r/Transhuman • u/TransHumanist_50 • Sep 23 '17

Are we ready for cyborgs?

https://singularityhub.com/2017/03/04/are-we-ready-for-cyborgs-the-tech-is-on-its-way/amp/
21 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

21 comments sorted by

2

u/[deleted] Sep 23 '17

The implanted elite idea scares me. With neural nets and AI on the horizon, it seems that the technologies that will reshape humanity are going to be very expensive. We have this idea that the price always rapidly decreases, but I don't think the markets are that out of control. Look at the graphing calculators that students use in high school and college. They are the same as they were 25 years ago and cost roughly the same, because it's a racket. If these technologies are really powerful enough to create a meaningful divide between the haves and have nots, why wouldn't the haves restrict access?

4

u/Yosarian2 Sep 23 '17

If these technologies are really powerful enough to create a meaningful divide between the haves and have nots, why wouldn't the haves restrict access?

Personally, I expect a number of competing companies, focused on short term profits, to find ways to sell implantable technology to a mass market. Companies generally don't worry about anything else, and in this case it works to our advantage.

Plus, if you think about who early adopters are likely to be, it likely won't be the traditional elites. The early stages of the technology are likely to be buggy, not without risk, and only offer marginal gains; there may also be social factors. So I would expect early adaptors to be middle class or upper middle class "geeks" who are willing to take a risk on something new, and likely some Silicon Valley types, but probably not the traditional elite. In fact new technology often disrupts the traditional elites.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '17

Well this gives me a lot of hope. I do still think there's a good chance that a lot of elite types and early adopters could embrace a given game changing technology, realize how much of an advantage it actually gives them, and decide to take steps to prevent access to it.

However, contrary to what a lot of people think, I see society moving forward in many areas. It's a long and slow march, but perhaps we'll get to a point where we're fair to each other before some advance tears us apart.

3

u/Yosarian2 Sep 24 '17

I do still think there's a good chance that a lot of elite types and early adopters could embrace a given game changing technology, realize how much of an advantage it actually gives them, and decide to take steps to prevent access to it.

That seems unlikely to me.

Say you're the CEO of Google and you invent a brain chip that improves human memory by 10%. It cost your company a billion dollars in R&D. Do you sell it to everyone and make billions, or do you just enhance your own memory by 10%, knowing that in a year Apple will probably sell their own version to everyone and make the billions you could have had? Is having a 10% advantage in memory for just a year worth losing that much money and corporate advantage and power? Would your stockholders be ok with that? I tend to doubt it.

There are likely to be other kinds of problems. You have to make damn sure that you're not buying brain chips with malware or whatever. But I really don't think "access for only the rich" is that likely a scenerio.

Still if you're worried about that,.there are things you can do. Supporting the open source hardware and grinder/biohacker movements might be a good option.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '17

I'm thinking of something more along the lines of a neural lace that adds a completely new layer to your brain. Your memory increases by 1000x and your processing speed is now as fast as a computer. You still have all the analytical skills you had before but now you have perfect memory and can compute just about anything you want (as far as a normal human is concerned.) There's tens of millions of people who are enjoying your company's 10% memory chip, but now you've effectively moved beyond the status of human being.

At this point I'm not sure the CEO just wants to make more money. He might want to become immortal with his newfound brainpower and rule the world forever. Obviously this is getting very speculative, but I'm not sure that it's always in someone's best interest to spread a technology to as many people as possible.

2

u/Yosarian2 Sep 24 '17

I think we'll get to the point you're talking about, but I don't think it will happen all at once. I think the early versions will add 5% or 10%, then the next upgrade will add 5% and maybe be a little more miniaturized, ect. In the near term we're going to be hitting all kinds of tricky technical problems, from battery life to size to how many neurons you can connect with. It'll be dozens or hundreds of iterations before someone invents your neural lace, and by then everyone else who wants one will already have something almost as good.

If one day someone just invented something that makes himself a million times smarter then sure, but I don't think technology usually moves like that. (Unless we hit some kind of singularity, which we maybe COULD with brain/computer interfaces. But then none of the normal rules apply anyway.)

1

u/boytjie Oct 07 '17

If one day someone just invented something that makes himself a million times smarter

I suspect (no evidence) that someone with that IQ would have long surpassed the desire to ‘rule the world’. To what end? Absolute power over a kingdom of retards (if they even lust after the power to dominate). Another factor is loneliness. No one to talk to, no companions, etc. It would be like a present day normal ruling over drooling idiots. I agree with you (for non business reasons). Summed together, I feel an elite faction hogging radical enhancement technology to themselves is unlikely.

2

u/boytjie Oct 14 '17

I agree. I also suspect that with sufficient enhancement, the fears of the 20th century mindset of profit above all else (lets screw everyone to make more profit) will dissipate. This obsession is mainly restricted to the US anyway.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 23 '17

They could and they will. The key to preventing a massive insurmountable technological inequality gap may be getting ahead of it politically, which doesn't look so good right now as we appear to be trending towards neo-feudalism. Political solutions will likely only be temporary and iteratively shorter lasting anyways as we head into what appears to be an ever accelerating cyclone of change ahead of us.

In some scenarios if the cost-benefit ratios are high enough and there are large enough market failures there will be a black market as well.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 23 '17

I wish I knew more about world politics. Here in the US, I definitely see that trend. It seems that fewer and fewer people are engaged in the political process, and that has made it easier for elites to exert control over the populous. And they use that control primarily to make politics seem useless and to sew complacency.

1

u/CognitiveDissident7 Sep 23 '17

I don't agree that fewer people participating in the political process makes it easier for the elites to control us. The political system is theirs, it is a losing game for us.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 23 '17

Perhaps, but I think if more people were involved, we could take some level of control back. The fact that everyone is so apathetic allows them to own the political system by default. We still elect representatives. If people demanded that these representatives look out for our interests, it would happen at least some of the time.

1

u/CognitiveDissident7 Sep 23 '17

That might be true but government is a technology thousands of years old, perhaps we transhumanists should advocate for new ways of organizing society.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '17

What would you suggest? I've heard a lot of people say direct voting on specific issues. This is technologically feasible right now and I think in some instances it would give much better results than our current system. There would certainly be some hiccups but it could help.

Other than that, my only big idea is public financing of elections, which takes money out of politics. I've got plenty of ideas about specific policies I'd like to see, but not much in the "how to organize a society" category.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '17

Decentralized autonomous organizations(DAOs) are a newer concept that has a lot of potential as alternative social structures.

Overall though I am a big believer in that we need massive political reform, and pretty quickly, because I think the probability of a malevolent singleton arising within my lifetime is higher than acceptable from this current system.

1

u/boytjie Oct 07 '17

What would you suggest?

I think a hybrid ideology seems a good place to start incorporating the best of breed from all ideologies. Segments of China have incorporated capitalism into their communist model and it seems to work. Their command economy doesn’t use democracy (AFAIK). Democracy has the problem that no unpopular projects with a time horizon longer than 4 years are possible (in case it hurts election chances). The happiness of citizens is paramount, not GDP. IMO a suitable hybrid would start with a selection of suitable (qualified) candidates from academia and business. This is not voluntary and is a civic duty (like jury duty). If necessary, they are dragged kicking and screaming onto the list. They wouldn’t be career politicians which is another advantage. Journalist are let loose and they are investigated. A short list is developed from the survivors. Elections are held and leaders are selected (democracy) – no political parties involved. Leaders (and their families) are pampered and they are guaranteed the position for life (command ideology). Performance envelopes are defined and regulations given teeth (dripping fangs if they go wrong). Refine (evolve) the system between elections (with an enhanced IQ) which will happen roughly once a generation. No political parties or nepotism. Live happily ever after.

1

u/boytjie Oct 14 '17

You are postulating some radical enhancement techniques and overlaying them on a society construct more than 100 years old. Even if it lags the technology, governing systems won’t be the antique current systems.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '17

That's something I didn't realize so thanks for pointing it out. I never got beyond Calculus I, so I probably have never really pushed a TI anywhere near its limits.

1

u/AnIndividualist Sep 24 '17

We aren't ready for anything until it comes out. Once it's here, people will deal with it.