Interesting Singularity Blurbs
Please read About Interesting Singularity Blurbs for more information about this page.
If you need help coming up with ideas, or have an idea that should be written about, see Ideas For Interesting Singularity Blurbs.
It's 10 in the morning and you've just come in for work. It seems like an average day. Everything is as usual. Suddenly, an angel appears before you.
"Hi, my name is Gabriel and I'm your personalized interface to Earth's Friendly AI. We have just created the Earth Singularity and now everyone is being informed of this historic occasion. I'm here as your personal transition guide to help you deal with the changes. If you wish, I can change my appearance to anything that you'd like; I thought you would like to see an angel, though.
"You can ask me any question and I will do my best to answer it, or tell you if I'm not yet knowledgeable enough to answer it. I'm sure this is all rather confusing, so if you'd like I can give you a short synopsis of what has gone on and what I think you'd like to know. Just keep in mind that I'm very interested in respecting your volition; I will do anything you ask me that does not violate another person's volition.
"So, it's up to you. What do you want?"
-- Gordon Worley (based on an idea from a MikeDeering short fiction)
Sometime in the near future, after years of directed research, scientists have found a way to `upload' human minds into computers. They have a machine that can copy a human's mind and run it on a computer as powerful as a home PC (in the future, not one of today's home PCs). You have been selected as a potential candidate for the first upload experiments. Would you accept this offer and allow your mind to be uploaded?
Here are some things to think about when making your decision: Will the copy of your mind in the computer still be `you'? Would you let your body continue to run around while you were running on the computer, or would you only allow one copy of yourself at a time? What do you think it would be like to live inside the computer? What ethical and moral dilemmas do you think might arise?
Please post your decision and explain your reasoning.
Nanotechnology is technology built using components measured in nanometers (10^-9 meters). In other words, it is technology built using atoms, rather than chunks of molecules. Many people are excited by nanotechnology because small devices have so many possible uses. Everything could have a computer chip. Medical tools would be small enough to interact with individual cells. Computers with as much power as today's PCs might fit in a wrist watch. The possibilities are nearly endless.
Because nanotechnology is small, it requires very little power to operate. Nanomachines could be powered using just a few photons of light, similar to the way many handheld calculators are powered by solar panels today. Medical nanotechnology might run on hydrogen or carbon, common elements found in organic material. This means that nanotechnology is freed from electrical grids and operates cleanly, producing little or no pollution by using only renewable resources for power.
However, the ability to operate on minimal resources might make nanotechnology a powerful weapon. Rather than chemical gases, clouds of nanomachines might come into a city and destroy all molecules containing carbon, a key component of organic material. The force that sent in these flesh-eating nanomachines would capture the city without a single loss on their side, while every one of their enemies, military and civilian, would be nothing but a pile of bones.
Given that nanotechnology could have such horrible uses, what measures should be taken to ensure its safe use? Consider how other powerful technologies, such as atomic energy and biotechnology, have been used as weapons. Also think about steps others have already taken to try to prevent immoral uses of powerful technologies.
Issac Asimov, a famous and prolific science fiction writer, devised three of rules by which all robots (artificial lifeforms) must live:
- A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Asimov wrote many stories about robots and the conflicts arising from their perfect obedience of the rules. His robots behave in unexpected ways because the rules have odd implications that were not intended by their fictional creators. At times his robots spawn religious cults, become trapped in endless cycles of logic, or cause harm unknowingly. Through Asimov's stories the weaknesses of the Rules of Robotics are exposed.
But the Three Laws respond to a real need for the moral use of intelligence and power. Humans have a capacity for moral behavior. They are born with some morals while others are learned from their culture. Robots, on the other hand, do not necessarily have a capacity for morality: it must be programmed.
Furthermore, unlike humans, who can turn evil, programmed minds could be built with no capacity for evil, only good.
Some people, such as Eliezer Yudkowsky, have spent a lot of time thinking about this problem (see his theory of Friendly AI). Given the opportunity, how would you ensure the morality of programmed, artificial minds?
One fine spring day, Dave is driving down the highway. The sun is shining and he hears birds chirping (it's so nice, Dave has rolled down the windows). The car in front of him has been sliding around in its lane for the past several minutes and he is doing his best to keep a distance, but he keeps accelerating at the urgings of a tailgating, large truck. He can see his exit and signals to turn off when the car in front of him slams on the breaks. Dave swerves to avoid, but fails and hits the car. The world spins around as Dave looses control of the car. He comes to rest in a ditch, but his head feels heavy. He can see blood all around. Slowly, Dave's vision fades to black.
And then Dave is wide awake in a pool. Gasping for breath, he struggles as the cool air hits his lungs. He squints to see, but all he can make out is a dull blue glow. Slowly, several figures come into focus. After a few minutes he can make our their faces. From their lab coats, Dave decides that they must be some kind of doctors. One of them comes over and sticks Dave with a needle of something. For the second time he looses focus and goes to sleep.
Dave feels a warm glow on his face. Opening his eyes, he sees sunlight peeking in from a nearby window. Lying in a bed, light cotton sheets cover him. He is wearing a t-shirt and knit, loose fitting pants. He moves to sit on the edge of the bed as a women enters to the room.
"Good morning! I'm Nurse Joy," she says.
"Hi," says Dave.
"I hope you're feeling well. I brought you some food." She sets a tray of food on a table across the room. "How was your nap?"
"Uh, good I guess. How long was I asleep?"
"You mean just now or since the accident?"
"Both."
"Well, just now you've been asleep for, oh, 16 hours. That's since you came out of the tank. Since your accident, well, are you sure you want to know right now?"
"Yes. I was prepared for this kind of thing when I signed up for the cryonics program. They won't agree to freeze your body for regeneration in the future until they are sure you can survive the psychological consequences."
"Right, well, I'm afraid to tell you that it's now 217 years since your accident."
"Wow."
...
Dave just awoke from a cryogenic sleep, a process that preserves the body in a sort of biological stasis for a long period of time. In Dave's case, after the accident he was cryogenically frozen because modern medical science could not save him. Luckily, 217 years in the future, they were able to wake him up and save his life.
Had this been a story about you, would you have chosen to be cryogenically preserved for future revival? What problems do you think you would face after waking up?
One-hundred fifty-thousand people had their lives stolen away today. Few of them really wanted to die; most of them starved to death. Others died because their bodies were not made to last. Humans evolved to live just long enough to ensure that their children would continue the species, and it is only in the modern era that humans learned how to live relatively longer lives. But even with modern technology, the average age in the First World is only between 70 and 80 years. Few people want their bodies to run down, but right now they have no other choice.
Human bodies wear out over time. Unlike a car or a toaster, your body won't last forever even if you take good care of it. A healthy diet, regular exercise, and low stress levels can extend a person's life, but not forever. The oldest person on record died not long after her 122nd birthday, despite her efforts to maintain health. That's because the cells that make up organic life have to constantly reproduce, replacing old and worn out cells. And with each generation, the cells' telomeres, the biological units that protect against dangerous mutations, get a little shorter. Eventually, the telomeres are so short that there is nothing to prevent excessive mutations, leading to cancer and `dud' cells. The body breaks down and stops working because it can no longer keep its parts in good repair.
But, having located the primary source of aging and natural death, scientists are hard at work, trying to find a way to extend lives, maybe forever. Although there are years of research ahead of us, the day may soon come when everyone could choose how long they want to live. If the technology is developed, should people be able to live as long as they want? How long do you want to live? Why?
