Live Speculist podcast interview at 5:45 PST

I'm going to be interviewed for a live Speculist podcast at 5:45 PST.

Convergence08: Opening panel on AI

Opening AI panel:

• Ben Goertzel, Novamente, Singularity Institute
• Peter Norvig, Director of Research at Google
• Steve Omohundro, Self-Aware Systems
• Barney Pell, Founder of Powerset, Strategist at Microsoft

Peter Novrig, when asked how he would advise Obama if he were the CTO, responded, "Believe in reality." This got a great reaction from the audience.

Ben Goertzel notes that, instead of bailing out "corrupt banks" and "incompetent auto makers," that the billions of dollars should be funneled to fund private enterprise in such fields as AI, nanotechnology, and so on. Feels that the U.S. is misallocating its national resources by funding dying industries instead of AI and health care.

Panel is asked what kind of AI applications we can expect by 2015. Pell said we can expect to be able to talk to our game agents, and Omohundro talked about robotic cars and robots in the home (care for the elderly). Goertzel predicts AI for semi-automated scientific discovery and experiment design.

Questioner from the audience says that transhumanism suffers from a "public relations defecit," and wonders how transhumanists can better go about outreach and advocating for a technnological future. Omohundro feels that the popular media is contributing to some of the scare mongering and negative characterizations. Goertzel thinks it's important that we roll-out these technologies via positive applications; they need to be practical and helpful -- eventually our lives will be interwoven with these technologies and accepted.

Goertzel argues that the problem with AGI is not so much technical as it is financial. He says we could be moving 5 times faster with the requisite funding. Novrig says there isn't going to be one single breakthrough -- there's going to be thousands of applications and each along it's own path; disagrees with the singular focus that's characteristic of Goertzel's and Yudkowsky's research and thinking.

What can we do to accelerate things along? Pell says we should focus on what we're really best at and pursue paths that yield the best fruit the quickest; we should apply our talents to the problems.

What are the misconceptions surrounding AI? Pell feels that the biggest myth surrounding AI is that it's impossible and that humans are somehow special Goertzel says that long predictive time scales are typically off the mark. Omohundro feels that most people can't grok rapid/radical change, while others think far too much of the future -- instead we need to walk a middle path. Novrig noted that there have been some very healthy changes to AI theory, including the shift from logical to probabalistic approaches in AI.

Live blogging Convergence08

Today and tomorrow I will be live blogging the Convergence08 conference.

Will Israel attack Iran?

During the election campaign, as Barack Obama and John McCain argued about what to do with Iran, much of the world wondered how the U.S. will deal with the situation. But what's been lost in the conversation is the strong possibility that Israel will soon take matters into their own hands.

Indeed, unless the UN Security Council figures out what to do to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons -- and it doesn't appear that they have a clue or the will -- Israel may feel that they have no other recourse but to act unilaterally. This would likely take the form of strategical bombing raids -- a troublesome turn of events that would make an already unstable region even more volatile.

And Israel is not alone in the Middle East. There are other concerned nations in the region who are wary of Iran's rise to nuclear status, including the potentially strange bedfellows of Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab countries. Iran, along with her allies like Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas, would surely make the Middle East a miserable place in the event that Israel makes a preemptive strike.

There are, quite unfortunately, a number of factors that may compel Israel to do so:

the popular sentiment in Israel today is "stop the appeasement!" and it has transcended political divides; defense Minister Ehud Barak has been quoted as saying that a life-and-death military confrontation is a real possibility

it's election time in Israel, which could see the introduction of a more hawkish administration

the Israeli air force is likely very capable of such a mission; the destruction of a Syrian nuclear facility in 2007 and the lack of any international reaction to it may be interpreted as an example for the coming action against Iran

diplomatic initiatives and UN sanctions are seen by the Israelis as hopelessly ineffective; this is particularly troubling because it appears that president-elect Obama may support such measures

Some commentators have even speculated that Israel may attack in the coming months before the Obama administration is sworn in. The advantage of doing so would be to get quick U.S. support, to acquire needed arms and gain other tactical advantages.

My own opinion is that such an attack would be premature. Analysts have predicted that Iran will be nuclear capable sometime between 2010 and 2015 giving Israel some time to feel out the Obama administration.

That said, we should not understate the gravity of Israel's situation. They have been threatened with annihilation time and time again by the current Iranian regime. And in high-stakes situations like this, perception is everything. The Jews are, for very understandable reasons, very sensitive to such threats. As John McCain said during one of the presidential debates, this is an "existential threat" as far as Israel is concerned.

Desperate times may call for desperate measures.

Discovery Channel: I Love the World

I will never tire of this commercial.

Xolotl, the self-replicating robot

Xolotl: from the master visionaries over at Mondolithic Studios.

Imagining branded prosthetics of the future

In the future, will all the cool kids will be wearing Air Jordan prosthetics? Designer Colin Matsco certainly thinks so:

3D printing has become an incredibly powerful tool to customize one-off products for differing applications. This project was based on using this technology to design a customized prosthetic leg for a specific user- a young, urban, male athlete. Nike was chosen as an appropriate brand to bring form to the leg. It also required familiarizing oneself with the emotional, medical, lifestyle, and physical changes the user would encounter.

Goin' to California for a pair of conferences

Later this week I'll be off to Mountain View CA for a pair of conferences: the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies' symposium on Global Catastrophic Risks: Building a Resilient Civilization, followed by Humanity+'s Convergence08.

I'll be giving a talk at the IEET event on Friday November 14 titled, "Democracy in danger: Catastrophic threats and the rise of political extremism." The purpose of my presentation will be to examine the role that existential and catastrophic threats will have in influencing the rise of political extremism and the potential for extremism to:

emerge and play a pivotal role in future geopolitics and human organization

erode democratic institutions and ideals

facilitate or instigate catastrophes (either through influence, action or inaction)

prevent catastrophes and help with disaster recovery

represent existential risks unto themselves

Other speakers at the Global Catastrophic Risks conference will include:

Anders Sandberg PhD, Oxford University: “Global Catastrophic Risks: An Overview, and Caution about Risk Assessments”

Eliezer Yudkowsky, Research Associate. Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence: “Cognitive Biases in the Assessment of Risk”

Feng Hsu PhD, Head, Integrated Risk Management, NASA: “Critical Issues of Global Catastrophic Risks - a Worst Case Scenario Assessment”

Martin Hellman PhD, Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University: “Risk Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence”

Bruce Damer, CEO, DigitalSpace & Director, Contact Consortium: “Asteroids and Comets: Mitigating Impact Risks and Stepping Stones to a Sustainable Space Program”

Mike Treder, Executive Director, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology: “Nanotechnology’s Global Risk and Promises of Resilience”

Kattesh V. Katti PhD, Director, Cancer Nanotechnology Platform, Professor of Radiology, University of Missouri: “Green Nanotechnology: An Economic And Scientific Initiative For the Future Of Human Civilization”

Alan Goldstein PhD, CEO of Industrial Nanobiotechnology: “The A-Prize: Tracking The Global Race To Break The Carbon Barrier”

J. Storrs Hall PhD, author Beyond AI: “The Weather Machine: Nano-enabled Climate Control for the Earth”

Jamais Cascio, IEET Fellow, and research affiliate, Institute for the Future: “Building Civilizational Resilience”

James J. Hughes PhD, Exec. Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies: “Strengthening Transnational Governance to Mitigate Risks”

I hope to see you there!

Despite recent setbacks, same-sex marriage is arriving

"There's something deeply wrong with putting the rights of a minority up to a majority vote. If this were being done to almost any other minority, people would see how un-American this is." -- Gay-rights lawyer Evan Wolfson

Same-sex marriage is coming, and for many it is already a reality.

Marriage, as defined by civil law, is currently available to same-sex couples in 6 countries. In 2001, the Netherlands became the first country to allow it. Since then, same-sex marriages have become legal in Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa and Spain, along with two states in the United States: Massachusetts and Connecticut.

From May 2008, California allowed for same sex marriages, though Proposition 8 recently overturned that right.

In 2005, Spain became the first country in the world to recognize same-sex marriage (including adoption rights) on equal terms and under the same law. Today, Canada, Spain and Norway are the only countries where the legal status of same-sex marriage is exactly the same as that of traditional marriage, though South Africa is expected to fully synchronize its marriage laws. Other countries all have requirements or restrictions that apply to same-sex marriage that do not apply to opposite-sex marriage.

It's a painfully slow process to gain legal recognition, but it is happening.

Next-gen photorealistic CGI

"This is a painting completed in February 2005. It was a Portrait Class project that I decided to finish in my spare time after the workshop. It probably took a total of around 65-75 hours to complete. The small images are step by step photographs taken during the painting process, and the large image is the final painting after detail and skin texture are added with an eraser and colored pencil. The main colors are blocked in at the beginning, but refinement is withheld until the very end." - Dru Blair

Nick Herbert on psychedelics, consciousness and science

The parallels between Herbert's experiences and those of Eastern philosophies are quite interesting.

Provocative quote, "Scientists and old people should have access to any drugs they want."

Thoughts about the late Michael Crichton

These are the three most interesting posts I've read about the recent passing of Michael Crichton, author, futurist, and global warming skeptic:

David Brin, Michael Crichton, dream on:

Take, for example, his contention that, even when 99% of qualified experts in a field agree about a scientific matter (e.g. global climate change), the phrase "scientific consensus" should be ruled meaningless. Indeed, Crichton maintained that any such a consensus of expert opinion should have no relevance at all, in the arena of public policy. In effect, technically trained boffins - even when they agree with near-unanimity - can be rightfully ignored, leaving technological policy matters to be decided, without reference to science, by 51% of uninformed politicians. A fascinating stance! And, because the one putting it forward was someone I respected, I gave it my full attention, trying hard to see this issue through Michael Crichton's eyes. (I admit, I ultimately failed.)

Ronald Bailey, Michael Crichton, R.I.P.:

Crichton, slightly miffed at my presumption, asked why I preferred my alternative plot. I answered that I worried that his novels were helping to promote a technophobic attitude among the public that could unnecessarily slow the development of new technologies. He responded that I must be kidding. He doubted that anyone paid any attention to his novels other than to be momentarily entertained by them. I still think he was wrong. After all, two centuries later we're still reading Mary Shelley's thinly plotted potboiler and worrying about mad scientists.

Bruce Sterling, Climate crank Michael Crichton dies at 66:

Crichton fans are writing in and complaining that I'm cruel to his memory. In a word, no. And in a lot of words, you don't understand yet, but you will. Okay: the guy was a pretty good screenwriter. Also, there have been worse novels than some of his. Especially the novels that aren't paranoid tracts about atmospheric science. But Crichton's one with the ages -- and the judgment of history will be harsh for him. He truly blotted his copybook. His legacy as a writer, thinker and public figure is shameful. Someone needs to say it now, because someday everyone will. Get used to it.

Image of Kim Jong-il photoshopped

In an effort to dispel rumors that Kim Jong-il is seriously ill, the North Korean government recently released a photograph that shows him inspecting troops. Too bad the photo is an obvious fake.

Via BBC.

Obama's tepid progressivism

This past election night was a contradiction in terms.

On the one hand it saw the election of America's first African-American president who sailed to victory on a mandate of 'hope' and 'change.' But on the same night 3 states actually stripped away the right of their citizens to wed same-sex partners.

Looking more closely at these turn of events, however, it's apparent that there's not really much of a contradiction at all. The United States is not nearly as progressive as it thinks it is and its selection of Barack Obama hardly represents a radical step in that direction.

We're dealing with a citizenry, after all, who for the most part still thinks that the term "socialism" is a pejorative, as something that equates to Stalinism. The accusations during the campaign that Obama is a socialist was a sad but telling joke.

And even if he is, so what?

Some of the world's most prosperous and livable countries are solidly left-of-center, while here in Canada our socialist party, the New Democratic Party, recently gained 37 seats in Parliament and acquired nearly 20% of the popular vote (a vote that was undercut by the success of the Green Party who earned 7% of the popular vote; and don't even get me started on the fact that we actually have a Green party -- the U.S. is so far removed from this possibility that's it's not even worth talking about).

Okay, I'm digressing a bit here. But with all the excitement that has come to surround the election of Barack Obama, is it truly indicative of a new progressive wave?

Yes and no.

The election of Obama certainly bodes well for left-leaning and reformist interests -- there's no question about that. And the important thing right now is that the gang of thugs who hijacked the White House for the past 8 years are on their way out.

That said, however, it's worth noting that the incoming Democratic administration looks like it's going to be positioned just a little to the right of center. Much of this stems from political necessity, but some of it emerges directly from Obama's own views.

For example, Obama is opposed to same-sex marriages. Both he and McCain were quite vocal about this during their campaigns. Obama recently went on the record saying that marriage should only be "between a man and a woman."

This shouldn't come as a complete surprise. Obama was baptized as a Christian in the late 1980s. It's not unreasonable to think that many of his political stances are influenced by his metaphysical views. But I don't want to overstate this point. He appears to be a man who will work to ensure the separation of church and state. His position on abortion and stem cell research attests to this.

Obama also supports the death penalty in certain circumstances. He has said that in extreme cases "the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage." Obama concedes that the death penalty makes for a poor deterrent, making capital punishment a catharctic outlet and as a way to punish offenders.

In terms of foreign policy, Obama has made it clear that he will continue the 'war on terror,' increase troop strength in Afghanistan and continue making military strikes in Pakistan. Some of this is genuinely debatable; the situation in Afghanistan is quickly deteriorating and Pakistan continues to be unable to contain its insurgent elements. But still, Obama is not the peacenik that some have made him out to be.

On the home front, Obama recently changed his mind about warrantless domestic wiretaps and now supports it. In 2006 he voted in favor of the revised USA PATRIOT Act.

Again, the Obama administration will undoubtedly be a far cry from the soon to be ended neo-con nightmare. But the United States is a stubbornly conservative country. Those of us who observe it from the outside need to acknowledge that the recent election is a step in the right direction -- even if they are baby steps.

And for those progressives who live in the United States, now is not the time to sit back. As showcased by the recent setbacks with same sex marriage it's important that the new administration not be allowed to get comfortable with its sense of progressivism.

Keep pushing the envelope and agitate! We're rooting for you.

Silicon Valley comes to the White House

In what is a very cool and telling move, president-elect Barack Obama has selected Google CEO Eric Schmidt to serve on his 17-member Transition Economic Advisory Board (TEAB). Schmidt joins a number of notable economists, including billionaire Warren Buffett, former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.

Obama's decision to create the TEAB indicates the urgency of the current economic crisis and how quickly he wants to attend to it. Further, the addition of of Schmidt shows that he actually has a vision for how it's going to get re-jigged and revitalized.

Schmidt's selection to the advisory team shouldn't come as a complete surprise. He was an ardent supporter of Obama during the election campaign, and it's even been suspected that Obama will choose him to be the nation's tech czar (though Schmidt as gone on the record as saying he's not interested).

This is a good move for Obama, and it's the kind of opportunity that John McCain might have missed out on.

Economies in post-industrialized and highly technologized nations are changing quickly. The manufacturing sector is ailing and there's only so much that can be done to help it in its current form; more expansive visions are required. Innovative visions for future industries and future jobs are in order -- including the creation of jobs that will stay within the confines of America's borders.

Specifically, both Schmidt and Obama have shown an interest in promoting green technology to help revitalize the economy. For example, Schmidt has made the case that laid-off autoworkers in Michigan could be put back to work building batteries for use in hybrid vehicles. In addition to this approach, I would like to see a greater emphasis placed on the fostering of the biotechnology sector, information technology (including the ongoing development of AI), the private space industry and emerging technologies such as nanotechnology.

Schmidt will also be working closely with Obama as the TEAB works to complete the new stimulus package -- a package that will go a long way if painted with that magical Google brush.

It's this kind of thinking that bodes well for the incoming administration; the future of the United States' economy most certainly needs an injection of that characteristic Silicon Valley way of thinking.

XKCD: When Duty Calls

From the excellent XKCD web comic.

Brain boosters at the workplace

MacLean's Magazine has published an article about the potential for 'smart drugs' to be used at the workplace and for employers to pressure their workers into taking them. Transhumanist philosopher Anders Sandberg was interviewed for the article. Excerpt:

What would lead healthy people to experiment with drugs originally designed to treat serious ailments? A number of factors are at work, say experts. In some cases, it's as simple as trying to cope with long work hours or jet lag. But there's also a sense among many of those seeking cognitive enhancers that mankind just wasn't cut out to sit at a computer all day crunching numbers and splicing spreadsheets. "A lot of enhancers are more or less about fitting us into the modern world rather than the African savannah where our ancestors roamed," says Anders Sandberg, a research fellow at Oxford University's Future of Humanity Institute. "Cognitive enhancement drugs are going to involve trade-offs with evolution."

At the same time, a greying population means some people are on the hunt for ways to keep their mental faculties sharp. While modern medicine has extended the best-before date of the human body, the same can't be said for the brain. That's a problem for the millions of baby boomers who plan to continue working well into old age. This point was driven home earlier this year when the U.S. military put out a call for companies to develop a smart drug that could keep its aging soldiers in fighting form, both physically and mentally. Such a drug would also have huge commercial potential. "The world contains approximately 4.2 billion people over the age of 20," the U.S. army noted in its call for bids. "Even a small enhancement of cognitive capacity in these individuals would probably have an impact on the world economy rivaling that of the Internet."

In the meantime, there's no shortage of people willing to experiment with existing pharmaceuticals. One poster on an online forum recently boasted that by mixing deprenyl, a drug developed for Parkinson's sufferers, and Inderal, a hypertension treatment, he was able to give speeches and presentations better than ever before. Talk like that scares Zack Lynch, executive director of the Neurotechnology Industry Organization, which represents neuroscience companies. "People need to realize these drugs haven't been clinically tested on healthy individuals," he says. "It could be that serious side effects don't show up until 20 years down the road."

More.

An Obama reality check

Before my readers conclude that I’ve completely lost it over Obama I figured it’s time I say something a bit more critical about the situation in the U.S. and the incoming administration.

Barack Obama, as so many people are willing to acknowledge, is about to assume the presidency at a very difficult time. He’s got his work cut out for him and the expectation that he’ll play the miracle worker will most assuredly be dashed. Before we know it it’ll be politics as usual in Washington; the honeymoon will eventually come to an end.

Eleven weeks before he takes the reigns, Obama’s effectiveness and the amount of power he’ll be able to exert remains an open question. I’m reminded of the excitement over Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 and the expectations placed on him as a Rhodes Scholar. He was supposed to transform the White House and re-invigorate America. Clinton was never able to deliver on all the hype and hope; politics simply got in the way of all the excitement.

So, what makes us think that Obama, despite all his charisma and apparent political acumen, will be any more successful than previous presidents? It’s the same United States, after all, with the same institutions, petty politics, and entrenched two-party flavor.

Moreover, Obama hasn’t given any real indication that he’ll be anything other than a traditionally moderate Democratic president. Obama may have paved through some unprecedented political inroads on election night, but the popular ranking between himself and John McCain was shockingly narrow. Obama’s mandate is not as flamingly progressive as many have made it out to be. To go beyond it would not only be political suicide in a stubbornly conservative country, it would run contrary to his rather vanilla election promises.

Many Americans, I'm afraid, have confused his campaigning messages of "hope" and "yes we can" with that of actual progressive politics.

This is also an issue of relativity. Bush’s administration was so brazenly conservative, backward and hawkish that even a centrist administration will appear liberal by comparison. Republican accusations that Obama is running on a socialist platform will seem rather farcical in short order.

All this said, Obama does appear ready to re-invigorate some crucial areas like scientific research and the development of key technologies. He also looks poised to make the environment an important issue again.

Consequently, it looks like Obama will be engaged more in correcting the damage done by the previous administration than by introducing unprecedented reforms.

In terms of the economy, like the Democratic president before him, Obama has inherited an America in recession. As a result, his spending options will be severely constrained. Democrats may have firm control of both houses of Congress, but it will still be difficult for them to make due on a number of election promises.

Pulling back on George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the rich won’t be a problem, but introducing a new health care program may prove to be more difficult. Over 50 million Americans currently lack medical coverage; the cost to implement and cover this segment will be significant – even if it will be an insurance-based system supported by federal subsidies.

From a social perspective, the election of a black president hardly means that racism is over in the United States. Yes, it means a lot in terms of how far race relations have come in that country, but the reality is that the U.S. is still a country of privilege for whites. It will still be a long while before there is economic and social parity in that country – if ever.

As for foreign relations, it is here, I fear, that Obama will encounter the most trouble. And not because he’s inexperienced or because he has flawed policies (which in some cases he does), but because of the volatile geopolitical climate that has taken hold. There is simply too much happening in the world that is simply outside of his control; the level of complexity is daunting. Before he knows it, Obama will be spinning plates.

Obama plans to pull troops from Iraq by 2010. It is unclear as to how smoothly that transition will go, how the Iraqi regime will fare without U.S. help, and how Middle Eastern relations will change after the departure of American troops.

At the same time, Obama is touting the same kind of 'war on terror' rhetoric that was characteristic of the Bush administration. This may have been a political decision, but he has gone on the record of saying that he will continue to support American attacks on Pakistani territory without Islamabad’s permission. He also plans on increasing troop strength and the level of engagement in Afghanistan (a decision that will have a significant impact on Canadian and other coalition forces).

There’s also the issue of Iran and its efforts to build the bomb. The extent to which Obama will work to prevent this from happening and to protect Israel from a potential nuclear-armed foe is unclear.

And then there’s Russia and their recent efforts to re-enter the world stage as a significant geopolitical player. This is a story that’s far from over, particularly as the United States works to maintain a presence in the Caucasus region.

Looking to the future, it’s also possible that at some point during Obama’s tenure that an unforeseen catastrophe or global incident may occur (such as another 9/11 type event or a pandemic). Such a turn of events would come to characterize the administration and challenge it in terms of its potentially unprecedented scale. Hopefully nothing of the sort will happen.

My feeling, though, is that Obama would rise to the challenge. He would, at the very least, assume a leadership position unlike George W. Bush before him and guide his people through any potential turmoil.

Indeed, given the fiasco that was the Bush administration, Americans will likely have more patience and understanding for Obama than for other incoming presidents. They’re likely going to cut him some slack and recognize the difficult challenges that lie ahead.

As far as many Americans are concerned, it’s more about intention at this point than results. They finally have a president at the helm that they don’t need to be embarrassed about. Someone who, at the very least, is ready to set things right.

Okay, I'm still celebrating

[[I had a dream last night where I got to spend an entire day hanging out with Obama. At a ranch for some reason. One of the coolest dreams ever. Oh, the things we talked about...]]

Gay marriage, plebiscites, and the tyranny of the masses

Gay marriage was struck down in three states yesterday: California, Florida and Arizona.

I'm going to keep this short and sweet: the issue of gay marriage should have never been put to a plebiscite.

Democratic governments should work to protect the rights of minorities not by querying the collective (who at the individual level tend to be ignorant of the intricacies of social justice, law and fairness -- not to mention their often prejudicial and reactive nature), but by having accountable institutions (like the Senate) recognize and enshrine civil rights and freedoms within the constitution or a bill of rights.

Otherwise, governments are enabling the majority to lord it over those who need to be protected from exactly that: the masses.