If an opportunity existed to invest in a sector of society in order to see that section succeed and prosper quickly, which area would be worthy of immediate investment? Would it be space exploration – say populating mars and beyond – or maybe robotics, artificial intelligence [AI], researching anti aging treatments and longevity medicines? If the choice was what was best for humanity, the options begin to narrow considerably. You would have to look at longevity medicine and anti aging research – right?
This is an area that sorely needs investment now and in the future but there are some questions that arise. It is certainly a good idea to invest in this field of research but is there another sector more deserving of immediate results. What we would like to invest in personally may not be what is best for the masses. The root of the complexity is understanding where an investment would have the most effective outcome.
Choosing to invest in Longevity rather than successful artificial intelligence one must determine which would have superior usefulness. For these purposes, any AI created will be for the benefit of humankind rather than something more diabolical. If the desire is to produce intelligence equal to humans, we may as well develop one that is of even higher intelligence than humankind. Once you have the intelligent “chip”, converting that to information technology and the capability to utilize that superior intellect to solve some of humanities current problems would be a logical step forward. That being achieved, this friendly AI would set itself toward discovering solutions to life extension and anti aging technologies without any further assistance from us humans.
That means we would have to establish whether it is possible to engineer human intelligence of this magnitude. When could we expect to see this AI put into action? Should the question of aging and longevity be tackled before AI so that we can save / cure people as soon as possible, with or without adequate AI?
For the sake of argument, say the next level of AI as discussed previously as beyond human capacity, occurs within fifty years without a significant investment toward it. Longevity escape velocity [LEV or indefinite lifespan] happens twenty five years hence, likewise, without any significant public investment. Imagine that an investment was made to “purchase” five years of LEV growth, now it occurs in twenty years. In those first couple decades of indefinite life span the transformation of life extension will be a result of primarily aging and wealthy westerners living in rich countries. Many lives were altered and prolonged for sure but not effectively for the masses. Perhaps a few hundred million. There are still plenty of things that will determine life and death that continue to plague human society such as unhealthy lifestyle choices, violence, wars and accidents. The people who are less fortunate cannot pay for treatment as they age, even with the sudden increase of artificial intelligence.
However, if we contrast this with a five year investment into AI development, maybe the superior intelligence discovers a solution to the longevity question, perhaps it does this in a far more frugal manner than expected and even the pitiable members of human society can reap the rewards. Not only that, who is to say it might not seek out and ratify peace deals amongst warring nations finding solutions for life sustaining shortages, maybe cure certain diseases and even preventive measures against accidents, etc.
What this means is if things improve faster by investing in AI with equal funding for either option, we would be choosing between improved longevity for an elite portion of society in comparison to maybe curing disease and protecting every earthly citizen for an additional five years of paying for artificial intelligence. The answer is obvious.
Let’s have a closer look and recap some of the speculation that has been utilized in making this decision.
How Can We Say That The Equal Amount Of Investment Will Purchase An Equal Amount Of Research And Advancement For Either Technological Progression?
If AI advancement is less expensive than the argument is justified even more. That said; let’s discuss whether an equal investment amount purchases AI development at just a small part of the progression of longevity. It is a sound idea at some stage to begin making investment into longevity and not into AI. For instance, if viable AI is only available from an unpredictable source in 2060, than regardless of the investment toward it to will be unpredictable and slow to develop.
That theory however, is unlikely since funding in an area usually means more interest in that field, by both amateurs and professionals. Both of these fields of endeavor would apparently find it advantageous to receive more conventional financing. Even if it meant an investment going toward one year of development toward AI versus five years for longevity advancement, AI would still be the preference over longevity progress.
Spending Money Does Not Mean Technology Will Arrive Any Sooner.
It doesn’t? Futurist Ray Kurzweil the founder of SENS [anti aging therapies] does not have a specific plan of action but his SENS research is already underway.
In Kurzweil’s case, he is not the leader of Artificial intelligence, he is the face of the revolution, A more suitable way of describing him might be the current leader in common AI without a specific plan though we cannot be sure. Regardless, the initial scenario / preference, works even if adequate AI achievement occurs twenty years subsequent to longevity advances happening.
Will technically adequate AI even be possible? Would it ever be superior intelligence to that of a human?
There are no certainties for either of the technical investments discussed here. If one believes that human intelligence can be replicated synthetically, the next level of tweaking it to make the necessary improvements over time, allowing for general learning patterns rather than mimicking the nervous system itself, is all that would be necessary for adequate advancement.
What Is Stopping A Superior Intelligence From Being Malevolent Or Belligerent Rather Than “Friendly”?
Simple, we are the manufacturer. This kind of development comes with some inherent hazardous potential, but that in and of itself should not determine whether or not we should be pursuing it. If nothing else, it suggests that we should be investing more heavily into the R&D process to ensure it is created correctly. This particular debate does not make AI investment any more risky or unattractive.
The Timing Is All Wrong For One Reason Or Another.
Should superior AI make it before exciting longevity progression, than that would be a setback yet again for longevity investors. If the time period between successful technologies is shortened, than it would appear that longevity becomes less vital since it is only increasingly accessible by the wealthy, elite, etc. Moreover, what if AI is attainable, but makes its appearance in several hundred years and anti aging appears quickly? AI suddenly becomes less attractive and Longevity is where the money should be spent.
To Sum Up The Debate:
It would appear that it would be best to concentrate on longevity only if superior artificial intelligence is unlikely anytime soon, impossible altogether or not easily attainable even with large sums of money directed towards it.
Tue, Feb 23, 2010
Anti Aging, Anti Aging Theories, Longevity