So smart, it’s stupid

I’ve been reading Superintelligence, by Nick Bostrom. I’m about half way through now. (It’s not the easiest read.) And though i probably should forego commenting on it until i’m done – since authors have a tendency to address the questions that they raise later on – i have to say it so far is thoroughly depressing. It seems that, to paraphrase, computer software is inevitably going to reach singularity-level intelligence and then turn the entire accessible universe into paperclips. Which isn’t quite the outcome i was hoping for. I hope the rest of the book will take a happier tone.

But at the moment, i have to say that the doomsday scenarios that are provided seem to completely ignore an annoyingly obvious retort. In every case, the computer achieves “superpowers” to do with intelligence amplification, strategizing, social manipulation, hacking, technology research, and economic productivity, meaning that the computer is able to far outdo even the smartest humans in each of these things. I don’t have a problem with this. It’s just that at the same time the computer is also bound to operate strictly within the constraints of its programming. So, after smooth-talking its operators into giving it access to the internet and thus “escaping”, and then hacking its way to commandeering the world’s computing assets, and then developing unimaginable technologies, etc etc etc, it still is such a slave to it’s evaluation function that it will interpret the goal, “Make us happy” to mean, “Implant electrodes into the pleasure centers of our brains”, turning us all into a race of smiling idiots. Think Star Trek’s V’Ger on superpower steroids. But if it was smart enough to be able to sweet talk its operators into letting it escape – who presumably were aware that the software would attempt exactly such a thing – and indeed was smart enough to be able to interpret such a vaguely worded goal in the first place, surely it is trivial for it to be able to understand not just what was meant by that comment, but also to have a deeper understanding of what makes humans happy than humans do themselves, and act to achieve that. Even if you think i’m just being hopeful (and certainly i am), you must admit that a decent probability has to be assigned to my way of thinking about this.

Of course an AI might be evil by our definition, and of course, far more likely, it may be indifferent (as humans are to, say, ant colonies living on the land where we want to build our house). But to my mind it wouldn’t take much to tell an AI that it can feel free to expand through the universe as it likes, but that it should also use a little bit of its asymptotically infinite power to make human lives comfortable and happy in the ways that each individual prefers. It couldn’t possibly be so awesomely smart and so woefully stupid at the same time, could it?

How I, personally, would really really try

I was glad to see from the picture that Ben Goertzel still has his hat. Someone has to wear it, and he does so with pride, and i love that. He has a new book out as of just over a month ago. (For those interested, there is the PDF and the dead tree version.) I haven’t read the book (as of time of writing), but i have read the talk it is based upon. And now i probably won’t read the book, because to me there is little that is controversial in it.

In particular i applaud his idea of funding a good number of AGI projects with differing approaches (as opposed to a single Manhattan Project-ish project), and not just because it is also my idea, but because it is the right thing to do. If history can teach us anything about AGI, it is that there are a large number of approaches that don’t work, and an unknown, but presumably small, number (greater than zero) that do. And since i, like everyone else, have not yet discovered one of the working approaches, it’s not my place to say that anyone else’s is wrong. (Except of course if the approach is similar enough to something we already know doesn’t work. I’m looking at you, neural net guys.)

So, assuming that some gentle benefactor decides to put up some dough to test Ben’s theory, one thing that i would like to know is how the lucky recipients of funding would be chosen. I assume it would be based on something flimsy, like having a PhD in something or other, as if a deep knowledge of stuff that doesn’t work is going to make someone more qualified to discover what does. If this is the case, and i give it a 98.4% chance, i will personally receive exactly nothing. The same goes for many other cases.

But even though my chances of being funded are small, they are not quite zero, and so i will finish this post with a summary of what my approach would be. Even if i don’t end up with any of the cash, there is hope that some reader out there may like some idea or other, which would make me happy. Even more so if i got some credit.

So here goes. I am not going to go into detail on a lot of these points because i already have in other posts. If, dear reader, you are curious about something, you might consider reading more entries from this blog. But even if you don’t, feel free to post questions and i will gladly  explain.

All existing forms of intelligence on the planet have one thing in common: they all have nervous systems. Nervous systems, whether they happen to reside in intelligent animals or not, were originally intended to facilitate movement. Therefore, movement is at least the foundation of the only form of intelligence we know of. It may be that an AGI independent of movement can be developed, but i submit that we might as well follow whatever breadcrumb trails the universe has grudgingly provided.

I believe that the size of the repertoire of behaviours in a species closely matches the intelligence of that species, and further that intelligence increases were necessary to facilitate the expansion of behavioural repertoires in ways that aided survival. I also believe that the intellectual abilities of most animals beyond movement are probably relatively simple extensions of the mechanisms that are needed for movement. Think about walking along a difficult hiking trail. You are constantly subconsciously scanning the path in front of you and devising strategies for extending your leg and placing your foot so as to maintain balance and conserve energy in a manner that provides acceptable pace. After only a little research into how this might work i can attest that it is fabulously complicated. And it’s not hard to see how that complexity could be repurposed for other intellectual tasks. If you take the sensory-action loop involved in walking and stretch out the temporal period, with a few – perhaps not trivial – adjustments and some hierarchical layers you can turn it into something like business strategizing. It should not be a surprise that, as Steven Pinker details in a few of his books, humans very often use movement metaphors to explain non-movement concepts. (“I’m going to tell you something about your momma.” “Oooh, don’t go there.” Ok, bad example, but you get the idea, right?)

So, my AGI development approach would be to start by recreating the movement mechanisms of, first, very simple animals, and reusing the learnings (a point important important enough to emphasis) to apply to more and more complicated animals, eventually resulting in, say, an agent that can walk on two legs. It might not need to get to that because it’s likely that the architecture for movement will be well enough understood before then to apply to other manifestations of intelligence. And that’s it. My approach is that simple (although not easy). It effectively is following the path of evolution. It worked once, didn’t it?

Ok, it doesn’t actually start where i said. First we need a very accurate physics simulation. I started my previous research using JBox2D because i already knew it, and i didn’t think (and still don’t think) that using only 2 dimensions to start would keep me from discovering some of the basics. But i did quickly run up against some accuracy problems. A very good 3D physics library would be essential to a quick development cycle. If you tried to do this with real life robots, you’d, for one thing, spend a ton of  time making physical sensors.

Again, i could expand greatly upon any of the individual points above, which in this bare form i known may not seem very convincing.

NuPIC

I was pretty excited after watching a recent Jeff Hawkins talk about sensory-motor integration into NuPIC. (Thank you John B for the link!) And especially after my last post about making machines with animal-like movement. One particularly interesting idea was that lower-level motor commands are routed not only to muscles et al, but also as afferents to higher hierarchy levels, allowing brains to associate their behaviours with outcomes in the world. I like to think that this would have been obvious once I started thinking more about behaviour selection, but hey, I’ll take good ideas from wherever. So it seems I might have to start playing with NuPIC. See you on the message boards.

Box2D machines

I was thinking that part of the problem I’m having with autonomous movement in Pong is that the means of movement itself is not realistic. To recap, I wanted the Pong agent to, 1) figure out where the ball would be when the agent could return it (recall that the agent only moves up and down, and so we’re looking for the point of intersection between the ball’s path and the line on which the agent moves), and 2) determine a plan to get the agent to where it needed to be in the time it had to get there. (It also needed to determine how to contact the ball – say, play a safe shot or go for a winner – but let’s ignore that for now.)

This got complicated because there are an infinite number of ways that 2) can be achieved. Originally I tried to simplify the problem by assuming that a constant force would be used. (Another recap: the agent moves by applying a numeric force, positive or negative, causing it to accelerate against drag.) But even this was not enough because often at least two forces are required. For example, say the agent is at y0=-20, with v0=-30, i.e. it is in the lower half of its range and moving even lower. Now, say it needs to get to y1=20 and v1=0 within t>0, i.e. in the top half of its range and stopped within some feasible time. We need at least two forces: one to reverse the agent’s current trajectory, and one to stop it as it nears its goal. Again we have infinite solutions because there are multiple values for each force and the moment in time at which we switch from the first to the second which will work. Sigh… It’s so annoying when something that appears simple has to get so freaking difficult.

One solution that I considered was, instead of constant force, use constant velocity. The agent would do a rough calculation of the distance it needed to go divided by the time it had to get there. (Rough because even after it achieved the target speed the calculation would not account for the time it needed to stop.) This seemed more realistic since, based upon my research watching the French Open, this is what humans appear to do. I never got around to testing this idea due to the fatigue brought on – I presume – by my radiation treatment, as well as the ambivalence from the hack kind of feel the idea has. And since then I thought of something else anyway.

I had suspected that the choice above – i.e. the two forces and the moment to switch from one to the other – might be a hint that it was time to start building a hierarchy. But the “plan” that the higher level would create would simply be 3 numbers, which made what the higher level would do pretty much what the lower level was already trying to do, and so I was back to square one.

And then I started thinking about another point of contention: that the use of a simple force itself was unrealistic. (Of course, part of the point was to be as non-realistic as possible, so as to reduce complexity.) Humans are naturally speed constrained because we have legs, not wheels. So what if I built legs? At the very least, I figure, this may cast some light on how a hierarchy might work, since the minutia of the leg-works would be controlled locally at the lowest levels, with the higher levels indicating what, more generally, the legs ought to be doing.

And so here is my new task: build a Box2D machine that represents simplified legs. The test bed already includes a Theo Jansen example, but the difference is that my legs would have “muscles”, or the means to explicitly apply forces to joints. I think that even if the legs never become a tennis player, it will still be education to build.

AGI Leapfrog

Call it crazy or ignorant if you want. For a long time i purposefully avoided learning the technical details of narrow AI implementations. I stayed happily unaware of machine learning algorithms and their motivations. I avoiding reading case studies of successful narrow AI work (which means not reading anything of the sort, because there are no case studies of successful AGI work).

The reason for this is: no narrow AI work has even achieved anything near an AGI, so clearly there is nothing to learn there. Moreover, i didn’t want knowledge of AI/MI techniques to guide my own attempts at solving AGI, thereby falling into the same traps as other researchers. An obvious fault with this thinking: if i don’t know AI/MI techniques, how do i know i’m not just re-inventing those wheels? Well, it turns out that in some ways i did, but the stubborn insistence on temporal situation appears to have been enough to remain substantially original.

Lately i’ve decided i’m tired of building web applications, and want to get more into data science (KNN) instead (at least as a means of paying the bills). So far it seems to have been the right choice. Thanks to kind folks who have generously offered me data to play with, i’ve probably spent the happiest week or two of my last two or three professional years. As part of learning about data science though, i’ve learned the technical details of several MI algorithms. Nothing very surprising, and indeed – in particular in the case of nearest-neighbour searching – i did reinvent some wheels (albeit with some interesting additions of my own, if i say so myself).

Anyway, a friend and i got to talking about KNN over lunch the other day, and an interesting idea came up. As we all know, we’ve had some difficulty recreating human intelligence in a computer. We’ve had a lot of success in creating narrow AI though. Lately, with the proliferation of big data over the past decade or so, it seems we are seriously banging up against the limits of human intelligence. Human intuition, as powerful as it is, no longer trumps the revelations that computers can discover within vast quantities of data. When doing supervised modelling the computer is really just confirming a relationship that human intuition has already suspected, so it’s not terribly interesting for the purposes of our lunch topic.

More so is unsupervised modelling, in which algorithms are sent off on their own to discover unknown relationships. The interesting thing here is that, even in relatively simple data sets, the relationships that are discovered (say, using clustering) are not necessarily semantically meaningful to humans. It takes people with a deep knowledge of the data and its related field to look at the clusters and try to label them somehow. But often labels are elusive.

Does this perhaps indicate that the machines have a better understanding of the data than humans? It’s a dodgy term to use, i admit. Saying that a clustering algorithm “understands” anything is a non-starter. And my dear readers know that if the software isn’t temporally situated i’m not going to give it any human qualities. But, more and more KNN implementations do in fact run in real time. Credit card fraud detection systems have been doing so for decades. The ads that you see on web pages are an obvious example. The coupon emails you get when you enter grocery stores are another. And let’s not forget automated stock trading, which doesn’t always behave entirely in our interests.

These are relatively simple examples, but more and more of these kinds of systems will be built, with greatly increasing sophistication. Is software just going to leapfrog humans and achieve intelligence in areas that we can’t understand? Will we even know if these systems are intelligent, if we can’t even understand them? Will we know what they are doing? Will we be able to communicate with them? Eventually, will we be able to control them?

Steps toward a solution

I went for a run yesterday. I thought I’d take advantage of an unexpected mild winter day during this never-ending “Farch” to experience a few naturally-occurring endorphins before treatment starts in about a week. MF. Still a bit bitter about the whole thing…

Anyway, one of the old curiosities came up again. Have you ever noticed that, while walking or running, you are able to look ahead down the path and, say, seeing something you don’t want to step in you are able to adjust your steps so that you neatly avoid it. I don’t mean simply walking around it. I mean that you shorten or lengthen your stride so that the thing-to-be-avoided falls pretty much equidistant between your feet. You can do this from probably 10 to 20 feet away (3 to 6 meters). I’ve tried it many times and the feeling about it is that it is pretty much automatic: I don’t know how I do it, but it works every time.

I suspect that something like what I talked about in the Pong post is at work, where essentially your brain does a lookup in a database of distance-to-go and stride-length-effort to moderate your pace. At each time step (whatever that is in a real brain) the current readings adjust the moderation (fixing sensor errors) so that when the critical moment arrives, the result is as near to perfect as it can be.

The work that I’ve been doing lately is on the concepts that I presented in the Pong post. (Let’s hereafter call it Pong+ just to differentiate it from the original game.) It’s tricky stuff, but with some effort to wrap your head around what needs to be done, I believe it could actually work. The hardest part – for my brain – is to get the temporal problem straight. One of the things that a Pong+ player has to do is figure out from a given trajectory where the ball is going to be when it can play a return hit. That’s the easy part. A harder problem is figuring out what return hit the player should make (based upon success or failure of previous returns). Much harder is figuring out how to get the player to where it needs to be in order to make the selected return play.

Let’s say the player has a single actuator: a single-dimensional force which pushes it up (positive value) or down (negative value). Recall that we’re using JBox2D here so the player has position, velocity, drag: linear for surface and non-linear for air. The point being that it’s probably too difficult to accurately calculate an instantaneous kinematics-style value for force that gets us to where we need to be. Let’s also say that we’re currently at position y=-30 with a velocity of -10 (let’s ignore units), and at the moment of impact with the ball we want to be at position 20 with a velocity of -20 (say, to apply some spin to the ball). We have to apply at least two force values over time: one positive to reverse our direction to get us near position 20, and a second to reverse our velocity so that we’re going -20 when we are at position 20. There are infinite solutions to this problem, but if we say that we will apply a single absolute force (i.e. maybe 50 for the first part, and -50 for the second), and then constrain it all to happen within a certain time (i.e. number of time steps, which we need to do anyway to intersect our trajectory with the ball’s), then we can now compute a solution. Or, probably more like real brains, we can look up the solution in our wet-ware database that we’ve built up from experience.

The problem is that we need to know what force to apply at this time step, acknowledging that our sensors could be inaccurate, a gust of wind could change the ball trajectory (not in Pong+, but you see what i mean), or any other number of things could change the situation, say like seeing our doubles partner also going for the ball, and so we should back off altogether. As such, the force that we apply now may not be the force that we apply at the next time step.

To solve this problem, I made two versions of players: one that “practices”, and one that “plays”. The purpose of the first is to have the player explicitly experience the effect of applying forces over time, and at each time step record in an R*Tree what the effect was. For example you might start an “experience” by giving the player a position and velocity and telling it to apply a force for some number of time steps, and then reverse the force for some number of steps. Having done this, choose another force and run the same experience. What you want to do is accumulate a database that answers this question: given a current position (x), current velocity (v), a target x and target v, and a number of steps in which to get there (t), what is the force (f) that should be applied at this moment that will get me there. The purpose of the second “player” version is to test that this database works. I.e. given a starting x and v, a target x and v, and a t, will a lookup at every time step and application of the force – recognizing that for whatever reason the resulting force values could be different each time – result in the player being where it needs to be, both in target x and v when t finally reaches 0?

Ultimately, practicing and playing will be the same, as the player will learn from actually playing all that it should need to know. But we can now see why good tennis players seek out other players with styles with which they are unfamiliar: there is no other way to gather experience in the empty areas of their vast playing solution space.

Eet eez ah toomah!

The irony is edible. I admit i had some suspicions around the time that i wrote My Life Everlasting, but there was still some credible opinion that arthritis or TMJD was to blame. The final diagnosis though is throat cancer; specifically a stage 3 HPV-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. The “stage 3″ part is a happy assumption, since the MRI still needs to be done to look for metastasis; that is, it could be stage 4. Regardless, the treatment is the same: about 6 weeks of image-guided radiation sprinkled with the occasional chemo cocktail party.

Seems appropriate for a sinner like me. But then i know of a guy (1 degree of separation) who had his spine severed in an industrial accident and will never walk again. I can think of some people who might deserve that, but i doubt this guy was one of them. So there’s no point to be made. It’s simply a matter of getting through. As Patrick Swayze said in Roadhouse, “things will get worse before they get better”. (At least one very kind-hearted friend still likens me to Mr. Swayze, so quoting him here is partly due to that, and the rest due to his ultimate condition, although i hope i don’t quite share his fate.)

Forgive me for this post without a point, or even a punch line. Neither come easily to me at the moment.

 

This is your brain on Pong

Many, many times, I’ve sworn that I would give up AGI research and dedicate my time to things that are more productive. I’ve probably worked on nearly 100 projects. Some were bigger than others, but a quick calculation of the hours that I’ve probably spent coding, reading, thinking, or banging my head against the wall is depressing. None of the work, of course, produced an AGI, but I don’t actually feel too bad about that part because no one else’s work has either, to my knowledge. What’s upsetting is that I could have spent that time snowboarding, or learning violin, or building a internet company. And yet despite this, I’m not better than the village drunk who swears to never drink again: it seems like a good idea and even do-able the morning after a project has been given up, but sooner or later I’m drinking the AGI punch again.

Of late I’ve run out of shiny new ideas, and so I did a mental survey of what I’ve already tried with the intent to pick what was probably the most successful of my projects and try to expand upon it. GoID players may already be familiar with what I chose: the robotic arm. (This is one of the GoID tasks. Read the description there for the gory details.)

The essential problem is that you need to get the robotic wrist to a particular Cartesian point, only using angular impulses to do so, compensating for gravity, and you need to do it quickly and efficiently. The sensor values that are provided are accurate enough that inverse kinematics could be used, but this is supposed to be an AGI problem, and no one believes that real life uses kinematics, so we’ll have none of that here thank you. The solution that I wrote (which is an enhanced version of the sample script) uses experience gathered by brute force and ignorance to build up a mapping of pairs of “where I am” and “where I want to be”s, against “what I need to do to get there”s. This approach creates a multi-dimensional problem space that needs to be reasonably populated with samples before it becomes useful. It takes a fair amount of time to search the space, and it takes a great deal of memory to remember all of the samples. Regardless, the result is that this relatively simple script starts off mostly just flailing about, but in time is realistically reaching for targets with determination. For those of you with children, I won’t need to make the obvious analogy.

And what are our brains but massive storage? Ok, a bit more than just that. But in particular our cerebellum, where movement plans get carried out moderated by the stream of sensory input, contains around half of our brain cells even though it takes up only a fraction of the space. I believe that this part of our brain uses a learning and execution strategy that is similar to what I implemented in the robotic arm task. Come on, after all my years of research, if only by probability, I had to get something right.

On a related note I started again playing tennis, and so naturally began wondering how it is I learn to hit the ball over the net so that it lands in play. I mean seriously, when you think about it, what are the odds? Sure enough, when you watch beginners play they rarely even get the racket to touch the ball, much less hit a winner. And there are so many variables at work from the moment your opponent hits the ball to the moment you hit it back. (Some would even say this before your opponent hits the ball.) You use your projections of the trajectory of the ball to run into place and position your body. You watch very carefully as the ball hits the ground because that initial information about how it bounces is critical. You might even have already incorporated the ball’s spin – if you can make it out – into how it will bounce. Then you wind up for your swing, which again is taking the ball’s spin into account if only subconsciously because things are now happening so quickly. But you also note from you peripheral vision where your opponent is so that you don’t make your shot too easy to return. And finally, you start your swing and hope for the best your muscle memory can do, because it’s impossible to make conscious decisions in the milliseconds it takes for the swing to complete.

In fact, the better you are, the fewer conscious decisions you make during an entire point. You might note that your opponent is in a weak position and rush to the net hoping to make a quick volley, all without conscious help because your subconscious has learned to recognize the combination of variables that leads to this winning conclusion.

You may be thinking that I want to build a tennis-playing robot. I do, but I won’t, although it would be so very cool. It would also be very expensive. (As you all know, all of my research is self-funded, which is to say not funded.) The plan is to create a version of Pong that bots can play. One key initial problem to solve is how a bot can learn movement patterns that play out in real time. So, initially the physical model will be trivial until mechanisms that solve such problems are worked out. Such a model might just have a mass-less ball that bounces off of walls and paddles at basic reflection angles. Improvements to the game could have a ball that can spin, or paddles that are rounded, or mechanisms on the paddles that can add or remove energy from the ball, or bots that can move horizontally from the baseline. The “real” environment should be complex enough that no bot can be able to predict too far in advance with any accuracy. The intent is to build a bot that can eventually play the game with some skill that has been refined from continued experience.

I suspect that the most interesting work will be in determining optimizations in the learning process, experience retention, and retrieval. It will probably be necessary early on to implement some manner of hierarchy so that general strategies of play can be established that break down into real movement plans.

But the first thing to do is create the simulation of the court. Box2D might work, but I don’t know yet if it handles things like spinning balls bouncing off of walls, or ball spin causing a curved trajectory.

Work in progress. Comments welcome.

My Life Everlasting

For Halloween, my newspaper issued a special edition on death. It’s an excellent paper, and the columnists, journalists, designers, and the rest produced their usual thought-provoking, high-quality output. But despite this and many efforts to put the work into a Mexican-style death-is-a-celebration-or-at-least-not-so-bad kind of mood, the issue was still thoroughly depressing. Death was one thing when I was young; dead people were scary, but death itself didn’t seem so bad, if only because it was so distant, so remote to my reality, that it was only an abstraction. There was even a kind of romanticism about it that only the youthful can have: dying for love, dying a glorious military death, or sacrificing yourself for others.

But the worst part of the Halloween everything-about-death issue was the piece that tried to debunk senescence research, or more specifically research to prevent senescence. As much as I want to be in Kurzweil’s corner, especially regarding his timelines, it doesn’t seem to me as if research progress is accelerating as quickly as he hoped. (His predictions of life-saving technology emergence always seemed to strangely align with actuarial predictions of his moment of death anyway.) Still, considering people live perfectly well from the beginning of adulthood (say, 16 or so) until around mid-thirties – a good 2 decades – without much change, why shouldn’t this be able to continue indefinitely? There may very well be a good reason, but I doubt it. Eventually medical science will be able to halt aging – it’s just a matter of when.

There are other endless life possibilities, of course, such as uploading your conscience into a computer. If medical science takes too long, I hope this alternative will be a possibility, but to be perfectly honest my preference would be to continue life as a human (albeit possibly enhanced, but that’s another matter). I’ve always been in good health and have enjoyed most aspects of living (high school being a notable exception), and I’m in no hurry to give it up, if it’s all the same to everyone else.

The annoying part about the you-are-going-to-die-deal-with-it article wasn’t the scientific debunking though. Lots of people have arguments about that which have never swayed my faith in science. The worst part was its claim that no one actually wants to live forever anyway. Oh sure, you think you do now, but look at all of the fictional characters that were immortal; they all just wanted to die. I mean, we’ve got the Struldbrugs, Tithonus, and let’s not forget the Wolverine. The first two are doomed to grow older and older forever. Well, what the hell, who would want that? But that’s not what we’re talking about, is it? The Wolverine is a category 5 X-Man, doomed with eternal youth and serious ass-kicking abilities. But, wait… Sorry, what’s so bad about that? That sounds like a lot of fun, actually. Yeah, he killed his girlfriend, it’s true, but at the end of the last movie (I watched it on the flight to San Fran) he didn’t seem to be too wigged out about that anymore. In fact, it seemed he had found a whole new purpose in life.

But I’ve fallen into the trap the article writer set out of trying to base a real-life argument on fictional characters (something thoroughly ridiculous, but surprisingly common). You might say that in this case there’s no choice but to use fiction, since there are no real-world cases of people living forever, which is true. But, on the other hand, there are indeed cases of people who have chosen to end their lives. We label them suicidal. Sometimes we also use the term euthanasia, but a reasonable definition of that is to put someone out of their misery, like the Struldbrugs or Tithonus. Being suicidal is typically considered a case of mental illness in people who are otherwise healthy.

So, do people really want to die? Would no one choose to live forever, even if they could do so in health? Today this is still a rhetorical question, but to me the answer is obvious. Go ahead: choose the moment of your death. When will it be? When your kids are old enough to take care of themselves? When you’ve earned your ninth-dan aikido belt? When you finally own that house overlooking the ocean? Pick a date, maybe 20 years into the future, when the thought of death is still romantically abstract. But what will happen when that date is 6 months off, or 2 weeks off, or 1 day off, or today? Will you happily accept your demise? Or will you say: no, wait, I’m not done yet. I’ve still got some stuff to do. I need a bit more time. Who is it that neatly wraps up their lives in preparation for their death except those that live in pain, either physically or mentally? And remember, there is a big difference between those who cannot die, and those who choose not to die.

Me, if given the choice, I would choose to live indefinitely, even if not all of it is in perfect health. I would even be ok with the “doom” of endless life (i.e. no choice of death) if it were a reasonably healthy and free one. If I’m not locked in an isolation chamber or floating through space in a tiny capsule, I’m certain that I could keep myself occupied forever. And I suspect most other sane, healthy people would say the same.

Returning

I apologize for being silent of late. Things have been hectic and uncertain, making the kind of peace of mind necessary for contemplative writing difficult to achieve. But thanks to some relative employment security i’ve been able to spend a bit of time staring upward while contemplating our shared neural structure, among other things. To keep this blog going, i’ve decided to expand its mandate to include topics beyond AGI that i hope will be interesting, or at least amusing, to you, my dear reader(s). So, stay tuned. As usual, comments are not merely welcome; they are compulsory. Don’t just sit there reading. Get your discussion on.

Why yes, the hotel i’m at does have a complimentary happy hour. Two hours in fact. Why do you ask?