bela Nagy's talk, but
he is a nice guy and he has set up a very useful performance curve database.
David Chalmers gave a talk about the intelligence explosion, dissecting the
problem with philosophical rigour. In general, the singularity can mean
several different things, but it is the "intelligence explosion" concept of
I.J. Good (more intelligent beings recursively improving themselves or the
next generation, leading to a runaway growth of capability) that is the most
interesting and mysterious component. Not that general economic and
technological growth, accelerating growth, predictability horizons and the
large-scale structure of human development are well understood either. But
the intelligence explosion actually looks like it could be studied with some
Several of the AGI people were from the formalistic school of AI, proving
strict theorems on what can and cannot be done but not always coming up with
implementations of their AI. Marcus Hutter spoke about the foundations of
intelligent agents, including (somewhat jokingly) whether they would exhibit
self-preservation. Jürgen Schmidhuber gave a fun talk about how compression
could be seen as underlying most cognition. It also included a hilarious
"demonstration" that the singularity would occur in the late 1500s. In
addition, I bought Shane Legg's book Machine Super Intelligence. I am very
fond of this kind of work since it actually tells us something about the
abilities of superintelligences. I hope this approach might eventually tell
us something about the complexity of the intelligence explosion.
Magnificent handwavingStephen Wolfram and Gregory Benford talked about the
singularity and especially about what can be "mined" from the realm of simple
computational structures ("some of these universes are complete losers").
During dinner this evolved into an interesting discussion with Robin Hanson
about whether we should expect future civilizations to look just like rocks
(computronium), especially since the principle of computational equivalence
seems to suggest than there might not be any fundamental difference between
normal rocks and posthuman rocks. There is also the issue of whether we will
become very rich (Wolfram's position) or relatively poor posthumans (Robin's
position); this depends on the level of possible coordination.
In his talk Robin brought up the question of who the singularity experts
were. He noted that technologists might not be the only one (or even the best
ones) to say things in the field: the social sciences have a lot of things to
contribute too. After all, they are the ones that actually study what systems
of complex intelligent agents do. More generally one can wonder why we should
trust anybody in the "singularity field": there are strong incentives for
making great claims that are not easily testable, giving the predictor
prestige and money but not advancing knowledge. Clearly some arguments and
analysis does make sense, but the "expert" may not contribute much extra
value in virtue of being an expert. As a fan of J. Scott Armstrong's "grumpy
old man" school of future studies I think the correctness of predictions have
very rapidly decreasing margin, and hence we should either look at smarter
ways of aggregating cheap experts, aggregating multi-discipline insights or
make use with heuristics based on solid evidence or the above clear
Friends, romans, countrymen - lend me your exponentialsGregory Benford
described the further work derived from Michael Rose's fruit flies, aiming at
a small molecule life extension drug. Aubrey contrasted the "Methuselarity"
with the singularity - cumulative anti-ageing breakthroughs seem able to
produce a lifespan singularity if they are fast enough.
Peter Thiel worried that we might not get to the singularity fast enough.
Lots of great soundbites, and several interesting observations. Overall, he
argues that tech is not advancing fast enough and that many worrying trends
may outrun our technology. He suggested that when developed nations get
stressed they do not turn communist, but may go fascist - which given modern
technology is even more worrying. "I would be more optimistic if more people
were worried". So in order to avoid bad crashes we need to find ways of
accelerate innovation and the rewards of innovation: too many tech companies
act more like technology banks than innovators, profiting from past
inventions but now holding on to business models that should become obsolete.
At the same time the economy is implicitly making a bet on the singularity
happening. I wonder whether this should be regarded as the
bubble-to-end-all-bubbles, or a case of a prediction market?
Brad Templeton did a great talk on robotic cars. The ethical and practical
case for automating cars is growing, and sooner or later we are going to see
a transition. The question is of course whether the right industry gets it.
Maybe we are going to see an iTunes upset again, where the car industry gets
eaten by the automation industry?
Eliezer and Peter
Anna Salamon gave a nice inspirational talk about how to do
back-of-the-envelope calculations about what is important. She in particular
made the point that a lot of our thinking is just acting out roles ("As a
libertarian I think...") rather than actual thinking, and trying out rough
estimates may help us break free into less biased modes. Just the kind of
applied rationality I like. In regards to the singularity it of course
produces very significant numbers. It is a bit like Peter Singer's concerns,
and might of course lead to the same counter-argument: if the numbers say I
should devote a *lot* of time, effort and brainpower to singularitian issues,
isn't that asking too much? But just as the correct ethic might actually turn
out to be very heavy, it is not inconceivable that there are issues we really
ought to spend enormous effort on - even if we do not do it right now.
We actually agree (almost)During the workshop afterwards we discussed a wide
range of topics. Some of the major issues were: what are the limiting factors
of intelligence explosions? What are the factual grounds for disagreeing
about whether the singularity may be local (self-improving AI program in a
cellar) or global (self-improving global economy)? Will uploads or AGI come
first? Can we do anything to influence this?
One surprising discovery was that we largely agreed that a singularity due to
emulated people (as in Robin's economic scenarios) has a better chance given
current knowledge than AGI of being human-friendly. After all, it is based on
emulated humans and is likely to be a broad institutional and economic
transition. So until we think we have a perfect friendliness theory we should
support WBE - because we could not reach any useful consensus on whether AGI
or WBE would come first. WBE has a somewhat measurable timescale, while AGI
might crop up at any time. There are feedbacks between them, making it likely
that if both happens it will be closely together, but no drivers seem to be
strong enough to really push one further into the future. This means that we
ought to push for WBE, but work hard on friendly AGI just in case. There were
some discussions about whether supplying AI researchers with heroin and
philosophers to discuss with would reduce risks.
All in all, some very simulating open-ended discussions at the workshop with
relatively few firm conclusions. Hopefully they will appear in the papers and
essays the participants will no doubt write to promote their thinking. I
certainly know I have to co-author a few with some of my fellow participants.
Posted by Anders3 at October 8, 2009 08:02 PM
More information about the FoRK