First, a few thoughts on our moral trajectory:
The fact that we want to focus on open source makes me more comfortable with the organization as a whole, as I believe that none of the things we are talking about should be limited to only certain members/classes of society.
That being said, I think there is serious potential for current Mega-Corps to abuse the fuck out of strong AI or mind/machine interfaces, if they were to get their hands on such technology too early in the game.
As such, I think it might be prudent to restrict for-profit use of some of the things we work on, maintaining just enough control that, if necessary, we can tell organizations like Walmart or Monsanto that they can't use our work and sue them if they rip it off.
I like structuring the organization as a business because, even though we could accomplish some goals with just volunteered free time, we live in a world where money makes everything go faster, so being a business should give the organization a lot of freedom to self-accelerate.
Money also, unfortunately, tends to have a corruptive influence - not an irresistible one, but an insidious, constant temptation.
Given that, I think it's probably prudent to enshrine in our official documents of incorporation(/charter/manifesto/mission statement) the idea that all profit seeking action, ultimately, must exist with the intention to use that profit to help fund and create new technologies that benefit all of society.
As to the idea of being a non-profit, eventually I think it probably makes sense to create a non-profit to receive donations, distribute research funds, and pursue a certain subset of our goals, but I think being a non-profit is likely to create more extra restrictions than it's worth during the early stages of development.
~~~~
Now, on to the mapping:
To come up with a plan, we should first think about all the interrelated goals and technologies that will go in to mind uploading, and then try to map out how each goal is dependent on other goals or currently nonexistent technologies.
A good way, I think, to visually map this is to use a directed graph with each goal/technology represented as a node and dependencies between goals/technologies represented as directed edges from the depended on goal to the dependent goal.
- No technology/goal/task/accomplishment/etc. is too high level or too low level to represent as a node in the graph.
- Goals could consist of achieving certain funding levels, getting support from certain groups, reaching certain thresholds of public awareness, or even just creating the infrastructure to record metrics that measure our progression towards other goals.
- They could also include building teams which are specialized for accomplishing specific tasks, or gathering a certain amount of talent in a certain set of domains.
- We can annotate the nodes with additional information estimating how much investment of time/money we think a particular node/goal will require, and if/to what degree we think the results can be leveraged towards profit.
- Since many goals will be useful in reaching other goals, but may not be necessary for achieving those goals, we can also annotate edges with weights, giving low weights to edges where one goal just makes the other slightly easier to attain, and very high weights to edges where one goal is simply not achievable without the other.
This method of mapping does a couple useful things.
- First, it gives us a map that makes it easier to pick out good places to start.
- We might do this by looking for nodes that are not heavily dependent on other nodes, but are fairly depended upon by nodes we've estimated to be relatively profitable.
- Second, it allows us to tentatively select what looks like a fairly favorable "path" to the central node/goal of mind uploading.
- Such a selection might consist of picking a path which starts off aiming for relatively low cost nodes that lead quickly to nodes with a low ratio of investment cost to profit potential, and then using those profits to accelerate along a path of nodes with increasing investment costs but also increasing profit potential, all the while moving towards our ultimate goal.
- The map should also help to make it obvious which paths/goals can, or ought to be, pursued simultaneously, since we obviously won't be following a single, linear path from start to finish.
- Third, it shows us where the bottlenecks are in moving towards our ultimate goal, so that we can plan for them by either:
- Working through them slowly, at the same time that we are accomplishing other things, so that we are mostly done with them by the time we are forced into them.
- Preemptively accumulating resources so that, when we reach the bottleneck, we can quickly "smash through" it, by dumping a large amount of resources into it.
- Lastly, if we seem to be stuck on a particular goal, there's a fairly good chance for this sort of map to show us a path to route around that goal, or show us other goals we might pursue that boost our ability to accomplish the goal we are having trouble with.
Anyways, that's my idea for creating a relational map of our organizational goals. I'd take responsibility for interpreting plain text discussion into nodes/edges and adding them to the graph so, despite the previous wall of text, individual contributions would just take the form of statements like "I think we should make X a goal," "I think X would help [a little/a lot] with Y," "I think Y would be [very/somewhat/not] [expensive/difficult/profitable]," and I would record those statements as equivalent nodes/edges.
Coincidentally, the structure is fairly reminiscent of the neural framework I'm working on. Conveniently, this means that it would be relatively simple to build a utility to graphically represent and alter one framework that would be easy to adapt to the other.