The technology blogs and news sites are buzzing (Newspond's Buoyancy Rating for this story is currently +131.7 and has risen 13% in the past hour) today about statements made by Intel CTO Justin Rattner at the Intel Developer Forum, including:

"The industry has taken much greater strides than anyone ever imagined 40 years ago," Rattner said. "There is speculation that we may be approaching an inflection point where the rate of technology advancements is accelerating at an exponential rate, and machines could even overtake humans in their ability to reason, in the not so distant future."

This is copied and pasted directly from an Intel news release titled "Intel CTO Says Gap between Humans, Machines will Close by 2050". The release goes on to describe a few of the research projects Intel is undertaking, including human-machine interfaces. While a list of current research projects is not all that unusual in company releases, for such a well-known corporation to precede their list with a definition and acknowledgment of the Singularity most certainly is. That the definition is provided by Rattner, and by extension Intel, so nonchalantly and with no critique is frankly a little frightening. "Yep," they seem to be saying, "it is coming."

Rattner's comments are not merely passing quotes picked up by various news outlets, but part of a formal news release by the speaker's employer. Intel is backing his comments and even highlights them in the headline. Intel is announcing to the world that the Singularity is near.

I missed the obvious mistake in Rattner's statement until another h+ club member pointed it out: exponentials do not have inflection points. However, that this mistake is included in Rattner's statement suggests something about the larger impact of his message. We WANT there to be an inflection point, as some sort of guide, milestone, handhold, starting point on this shocking theory. He makes the same mistake many singularitarians make because the idea is grander than the movement. We are left fumbling with human words to try to describe this concept called the Singularity.

I do not want to suggest that Intel's news release is in any way "proof" that a Singularity will occur. According to some, the word "Singularity" has lost all meaning. I do think it is significant that a version of this idea has taken hold at one of the most closely followed industry drivers, it is informing their current research activities, and they are acknowledging it! If Intel is exploring within a framework that includes the idea of the Singularity, then it is time we sit up and pay attention.

CNET News Daily Debrief: Smart humans, smarter machines?

If Michael Phelps is human, then we transhumanists have our work cut our for us. Un-freakin-believable! This is human excellence, and the bar is set high.

[Previously published on the Neosapiens website.]

It has been a long while since I have blogged. Sorry to all, I have been working on several projects. I will do a better job maintaining this blog. Anyhow, I have been working on how to popularize the transhumanist belief through music, video, and wear. I don't know if it will be successful but I will do my best. I hope to find others to work with.

Back to the question. Why Are We Here? As many transhumanists believe its up to us to answer that question. We will decide our fate. When I was seven years old I looked at my grandmother who was the dearest person in my life and I started to cry because I knew that she would one day die. I made her promise that she would not. She promised she wouldn't. She died 5 years ago. She was very religious and at peace with her beliefs. I was ok with it because I knew nothing could be done. We did not have the knowledge we have now. People accepted death because they had to.

My point, we have to popularize transhumanism because this is our fate. Some of us will not make it through this battle but we will at least have had the ability to push humanity forward. I use the term "Neosapien" because to the word means "New Human". I'm not saying we are more special or elite than others, but we will be judged as having those beliefs and I say let it be. I am a member of the World Transhumanist Association and I see the ability the organization has in making a great impact. I believe Transhumanists will work together in the coming years and will popularize this idea. Why? Because this is why we are here.

Neo

[Previously published on the h+ Tucson website.]

There is an interesting current forming in otherwise largely stagnant TH/h+ community (th+?). It seems the WTA is making somewhat of a land grab to try and unify the whole bit. I have been privy to a good amount of the discussion between all those folks, and it is my general opinion that the lack of movement does not so much represent any lack of drive on the part of all the folks involved. While there is a large number of big thinkers and leaders out there (Bostrom, De Gray, Thiel, Kurzweil, Smart, etc), they have all made systematic departures from parts of the movement as a whole, and carved their own niches. Resultantly, their success does little to support local groups with a wide breadth of ideas.

Let's face it, a lot of the memes presented by the community are controversial and largely counter-current to religious, political, and arguably ethical norms of today's day and age. Whatever gains can be had by presenting yourself as a local leader, are nearly nullified by the fear of being misconstrued as in some way socially or intellectually deviant. I myself have frequently opted to leave my (admittedly limited) leadership experience in h+ off many an application and resume. It was a choice easier than facing the possibility that a potential employer sees the little h+, does some research, and draws conclusions that don't in any way truly represent the kernel of who I am and what I believe in. I am certain that I am not the only one with that fear. You may notice our previous leadership is largely undocumented at the request of the people involved. (To everyone who knows them and may not have been updated in a while as to their condition, they are well and active in their goals)

This practice of secrecy is fundamentally intellectually dishonest. I do not begrudge anyone who makes that choice, but no matter how you cut it you betray your own ideology. I see parallels in this practice with how many followers of less accepted belief systems "pass" as conforming to expectations. Study of race and ethnicity contain similar ideas of "passing", but the point I am trying to get to is the following:

Given the nature what we believe, it becomes hard to cultivate any sort of leadership, and thusly difficult to perpetuate the ideas and organizations that support them. Correspondingly, there remains a real leadership vacuum at many levels in the community as a whole.

I don't know if anyone really reads these blog posts, but I think that the WTA role in the whole movement ought to be consciousness raising. Working on mergers and groups is really just drawing a circle around a group of people who are already close anyway.

h+ is beautiful, and is a natural extension of love for the world. We need to be courageous about saying what we think and advertising the ideas we represent. With increased awareness and understanding of the ideas there will come a systematic decline in the social stigma associated there with.

So with that in mind, I want to set what I hope becomes an example to others. Here is what I believe about some of the h+ contemporary issues:

The h+ meme - We can do more. We can be more. The possibilities of the future grow every more numerous every day. The idea that we can be more than the sum of our parts is an idea I have seen forming in the minds of many unacquainted with the meme. We are already in peoples heads, they just don't have a name for it

The Singularity - Having seen the process by which simple machines can be used to refine themselves with the application of human intelligence, gives me an incredible yearning to see what the future holds. Did you know that saw-mills scan incoming logs and apply complex algorithms to simultaneously minimize the cost of cutting, the wasted wood, and time? Its a computationally trivial task that saves _large_percentages of wood from being scraped and energy being wasted. This is happening in _every_ industry. The power of computers to impact the world around us is simply staggering and is growing. (I will write a whole post about this in the not to distant future)

Radical life extension - It is a good idea. Emphasis on idea. Arguably we have already accomplished this (look at the average neolithic life span), but the idea of entitlement to longer, healthier life spans is a good one. I think that SENS is doing good work in the right places, ditto to all the interesting biochemistry and medical research going on out there. I think the really radical thinkers are overly optimist about the speed at which it is happening, but correspondingly, the medical and biological community displays a similar magnitude of pessimism. It is my belief however that there are so many hurdles even over the horizon of our grasp I give it odds of 5:1 against within our lifetimes. Please don't let that discourage anyone! I myself like the idea that even if I don't beat the curve, that I will be helping those in the future toward that point.

Cryonics - Total BS (at the moment). I am sorry to all or any of you who think otherwise, but solidification/vitrification of geometrically and chemically simpler objects of _far_ lower sensitivity and information density (not to mention huge commercial relevance) remain unsolved problems. The concept is absolutely solid (every pun intended), but it is my belief that about 3 orders of magnitude more research would have to be poured into the problem before it would be in any way realistic.

AGI - It coming. Be nice to your hardware. See Singularity above.

So in conclusion, be courageous. I want to support this idea and spread this meme with all of my heart.

Lastly, don't let your fear decide how you act, your beliefs deserve better.

The world is beautiful place, and it deserves more h+.

-Matthew Goodman

And I will also add a big I TOLD YOU SO, TOO (see the list below of my Frontier Channel articles since 2005 about this very subject)!

From Mashable: "TV Viewers Go Online: See, I Told You So"

According to the article and another at TVWeek, television viewing is down 10% since last year and 17% among 18-49 year olds. Sure, there was a strike, but the Internet is looming like a big black hole. And the network that understands that the most?

CBS.

Yes, CBS. They just purchased one of my longtime favorite online technology properties, CNET (which actually started as a syndicated TV show before turning itself into an online technology news website and other properties.) CBS is also pimping their shows, classics and new, everywhere online, including their own websites, Joost, Amazon Unbox, Apple iTunes, etc.

They are smart to do this, because there is an URGENCY now to survive in this massive video upheaval. In a year or less everyone will be pushing high definition, forcing the broadband providers to increase their capacities and speeds more quickly or face the wrath of their subscribers. If the existing old media content providers do not get their video properties online soon, they will have to compete with increasingly sophisticated online productions.

More signs of the "old media" apocalypse: advertisers are heading to the Web in droves, iTunes is the number one music seller (digital OR physical!), Blockbuster is trying to survive by becoming an electronics store (bad idea!), Walmart and Target are no longer getting the lucrative DVD deals, short video (like YouTube clips) are being uploaded with increasing fervor, and people are watching longer and longer format videos online.

I remember well all the old arguments, repeated time after time in silly commentary as each new digital media announcement was made over the past few years:

Who wants to watch TV on their computers?

More and more people do. However, many more are beginning to realize they no longer need computers to watch online content. Apple TV, media centers, Xbox 360, bigger computer monitors, HDTVs, cellphones, refrigerators...these are just a few of the ways digital content is spreading, and rapidly.

Who wants to pay to watch TV online?

More and more people do. However, much of that video, including premium content, is becoming available for free, with advertisements, or at lower price points (because distributing video digitally is rapidly falling in price compared to physical media.)

There is not enough content.

More and more content is showing up online. Video rental places might have carried several hundred or even a thousand titles; digital stores can carry many times more. iTunes already has 1300 movies available for rent or purchase (Amazon has closer to 6000) and that number will increase rapidly. As for television shows, you can catch most of the latest shows streaming online from the networks themselves, and they are rapidly adding their older titles while keeping their content around for longer periods. The popular 1960's English-dubbed Speed Racer series conveniently showed up on NBC's Hulu.com prior to the live-action movie release. I predict the popular television series X-Files will show up on Amazon and iTunes prior to the theatrical release of X-Files 2: The Return of Mulder and Scully, or How I Have Missed You SO MUCH!

Add to this old media digital content all the amateur content you could possibly want (some of it surprisingly good and much of it getting better and better) as well as more opportunities for niche programming like religious, self-help, lessons, and obscure cult titles, and it becomes imminently clear why digital media will overwhelm...IS overwhelming...media distributed any other way.

Gaming is bigger than Hollywood.

Gaming is also increasingly distributed digitally. After the imminent release of iPhone 2.0, there will be no going back. When handheld devices deliver quality gaming as an afterthought, movie directors begin to dabble in game production, and people begin to demand more from their entertainment, the only distribution network that can handle these trends is the Internet.

Mainstream commentators (wow, do I really think of Mashable as mainstream now?) are beginning to see what some of us recognized in 2005 and earlier: the Internet is the ultimate distribution platform, and its effects arrive far sooner than most people predict. The Internet does not just replace previous distribution platforms, it devours them and sends them into an abyss of collapsing prices and increasing innovation. Just as the Internet does to every industry it reaches.

Well, that was all a bit breathless, if finally obvious to some in retrospect. Saying "I told you so!" is satisfying, but only briefly. Of course, I am also anticipating where these trends are heading. In just the next few years we will see:

• a truly global spanning 24-7-365 Digital Media Jukebox,
• the rapid collapse in pricing corresponding to rapid gains in infrastructure and capabilities,
• the demise of consumer electronics,
• media mashups in gaming and the virtual worlds,
• semantic and automated categorization, sorting, and data mining of digital media, and
• automated media production.

All of this before the middle of next decade, when digital media trends begin to get really interesting. Hint: "I have a song stuck in my head!" will have an entirely new meaning...

My Past Articles About Digital Media Trends

• April 20, 2005 - "What I Want - Automated Internet TV"
• October 12, 2005 - "An Open Letter to Apple"
• October 31, 2005 - "Transitional Video"
• November 3, 2005 - "When is a Podcast not a Podcast?"
• June 14, 2006 - "DVD's in 10, Digital Downloads in 5, and then the Grid"
• July 17, 2006 - "Pandora: Radio Done Right"
• September 9, 2006 - "Bitch 2.0"
• April 29, 2007 - "Goodbye, Pirating"

[Commentary]

The first comment to my post "One of Those Days" is rife with pseudoscience (always bad) and self-promotion (not always bad.) The author speaks of Immortals alive today, well beyond the 150 years posited during the Barbara Walters special. Here at the fringe of science, where the cutting edge may very well be the deluded edge, effectively distinguishing fact from fiction is more important than ever.

Consider this prediction: someday, babies will be grown in test tubes and horror will ensue. For most of the 1970's, in vitro fertilization was a controversial subject, until the first child conceived by this method was born in 1978. The heralding, and outcry, resulted in the Warnock Committee and guidelines for the industry. Today, the practice may be more acceptable but some segments of the population still find the technology ethically reprehensible and the laziest among them can cite examples of misbegotten horrors in science fiction with the best of them. The million and more "test tube babies" today should take these views as an outrageous personal attacks.

Babies were never grown in test tubes. IVF technology is so much more complex than that simplistic description, not the least of which is the fact that the technology requires implantation into a human mother's womb soon after division begins. We talk, though, in grand brush strokes, about test tube babies and clones and chimeras and hybrids and other types of people made possible by technology. The myriad shades of gray in reality are lost in an emotional discourse that paint us all into black and white categories.

And so we make room for pseudoscience. Pseudoscience exploits the naive and gullible, the mentally ill and ignorant. If we are talking about the Technological Singularity, then we must also be talking about the cyborg that really killed people decades ago (as the first caller to yesterday's MIT radio discussion insisted.) If we are talking about hybrids, then we must be talking about half animal, half human creatures that will eat us all. If we are talking about artificial general intelligence, then we must be talking about The Terminator. If we are talking about biological creation, then we must be talking about Intelligent Designers and their alien, omnipotent powers, conveniently tied to our religious comforts. If we are talking about radical life extension, then we must be talking about those Immortals already among us, perhaps gay and Parisian (don't ask; I wish I had never stumbled across those very bizarre ramblings.)

If science can make science fiction possible, then all fiction MUST be possible. Right? Especially that easy science fiction we make up in fits of craziness and self-importance or adherence to traditional values? Certainly not that science hip-hop that requires education and thinking and shutting the hell up to just listen, practice and learn.

Pseudoscience exists where people cannot be bothered to learn otherwise. Pseudoscience exists where people disrespectfully assault science and scientists for their own fleeting gain. To attack science with ignorance is truly morally reprehensible. It is evil, as black as evil ever gets.

If it is difficult for the layperson to tell the difference between pseudoscience and science, then there have been massive failures in our educational system, in our government, and in our communities. Carl Sagan wrote about two important tools for critiquing any claim: an aptitude for wonder and skeptical thinking. Cynicism was not in the tool kit. Neither was faith. Our social systems appear to have taught us usage of the wrong tools.

To sort through science and pseudosciences and other claims at the fringe is not to lose yourself to cynicism. Far from it. This active sorting should only increase your wonder at just how remarkable the Universe and its processes are. To hold real breakthroughs in science against claims in pseudoscience is to see crystal brilliance against filth. Likewise, to appreciate these real wonders is not to lose yourself to faith. A question can be asked, and answered, in all friendly frankness; a failed theory can be discarded with little resentment.

There is no question that we might momentarily mistake the real breakthroughs of today to be straight out of science fiction. But they are not. They ARE NOT. They arise out of the hard work and dedication of scientists, researchers, and technicians who have struggled over the decades to make some sense out of reality and then use this knowledge to solve problems, create new technologies, and improve existence when possible. When a scientist says he was inspired by science fiction, he is being humble. He may have been inspired by science fiction, but THEN he worked hard, studied hard, explored hard. For many years. Often with a lot of sweat, blood, and tears.

The first cloned human embryos are nothing like the clones in science fiction. They are not the result of a writer's imagination but that of a scientist's activity and, of course, imagination. The centenarians, that fast growing demographic in the United States and elsewhere, are nothing like the Immortals of New Age ramblings. They are genetic, environmental, and technological marvels, but also living and breathing members of the human race. What animates them is not the breath of some mythical force but the complex and still poorly understood interplay of physical forces and systems. These 100+ year olds inspire us as no fictional 2,800 year old Immortal could possibly.

No, there is not a 2,800 year old Immortal living among us today, and even if he did, he has nothing on those real people who have survived past 100 years and nothing on those researchers dedicating their time and effort to unlock the secrets of aging. Keep the silly fictions off this site, those silly fictions that do not make the cut if only you use the two tools listed above. Let us discard all silly fictions as soon as we detect them, and get to the business of reality.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 was one of those days, one of those exciting days where life extension was in the news and an h+ club member had a chance to participate in the larger movement.

Life Extension on MSNBC

MSNBC's front page feature was "Longevity quest moves slowly from lab to life". Subtitled "Don't bank on anti-aging pills anytime soon — unless you're a worm", the article surveyed the current state of research into aging and possible solutions. The skepticism provided was mostly about when these technologies would become available for humans.

Reporters have been using centenarians as their angle in recent articles and television programs about longevity and this development is wonderful. This is the soft, humane, and friendly side of radical life extension discourse that until now seemed to be predominated by ethical debates and criticism.

GlaxoSmithKline to acquire Sirtris Pharmaceuticals

News broke on Tuesday that GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to acquire Sirtris Pharmaceuticals for US$22.00 per share (approximately US$720 million total.) Sirtris Pharmaceuticals was recently highlighted on the Barbara Walters' ABC News special "Live to 150, Can You Do It?" for their research into resveratrol and related compounds that may offer the health and life extension benefits of calorie restriction without the painful dieting.

Simone Syed on MIT Radio

Simone Syed, h+ Tucson President, called into MIT's WMBR radio station during the "DJ Awesome & the Wonder Friends" show with guest host Luke Griffiths. Luke's topic was the Technological Singularity, and Simone brought some much needed clarity and respectability to the proceedings after a rather bizarre rant by the first caller. Luke and Simone discussed definitions, transhumanism, and the timing of the Technological Singularity and mind uploading. Later callers included Yonah Berwaldt, past CFO of the Stanford Transhumanist Association and volunteer at Singularity Summit 2007.

The show has already been archived: [Streaming M3U format] Tue Apr 22 06:00 pm.

Transhumanists are often uncomfortable with that label, even when their values align so closely to the philosophy of transhumanism that they could be nothing but. Some tell you that they think the word "transhumanist" sounds too much like "transgendered" or "transsexual", as if (A) anybody except for discriminatory and puerile reasons can pretend to not know the difference, or (B) that would be so bad. Of all people, those making use of medical technology to transform, augment, or explore their body, gender, sexual identity, and/or sexuality might have - today, even! - the most experience with issues all transhumanists will eventually face.

This transformation and this humanism via science and technology is nothing less than transhumanist, in all its etymological grandeur. People know something about this word even the first time they hear it. On the spot, they might claim otherwise, but in their heads the pieces must fit together quite well. They also immediately know what it sounds like, and so they will, if they are immature, escape further thought through immature flights of discrimination. For them such discrimination is entertainment. It is easier than thinking.

Other people immediately conclude the word "transhumanist" is elitist, again due to some attempt to escape further meaningful thought on the topic. Transhumanists could not be further from elitist. The word itself captures the everyperson aspect of its meaning. Transhumanists are not fully formed end products; they are humble and transitioning individuals, caught up in the daily grind of progress, attempting to humanely improve themselves and their family and friends and their situations. They wrap themselves in a label that embraces fundamental transitions like that between suffering and happiness, body and machine, biology and technology, Homo sapiens sapiens and, well, something else.

To ignore the impact of science and technology is a game of the reprehensible. To face, even embrace, this reality is not elitist in nature but the appropriate preparation for difficult decisions and opportunities today and tomorrow. Transhumanists are not derogatory stereotypes who live in the future but everypeople who live today and pay attention to the future via present-day trends.

Call yourself transhumanist. It is okay. Learn the philosophy, support the social movement, and then personalize the transhumanist label, because you will ultimately face all that the word implies as an individual. Reach out to people who already know something about transition. And if someone mocks you for being just like a transsexual, be just like a transsexual proudly.

Michael Anissimov of Accelerating Future posted a kind mention of the h+ sites, including our recent updates.

I have been following Anissimov's blog for a long time and I recommend his perspective and commentary. There are two other Accelerating Future reference projects I recommend as highly informative, even useful:

• People Database - a who's who reference of interesting and active participants in the transhumanist, singularitarian, physical immortalist (radical life extensionist?), and related movements.
• Future Current - a collection of transcripts of talks by these participants.

Recently a few of the better known transhumanist websites were taken down by malicious hacking attacks, according to a post on the recovered WTA site. It is unclear if these attacks were ideologically motivated.

One of our chapter sites is down - CU Ethics and Emerging Technology Society (CUEETS) - also possibly due to a malicious attack, though so far this does not appear to be related to the earlier attacks. The sites hosted on hplusclub.com appear to be fine, which might indicates our newbie status in the transhumanist community or the randomness of previous attacks, or neither.