Issue link: https://cp.revolio.com/i/393
25 #1 Fall 2008 device, whether external or implanted, that allows one to retrieve information by thinking about it. It sounds like a first step to the sort of mind uploading envi- sioned by people like Hans Moravec and much copied in various science fiction scenarios. I'm trying to envision what a prize-winning project would do. Would this be a first baby step toward these vi- sionary ideas or a "great leap forward?" PWE: e InnerSpace Foundation is concerned primarily with challenges that lie within the visible technology horizon, which is getting shorter in some ways. e challenges of improving natural mental functions are very daunting, so we have focused on establishing basic two-way communication between the brain and prototype devices. Interfacing with non- biological electronic devices is important because they have many advantages over brains and neurons in terms of speed, accuracy, and durability. Input of information into the brain by electronic means rather than just through our normal sensory channels can be called learning, even though it is a non-traditional form of learning, and outputting existing memory information to a device for later access is potentially an extremely powerful way of augmenting memory because it has essentially unlimited capacity and high fidelity. Since it is difficult for us to imagine ex- actly how these things might be done best in several years' time, we have decided to set up a prize-based competition for rewarding one or more teams who produce the most compelling breakthroughs that most clearly satisfy the prize guidelines. We already know we don't have to de- stroy or dismantle the brain to get enor- mous quantities of information out of it; I think we simply need to push forward technologies that allow for maximum in- formation flow to and from the brain in a non-destructive manner. erefore, pro- cedures like those suggested by Moravec that require the brain to be destroyed or dismantled and reconstructed don't appeal to me. e IF is committed to technologies that will move essential information to and from the brain, and allow it to be stored and backed up, but I don't want to speculate much on "mind uploading," which implies dynamic reanimation of downloaded and stored information. Nevertheless, there are many very serious and respectable people who contemplate and seek the develop- ment of such technologies. e IF is trying to get the world's leading neuroengineering talent to give us baby-step technologies to- ward what we currently regard as the future great leap of exceeding or transcending our unwanted evolved limitations — whatever they might be — and I am a very strong advocate of this bioprogressive view. H+: Do you see this program of neu- ral achievement as running in parallel to ideas of developing smart AIs, potentially of greater-than-human intelligence, and could this – in some sense – be a step to- ward fostering hybridization between hu- mans and advanced AI? PWE: A long-term goal of the IF is to allow the maximum possible degree of direct human control over powerful out- board intelligences. Many extremely bright people have argued that self-improving AI could have catastrophic consequences for humanity unless we are an indispensable part of the overall equation. My view on the AI developmental timeline is pretty con- ventional. I think AI of this level is some way off, and might even be dependent upon improved human intelligence, but I see the logic of their argument. It is interesting to contemplate the interdependent hybrid human–AI intel- ligence scenario I just mentioned. It is entirely possible that naturally evolved human intelligence is incapable of produc- ing catastrophically (for us) self-improving outboard intelligences, and that both natu- ral human intelligence and AI are largely incapable of producing dramatic increases in human intelligence through purely bio- logical manipulations because of the con- straints of neurons and neuron-based stor- age and "computation." However, when we consider that both abiotic and biotic stor- age and computational devices have their own strengths and weaknesses, it is easy to envision hybrids that tap the advantages of each and have characteristics superior to either alone. As one simple example of the comparative advantage of abiotic storage, my (inexpensive and old) 1 gigabyte key- chain flash drive can store about a thousand 400-page books. And in less than a decade, a 1 terabyte (TB) keychain storage should be inexpensive and common. People will be able to store the equivalent of about a million books of text on their 1 TB key- chain, and using standard and simple pro- tocols retrieval is essentially error-free and extremely fast. 1 TB is also equivalent to about a million minutes of CD-quality music, a million photos from a typical 3 megapixel camera, or 140 days of continu- ous video (5 MB/minute bitrate, which is about YouTube or better). Each of us should probably ask our- selves if we could store all information that is essential and important to us on a single such device how we might make real use of that potential. I think when we seriously reflect on such questions we begin to re- ally see some of our inherent biological limitations. e harsh reality is this: the human brain is a magnificent and mysteri- ous collection of abilities, but for fast and accurate storage and retrieval of important information, even a humble keychain flash drive has overtaken us. But I am extremely excited that -- for the first time in history -- we can envision using such technologies to augment the brain's natural limitations. H+: You're focusing on memory