2050 - And Immortality is at our Grasp

[Solario]

2050 - And Immortality is at our Grasp

"Aeroplanes will be too afraid to crash, yoghurts will wish you good morning before being eaten and human consciousness will be stored on supercomputers, promising immortality for all - though it will help to be rich.
These fantastic claims are not made by a science fiction writer or a crystal ball-gazing lunatic. They are the deadly earnest predictions of Ian Pearson, head of the futurology unit at BT.

'If you draw the timelines, realistically by 2050 we would expect to be able to download your mind into a machine, so when you die it's not a major career problem,' Pearson told The Observer. 'If you're rich enough then by 2050 it's feasible. If you're poor you'll probably have to wait until 2075 or 2080 when it's routine. We are very serious about it. That's how fast this technology is moving: 45 years is a hell of a long time in IT.'

He believes that today's youngsters may never have to die, and points to the rapid advances in computing power demonstrated last week, when Sony released the first details of its PlayStation 3. It is 35 times more powerful than previous games consoles. 'The new PlayStation is 1 per cent as powerful as a human brain,' he said. 'It is into supercomputer status compared to 10 years ago. PlayStation 5 will probably be as powerful as the human brain.'"


Figured this might spark a debate, so I just started it here, instead of the Asylum. Anyone else finding it slightly disturbing that in about 20 years, you might be having a conversation with your yogurt before you eat it? Personally I'd never be able to, I'd become too attached to my yogurt after half an hour of discussing which well articulate juice to go with it.

The business of immortality is tricky though, because essentially the computer version of your consciousness would be a copy of yours and not just moving it. This is kind of like cloning (the scifi cloning, where it has identical memories as you, not our cloning) in that matter. I do however like the prospect of having a copy of me roaming free in the digital world.

[coldcut]

This is the sort of thing that people were predicting twenty years ago, thirty years ago, fifty years ago, since the information age began in earnest. I say it's bunk.

The first AI we build to fly a plane will either annihilate us all or fly to Amsterdam and spend the rest of its life downloading illegal mods while working in a hashish shop.

The future is both more exciting and more boring than the human brain is capable of imagining. Unless you're Jules Verne.

[Solario]

Yeah, I found it interesting, but I also said to a friend concerning this article that these are probably the same people from the 50's, who predicted we'd all have hovercars and live on the moon.

Nice thought though. But seriously, the world is turning into Transmet by the second.

[Noble]

Originally Posted by Solario

Anyone else finding it slightly disturbing that in about 20 years, you might be having a conversation with your yogurt before you eat it?

This isn't new. People can already have conversations with their yogart. There are plenty of mind altering drugs than can help you reach this futuristic world many many years before it arrives.

[coldcut]

Originally Posted by Solario

Yeah, I found it interesting, but I also said to a friend concerning this article that these are probably the same people from the 50's, who predicted we'd all have hovercars and live on the moon.

Nice thought though. But seriously, the world is turning into Transmet by the second.

The interesting thought I had about this article is the part about designing AIs. I've read this before: they're not designing AIs, they're sort of letting the AIs design themselves, like growing a child or something. But without getting lengthy, if we're basing all this on the human brain, then the final product will ultimately be as flawed and imperfect as the original. Not that this is new, sci-fi has been saying this for close to a century now. But the lessons of literature are lost on the brains of today.

[Got]

I daresay all those that read 1984 back in the day scoffed at the concept of mind-numbing, propaganda-laden telescreens constantly informing an disinforming, omnipresent CCTV surveillance and even manufactured pop music.

I'm always stunned and rather scared by the unwittingly prophetic devices in that novel.

Anyway, got to dash, those Parsons children are looking at me funny again.

[Tsarmina]

.... yoghurts will wish you good morning before being eaten and human consciousness will be stored on supercomputers, promising immortality for all.

Um. There is a reason why I like to buy my food all clean an packaged. I don't want to be reminded of what it really is. Then again... get into an argument with your food and you get the satisfaction of getting in the last word as you chomp it down.
I'm not sure my consciousness is worth preserving for all prosperity though. :/

[WingedAvenger]

My yog hurts.

But seriously folks... I don't buy into the concept of us being able to download our brains any time soon, even if 45 years. Implantable microchips, maybe, but brain downloads, nope. Science already has enough trouble understanding how the human brain works.

[Jade_Dragon]

Well, the idea of downloading your brain into a computer opens up all sorts of those Ghost in the Shell questions about at what point a cybernetic human stops being a human. But assuming we continue along that path, that's metaphysical questions we're going to have to ask. (Along similar lines is the question raised by articles about Star Trek's transporter technology. If you destroy yourself and then recreate yourself in another location, are you still you? Did you just kill yourself?)

I suspect, however, that religious issues may cause people to be reluctant to allow technology to progress in such areas. AIs may be rigidly regulated, to prevent them from becoming "too human". And while connecting yourself to the network may be a regular occurance, downloading yourself into it and "transferring to another medium", as it were, would probably be frowned upon. Assuming the technology is regulated to the point where full brain replacement simply can't be developed, there would still be something "human" that you could point to and say "that's me". Even though, in the end, there is probably just as much question on a metaphysical level as to whether you're still human as if your entire body is replaced.

I also don't mind adding, in my stories about Alan Midnight, which is set in 2276, I've pretty much made those kinds of assumptions. The article is right, in that in 50 years, at the current pace of development, the technology should be almost unrecognizable, and you'd think in 270 years it would have developed even further. Yet, people are really people no matter what the year, so I'm assuming that at some point, the development will have to stagnate, if not because of physical limitations, because of political pressure.

So while my 2276 has a virtual reality Internet and AIs, most people aren't rich enough to be able to afford the best quality cybernetic implants, much less actual immortality. Most implants are, in fact, black market hack jobs. And AI's are strictly regulated to prevent them from gaining self determination. Alan has experimented with his own AI partner, Rachel, just to see how far an AI CAN progress, but of course that's quite illegal, and so he has made sure even Rachel isn't fully aware of her potential.

Then again, there's no reason why some of my stories might revolve around CRIMINALS who are trying to gain immortality. Or AIs that develop out of control. The question is still there, it's just I'm assuming that until we have some way to know for sure, we're going to be a little wary of downloading ourselves into robots. It sounds fun, yeah, but once you've done it, there's no going back...

[Stalking Shadow]

I'm still waiting for my flying cars.