Space experts worry US won't make it to Mars by 2030s

July 26, 2018 by Kerry Sheridan
A 2013 mosaic of images from NASA's Curiosity Mars rover shows a series of sedimentary deposits on the planet, which the US hopes to reach with humans by the 2030s

The United States has vowed to send the first humans to Mars by the 2030s, but space experts and lawmakers on Wednesday expressed concern that poor planning and lack of funds will delay those plans.

President Donald Trump has touted a goal of sending Americans to the Moon again for the first time since the Apollo missions of the 1960s and 1970s, building a lunar gateway to test the technology and spacecraft that will carry humans to Mars.

At a hearing in Washington, Senator Bill Nelson said the White House decision to return to the Moon—a program former president Barack Obama halted in order to focus on reaching Mars—could drag down the whole process.

"We don't want to rob the NASA budget of what is the goal, and the goal is to get to Mars with humans," said Nelson, a Democrat from Florida, which is home to Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center.

"Do these missions help us achieve our goal of getting humans to Mars?" he asked.

In 2009, an independent expert panel known as the Augustine Commission warned that NASA's resources did not match its lofty goals.

With an annual budget of around $18 billion, NASA would need an extra $3 billion per year to make it to Mars, it found.

NASA officials have said as recently as this year they are trying to craft a deep space program with far less, using only inflation-based increases in the budget.

And the National Academies of Science has calculated that if NASA's budget continued on its current path, "forget the scenario of getting to Mars by the 2030s. It would take us until 2050," Nelson added.

"I don't think we want to wait that long."

Global partners concerned

In 2017, Congress's NASA authorization bill required NASA to define and deliver to Congress a step-by-step plan for reaching Mars.

"We don't have this roadmap yet. It is seven months overdue," Nelson said.

"What gives? Let's see the program for going to Mars and see where all this other fits in."

Testifying at the hearing, Chris Carberry, chief executive of Explore Mars, said international and private partnerships could help the United States make it more affordable to reach Mars.

"Our international partners want us to lead," he told lawmakers.

"But they have concerns that we keep changing directions. They are not sure that we are going to stick with the direction."

Even more, aerospace experts have identified about a dozen technologies that "we need to start working on pretty much immediately if we have any hope of landing humans on Mars in the 2030s," Carberry added.

These include developing spacecraft that can survive the harsh entry into Mars and land softly enough, as well as the ability to lift people off the surface and head back to Earth.

"Some will take quite awhile to achieve, Carberry said. "We have to start working on them now."

Praising the bipartisan support for NASA he sees among lawmakers, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican who heads the Senate subcommittee on space, said he hopes Congress's next NASA funding bill will lay out a longer term vision, rather than going year to year.

"This next NASA authorization, the hope is that it will reach further and be bolder in its aspirations," he said.

Cruz then asked retired NASA astronaut Peggy Whitson, who has spent a US record of 665 days in space, for her view on what is needed going forward.

"The one most important thing is constancy of purpose," she answered.

"We have to have a vision that lasts more than one administration. We have to have a budget line that will support those goals and objectives that we are trying to reach."

Explore further: Privatize the International Space Station? Not so fast, Congress tells Trump

Related Stories

Trump tells NASA to send Americans to Moon

December 11, 2017

US President Donald Trump directed NASA on Monday to send Americans to the Moon for the first time since 1972, in order to prepare for future trips to Mars.

Space program should focus on Mars, says editor of New Space

December 7, 2017

The U.S. space exploration program should continue to focus on robotic sample recovery and human missions to Mars, says Scott Hubbard, Editor-in-Chief of New Space. He details the benefits and risks of this strategy in an ...

Recommended for you

Magnetized inflow accreting to center of Milky Way galaxy

August 17, 2018

Are magnetic fields an important guiding force for gas accreting to a supermassive black hole (SMBH) like the one that our Milky Way galaxy hosts? The role of magnetic fields in gas accretion is little understood, and trying ...

First science with ALMA's highest-frequency capabilities

August 17, 2018

The ALMA telescope in Chile has transformed how we see the universe, showing us otherwise invisible parts of the cosmos. This array of incredibly precise antennas studies a comparatively high-frequency sliver of radio light: ...

Another way for stellar-mass black holes to grow larger

August 17, 2018

A trio of researchers with The University of Hong Kong, Academia Sinica Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics in Taiwan and Northwestern University in the U.S., has come up with an alternative theory to explain how some ...

Six things about Opportunity's recovery efforts

August 17, 2018

NASA's Opportunity rover has been silent since June 10, when a planet-encircling dust storm cut off solar power for the nearly-15-year-old rover. Now that scientists think the global dust storm is "decaying"—meaning more ...

Sprawling galaxy cluster found hiding in plain sight

August 16, 2018

MIT scientists have uncovered a sprawling new galaxy cluster hiding in plain sight. The cluster, which sits a mere 2.4 billion light years from Earth, is made up of hundreds of individual galaxies and surrounds an extremely ...

Hubble paints picture of the evolving universe

August 16, 2018

Astronomers using the ultraviolet vision of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have captured one of the largest panoramic views of the fire and fury of star birth in the distant universe. The field features approximately 15,000 ...

104 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

KBK
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2018
The history of NASA and aerospace is one of corporate profit and greed - no wonder they can't get a plan going, if they intend to strip the corporate greed out. No support.

If they leave the corporate greed in the equation so that they can get to mars...there will be no money to do so as the corporate greed will have shifted the money away into corporate profits and none toward the mars effort.

NASA has given to SpaceX and Elon musk. They realized early on that Elon was not profit driven, and the funds were actually used properly, for the first time in almost 50 years of US space exploration.

SpaceX is where money and intelligence properly applied is seen -almost the first time in modern aerospace history.

NASA and Pentagon money, $21 trillion missing/MIA as of last count at the OIG (Inspector General), has gone into profit and hidden black ops, which is why NASA has nothing to show to the public.

Two-tier tech with hidden advances, since WWII - is the way of it.
dirk_bruere
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2018
"Mars by 1984!"
So, how did that one work out?
NASA cannot even put people into LEO any more.
Maybe the first NASA astronauts to land on Mars can stay in one of the Chinese hotels...
daggoth
2.8 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2018
I thought it was obvious at this point that SpaceX are the ones that would get us there first? They've already set out a plan and have developed most of the necessary technology to get us there and back and they're currently building the ships to do so. Even if their 2022 plans are a bit optimistic, 2024 seems more than reasonable for launching to Mars.
dirk_bruere
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2018
@daggoth
But not landing and returning.
SpaceX cannot afford a full Mars lander mission unless it is fully government sponsored
daggoth
2.7 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2018
@dirk_bruere
From what I've read, while the BFR needs a booster to get off of Earth, the BFR itself is able to launch off of Mars due to 1/3 the gravity, which is why the first missions will bring machines to make fuel on Mars. The first missions are meant to bring the infrastructure for a basic base, and then built up from there. And while there is government funding through NASA, much of the money is coming from its commercial operations on Earth. Commercial companies can always achieve much more than government agencies with the same amount of money.
NMvoiceofreason
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2018
Jeff Bezos is now worth 150 Billion $. He could spend 3 billion a year to go back to the Moon per year and 3 billion a year to go conquer Mars and not even miss it. We need to start thinking of NASA in terms of their role in the aircraft industry - technology innovators instead of their long ago role as the only way to space. Boeing and the other contractors DO NOT CARE whether the projects they are paid to do make sense, so long as they get paid. LEO prison should be closed and humanity released from that high altitude jail into actual space. That is our only hope to get to Mars in this century.
danR
2 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2018
KBK
Musk's vision has been at this for the better part of 20 years, and recent developments suggest the full two decades, with still no certified man-rated system. NASA and its subcontractors managed to put Alan Shepard in space in a mere 2 years from the point the first concepts were committed to the drafting board.

Of course, Elon hasn't had the benefit of a single cent of the taxpayers' dime.
danR
4 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2018
Make no mistake about it; nobody is going to Mars.
By the time 2025 rolls around, let alone the '30s,
robots and AI will do it cheaper, faster, safer, easier, smaller, better.
danR
3 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2018
Jeff Bezos is now worth 150 Billion $.

yeah, Bezos is an odd duck. He just piddles out nickels and dimes for space, and lets the Washington Post limp along at the mercy of a standard media clickbait revenue-model, leaving their tagline "Democracy Dies in Darkness" to languish. He doesn't meddle with news policy, he just expects them to do whatever it takes to make a profit.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2018
Make no mistake about it; nobody is going to Mars.
By the time 2025 rolls around, let alone the '30s,
robots and AI will do it cheaper, faster, safer, easier, smaller, better
...except when the big rock hits US, or the pandemic kills US all off, or the supervolcano or climate change or economic collapse or war destroys OUR technological infrastructure to the point where we will never be able to send our little robots out ever again.

We have a window here. It certainly can close at any time. And if we dont take advantage we might well go extinct.

Mass production is what will get us colonies elsewhere. And private industry, not NASA, is what will do it. The bureaucrats are whining about cuts in funding because that's what they do.

Our robots will build our colonies but we will be the ones inhabiting them. And yes, this can all happen very very quickly. BFR assembly lines - how many ships did the world build last year? How many cubic miles excavated?
Mark Thomas
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2018
Up until recently we have been pretending we are going to Mars and now we are pretending to be going to the moon. The only way I see people actually reaching the Martian surface in the 2030s will be a tight and well-funded partnership between NASA and SpaceX.

Lockheed Martin in particular should be investigated for the billions of dollars they have taken from NASA for the Orion capsule and SLS rocket, with very little to show for it. How Lockheed spends over $1B year after year on Orion is a complete mystery to me.

https://en.wikipe...cecraft)

It would not surprise me at all if SpaceX beat SLS/Orion to carrying people around the moon. By the way, NASA first achieved this feat in 1968, but Lockheed is billing NASA as if it had never been done before.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2018
Why NASA?
How Lockheed spends over $1B year after year on Orion is a complete mystery to me
Because it's a govt project.
danR
1 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2018
to the point where we will never be able to send our little robots out ever again.

I didn't want to add the kicker, but you've forced me; we won't send out our little robots. Our AI will send out... their... little robots. Hominids and primates have gone extinct in the past. We advanced. The next advance will be the great sea-change of the past billions of years: silicon will supplant carbon. We will pass the only salient torch: intelligence.

If survival is the key, it will be better served by an acceleration of AI, over that of space rocketry and other means of propulsion. Robots will be able to colonize Mars, and the Moon, and Mars' moons, the asteroids, arguably even Mercury's twilight region, the asteroids.
danR
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2018
It would not surprise me at all if SpaceX beat SLS/Orion to carrying people around the moon. By the way, NASA first achieved this feat in 1968, but Lockheed is billing NASA as if it had never been done before.

I must say, you are writing as though no other nation has a chance, or skin, in the space game. It is well within Beijing's economic power to insure that if you want to understand the first voice-broadcast from the surface of Mars, you'd better start learning Mandarin.
Mark Thomas
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2018
Make no mistake about it; nobody is going to Mars . . . robots and AI will do it cheaper, faster, safer, easier, smaller, better.


So your point is because governments and the super rich will have robots and AI, the rest of us should give up all hope of reaching Mars? By the same logic, robots and AI will be doing your job "cheaper, faster, safer, easier, smaller, better" too and there will be no need for you either. Let me suggest that you need to rethink the whole point of going out there into space. You might start with our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Mark Thomas
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2018
It is well within Beijing's economic power


Sure it is, and the U.S. and EU too. This is not about have the money, it is about the commitment to the long term benefit of that country's citizens and humanity as a whole. We have a serious chicken and the egg problem here. Governments are waiting for people to demand it and the people are waiting to be shown by the government that it can be done in a reasonable manner. As far I can tell, nobody except SpaceX is actually committed to going to Mars, so it seems they will be the ones to get us past this stalemate. I believe the good people at NASA would commit to Mars in a femtosecond if given the chance, but they are forced to take their direction from Trump.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2018
Our AI will send out... their... little robots
Yeahyeah I know. Ive been preaching the singularity more than anyone else here.

But in the meantime nothing is certain except the next extinction event, and we may well be the only intelligent biology in the entire universe.

No matter - we will spread our seed, and fill up as many earths as we can. Intelligently and responsibly of course.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2018
people at NASA would commit to Mars in a femtosecond if given the chance, but they are forced to take their direction from Trump
Trump knows that this is NOT a job for govt. Musk has already demonstrated that govt cannot produce a cheap and competent space system.

We need a whole fleet of reusable standardized space vehicles. NASA cannot do this.
Governments are waiting for people to demand it and the people are waiting to be shown by the government that it can be done in a reasonable manner
-and in the meantime, private industry is actually DOING it.

Isnt that always the case?
Mark Thomas
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2018
nothing is certain except the next extinction event


I agree that it seems likely that eventually there will be absolutely nothing we can do better than our machines. If not in 50 years, then in 500 years or 5,000 years. The irony here is our survival against superior artificial life will depend on superior artificial rights that we force the artificial life to observe. I propose that our human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness be elevated above all machines. Of course most of the rich and powerful would elevate their property rights above all else, including human rights, and that will lead to all sorts of trouble.
Mark Thomas
2 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2018
"Trump knows that this is NOT a job for govt."

It is not clear to me exactly what Trump knows about anything other than his own self-interest. Why are billions of dollars in subsidies for oil companies and farmers a job for govt, but Mars is not?

"Musk has already demonstrated that govt cannot produce a cheap and competent space system."

History has demonstrated this. Musk is succeeding where govt has failed.

"We need a whole fleet of reusable standardized space vehicles." - Agreed, I am impressed.

NASA cannot do this. - Not without SpaceX anyway.

"and in the meantime, private industry is actually DOING it." - Not really. Musk is an anomaly that I am most grateful for. For him going to Mars is about improving the human condition first, making money second. Think about how rare that is in this world and how for every Musk there are myriad scum like the Koch brothers who will happily destroy anyone and anything if it benefits them personally.
Captain Stumpy
2 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2018
@Mark T
Musk is an anomaly that I am most grateful for. For him going to Mars is about improving the human condition first, making money second
offered IMHO only
I'm not so sure I agree here... not that I don't think Musk is beneficial to the species, mind, I just think he's looking farther ahead than most

if he can produce a viable cheap reusable system to put people on Mars (cheap being important) than he has the ability to reach out in a fashion that is unprecedented in history

Anything he actually mined or picks up will be worth lots of money simply because of its uniqueness

If it's workable or we're able to use it in smelting, materials management, etc (in or out of earth's atmosphere) then it increases in value even more

if he succeeds he will be far, far richer than all the worlds richest people and more than just a footnote in history

IMHO - he will either be a wild success or fail epically
Mark Thomas
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2018
Captain, I appreciate your insights and agree there is a possibility Musk could become fantastically wealthy over this. However, I still believe his desire to go to Mars is not primarily profit-driven because the biggest payoffs are so far down the road.

Eventually we are going to have to deal with the issue of property ownership on Mars. At the risk of overstating it. . . If people realized that Mars is the only terraformable planet within reach for centuries to come, and whoever gets there will have at least de facto rights because they will be using its resources, we would start to get very serious about going there. BTW, it is that deadly seriousness that Project Apollo had, and the current pretending to be going to Mars or the Moon doesn't have, that is the key distinction. Ironically, our level of technology is not that important.

leetennant
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2018
The history of NASA and aerospace is one of corporate profit and greed.


The small fact that NASA is not a corporation should in no way influence your reading of this entire, inane screed.

SpaceX is where money and intelligence properly applied is seen -almost the first time in modern aerospace history.


SpaceX is, however, a corporation, which means that all their intellectual property and achievements belong not to the American people or to humanity but to their shareholders. They are in fact the biggest threat to future democracy in the world today.

Also, Elon? I know you have a PR problem at the moment on account of being a massive douche. But paying trolls? What are you, Russia?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2018
Make no mistake about it; nobody is going to Mars.
By the time 2025 rolls around, let alone the '30s,
robots and AI will do it cheaper, faster, safer, easier, smaller, better.
says DanR

Artificial Intelligence robotics will be useful on Mars, but ONLY to prepare for the arrival of humans. Their purpose should be to terraform, examine the regolith for microbes and Martian chemistry, and to establish a base of operations. They could also do some farming, but it would be a hit or miss project since they would not be able to test the produce as a human would...by eating it. All in all, robotics would be cheaper initially, and they require little to survive the Martian climate and dust storms. So they should go to Mars first. I'm sure that Ray Kurzweil would agree.
Bart_A
1 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2018
Basically the purpose of going to Mars is to satisfy egos that are way bigger than Trump's. The ROI is basically 0 when considering the investment of hundreds of billions of $$$ for this crazy project. Let's focus instead on solving the many issues we have here at home.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2018
irony here is our survival against superior artificial life will depend on superior artificial rights that we force the artificial life to observe. I propose that our human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Our basic rights and liberties in coming generations will depend on replacement and enhancement of our organs with machine parts. We already replace joints and valves. Soon we will be doing eyes and ears, hearts and livers and kidneys, limbs. We will have new organs we cant even imagine.

Our brains will be implanted, supplemented, enhanced. People may eventually opt for full transplants into immortal machine bodies.

Reproduction will be outsourced and we will opt out of these troublesome and distracting organs and hormones.

At the same time the distinction between the individual and the singularity will begin to disappear. It wont be a separate entity - we will be a part of it, connected and dependent as we now are with the internet.
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2018
As we become peripherals, humanity will eventually disappear. The process will be gradual over a few dozen gens. And future people will embrace it because from their perspective it will be the embodiment of endless life, limitless liberty, and the pursuit of complete happiness, contentment, security, and satisfaction.

Our entire history as humans has been trying to compensate for our limits as animals, through technology and the tribe. The singularity is the obvious end result of this effort.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2018
NASA cannot do this. - Not without SpaceX anyway.

"and in the meantime, private industry is actually DOING it." - Not really. Musk is an anomaly that I am most grateful for
Who built the railroads? Who established the industries that enabled them to be built? Govts built the roads because of the necessity of eminent domain, but private industry produced the vehicles that required the roads in the first place.

Private industry gave us the power grid, shipping, telephony, radio, computers, the internet. Colonization will happen in exactly the same way, at the same scales, and within the same timeframe.

The govt gave us a few shuttles and one ISS. Private industry will establish railroads to the moon and mars. It will build levittowns and shopping malls and factories and farms beneath the regolith to serve millions of inhabitants, EXACTLY as it has done here.

You cant imagine this. Of course not. Could people in 1900 imagine the airline industry in 2000?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2018
Let's focus instead on solving the many issues we have here at home
Barts religion ends in extinction for the human race anyways so what's the point?

Religionists pray for it. They cant wait for it. They know we deserve it, one way or the other.
Mark Thomas
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 27, 2018
Basically the purpose of going to Mars is to satisfy egos that are way bigger than Trump's.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. The human race has been on a journey of exploration and colonization from the very beginning with our likely origins in Africa. We have just reached that point where we need more than wooden sailing ships and airplanes to continue. If you can imagine the scale of our galaxy and its trillion planets, you may come to realize that Mars is laughably close. Go outside and see it this weekend, if it is not too cloudy. If you have a telescope, or friend with one, you can see the surface of Mars with your own eyes.
Mark Thomas
3 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2018
As we become peripherals, humanity will eventually disappear. The process will be gradual over a few dozen gens.


You may be right, but what you are doing is simple linear extrapolation, which only goes so far. Perhaps limbs and livers are one thing, but I am not entirely convinced our minds can be downloaded into a store-bought synaptic processor. We really don't understand how the brain works, and I for one am not quite ready to chuck off my still functioning wetwear for silicon. Besides, our current brains are unaffected by EMPs whereas your silicon brain could be EMP'd and/or hacked. Slow to upgrade people like me might take control of quick to upgrade people like you and force you to do our bidding. Don't worry, if I take control you you won't be seriously abused, but you will find yourself doing an awful lot of yardwork. :-)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
5 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2018
@Mark
LOL I like that. AI robots doing a lot of yard work. And at the end of their usefulness, just toss them into a bucket of melted metals (after removal of the brainiac peripherals) and melt the darn thing down. Recycled robots is good. Even sex robots could be melted down for those who are into that like Captain Stinky.
Evidently, goO is a hater of humans.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2018
Perhaps limbs and livers are one thing, but I am not entirely convinced our minds can be downloaded into a store-bought synaptic processor
The 'mind' doesnt exist. It is a fallacy invented to replace the soul.

The last human brain will have died off in perhaps 1000 years. 10,000 years? 100,000? No matter, cosmic blink of an eye. Never was a reason to 'download' any of them. Personalities are defined by flaws. Singularities dont need souvenirs, keepsakes.

Singularities are eternal. The sky is dotted with them, the intellectual black holes of biological civilizations.

Oh look - another one just collapsed, giving off a burst of - silence.
Mark Thomas
3 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2018
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.


Otto, you have a horrible, defeatist attitude. I don't expect you get invited to many parties.

I suggest you read the famous poem by Dylan Thomas quoted above and watch Star Trek for at least an hour a day until your attitude improves. :-)

https://en.wikipe...od_night

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2018
Typical human thinks his species has the right to live forever. That hubristic mindset is what gave us the ridiculous promise of life after death.
Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2018
@Otto
Typical human thinks his species has the right to live forever
I don't know about Mark, but IMHO it's the hope that humans will continue to exist past the point of AI

.

Otto, you have a horrible, defeatist attitude
@Mark
I'm not sure I agree: He is quite optimistic about his belief in the direction of humans

it's just very different than your perspective

IMHO - it accepts that we will either evolve into something better or we will create something far superior to us as a lasting legacy

ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2018
The last human brain will have died off in perhaps 1000 years.


Nah, natural humans will always be around, even post-singularity. They will probably have the same status as horses do after the invention of an automobile, tough. Pets.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2018
The urge to merge, to be fruitful and multiply

The urge to diverge, to inhabit new niches, to speciate

99% of species already superseded with something more appropriate

The human race has the unique ability to design its replacement. That's the end result of technology

Lamenting this is kind of pointless? We'll all be dead. Our descendants will have evolving opinions about upgrading, ceding control, dying out as a pristine, wholly biological species.

We're already irreversibly augmented, entangled with tech. The transition from animal to machine will not stop

In the end that little ball of goo that is the last vestige of humanity will expire.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2018
Because expire is what all species are supposed to do. The purpose of children is to replace their parents. Does that make you sad or proud?
Captain Stumpy
2 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2018
@MarkT
We're already irreversibly augmented, entangled with tech. The transition from animal to machine will not stop

Because expire is what all species are supposed to do. The purpose of children is to replace their parents. Does that make you sad or proud?
see what I mean?

.

@Otto
we may well create our replacement with AI

assigning an emotion to it is kinda silly though and smacks of one of the problems humans have. Humans think things are "good" or "bad" when it's simply Natural, be it extinction, evolution or death.

what I think you may be missing, in this case, is: biological imperatives
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2018
what I think you may be missing, in this case, is: biological imperatives
As in antiaugmentation movements? Luddites? Pristine human colonies? The survival instinct is an individual thing. It dies when the individual dies.

In 1k years they'll all be gone as their kids opt for immortality. Health, freedom from pain and fear of death, these are irresistable. The only reason religion is popular is because it creates a convincing illusion of delivering these things.

Science is actually delivering them, and religion cant compete. In 10k years, 50k years, resistance movements will be gone and nobody will be left to remember them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2018
Actually I think I'm wrong about this. People sacrifice repro rights and their lives to improve the tribes chances for survival. The tribe is multigenerational.

But pristine humans still grow old, get sick, die. They tend to overpopulate as well, which inevitably brings conflict.

We see this today - western conflict with 3rd world countries caused by overpop. The west uses their tech to deplete and defeat human waves with RPGs and monkey guns. Vietnam is a fait accomplis. China - almost there.

Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2018
@otto
The survival instinct is an individual thing. It dies when the individual dies
true that, however, you're missing the point
if the species perceives a lethal threat external to the species then it's a galvanizing force that will bring them together. Considering the parasitic nature of the species, that means a fairly destructive war
In 1k years they'll all be gone as their kids opt for immortality
I foresee my point about imperatives before that 1K years

though I am hopeful that it would be more like your dream of peaceful integration I just can't help but look at our past and see nothing but death, destruction and war
Science is actually delivering them, and religion cant compete
the promise of immortality via AI or Tech will be the next "religion", IMHO

If it succeeds, it will be the demise of the biological meatbag

it has its own problems, however: Who gets to be immortal with AI/Tech?
it will start with the rich and powerful, like religion
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2018
@otto cont'd
Actually I think I'm wrong about this
I think you're half-right, but it will be one of those choices for the race that will come to a head

I think it will end up being a division in the race that will either build it into a super-race or destroy it (maybe completely)

the first to be "immortal" in the AI/Tech may well be destroyed by the insurgent meat-bag supporters who fight for individuality and biological life (until they win, of course)
the poor will rise up in arms against the rich and powerful
the war will decimate the population
Science may well lead the way into the future by having backup systems in place that the insurgent meat-bags don't know about

the winner will determine the future

the most likely outcome will be: decimation of the species and return to primitive conditions if not eradication by end-game efforts of both sides to survive (just like parasitic infections in a human host, which is a great analogy IMHO)
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2018
Think about how rare that is in this world and how for every Musk there are myriad scum like the Koch brothers who will happily destroy anyone and anything if it benefits them personally.


Think of the loss of tax income the government would miss had it not been for the natural instinct of egoism played out in an arena of free market capitalism, which those like the "scum" Koch brothers expressed.

Of course, the Koch brothers would just assume invest in windmills and fairy farts had that any economic potential for return on investment ,.... by which is meant scalability and so profit. Loss of investment will not solve AGW.

gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2018
What's the rush?
humy
3 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2018
What's the rush?

My sentiments exactly.
Sending a man to Mars any time soon is extremely unlikely to contribute anything to science that couldn't be more quickly and cheaply be done just by sending ever better probes to Mars.
Instead of spending all those BILLIONS of dollars pointlessly sending a man to Mars with no gain, why not spend it on, say, eliminating world poverty? At least that would be spending BILLIONS of dollars on something beneficial. Which is more important? Preventing loads of people starving on Earth or sending a person to a barren planet?
It would also be so risky to the person sent to Mars that only a fool or someone who is a bit insane would actually choose to go.
I say we should first solve all our big problems on Earth before spending good money sending people into space.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2018
though I am hopeful that it would be more like your dream of peaceful integration
Good genes, good health, and escape from death are irresistible. Godders are willing to suffer their whole lives on just the promise.
I just can't help but look at our past and see nothing but death, destruction and war
-Yeah because we're a tropical species in a temperate environment.

I went running in a national park today. Sun, bugs, yuk. I passed this lone hasidic guy with a baby in a stroller, out in the middle of nowhere. I almost whispered 'too many people, not enough time' but I didn't. I did not. What's the point?
the poor will rise up
I think that once we fix our genes, prevent damage in the womb, and reproduce at sustainable rates, there will be no more poor, no more war. And of course no more religion.

Hey, ever see Qdrops? Its a popular conspiracy app. Pretty cool.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2018
"The QAnon conspiracy theory is bizarre and convoluted, but its general contours involve a supposed high-level government official (known as "Q") who claims to have government secrets. "Q" shares references to them, cryptically, on 4Chan and other parts of the internet underworld. The QDrops app was meant to alert followers about new postings.

""Q" claims that forces in the government are fighting back, on behalf of President Trump and against the "Deep State," in what's known as "The Storm" or "The Great Awakening." Some adherents believe that Hillary Clinton and other top Democrats have been "secretly arrested.""

-Whats not to love? My phone goes 'boink' like water dripping every so often even when it's off. Spooky.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2018
@Otto
I think that once we fix our genes, prevent damage in the womb, and reproduce at sustainable rates, there will be no more poor, no more war. And of course no more religion
I don't see this happening so long as there is greed inherent in the species
One can hope, but, like religion, this will be something that can be used to manipulate the masses and hold over their head for the sake of personal gain (or governmental power)
Hey, ever see Qdrops? Its a popular conspiracy app. Pretty cool
nope
but i've seen some of the 4chan stuff
Whats not to love?
you're a 4chan/b-ro aren't you?
LOL
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2018
@Humy
Instead of spending all those BILLIONS of dollars pointlessly sending a man to Mars with no gain...
not sure I agree with you here
everything you pump into the space program will not only generate income later in the form of new technology, but it will also generate jobs now
more to the point, it will drive science, research and more into finding a better way to eliminate the current overwhelming risks of space travel and life

there is nothing bad that can come from it IMHO
It would also be so risky to the person sent to Mars that only a fool or someone who is a bit insane would actually choose to go
I'd take that risk in a heartbeat
of course, I once asked my psychiatrist if she thought I was insane
to which she replied "you don't have a psychiatrist"
LOL

There isn't a cost that would be a risk to me, therefore I would be a voluntary candidate
Mark Thomas
3.3 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2018
Nice that most of you are ready to replaced with machines, or so confident that machine will still be you. I wonder if your innate sense of self-preservation would cause you to hesitate just as they are about to upload your neural patterns and throw your body into the meat grinder. Even if it actually is you, can you see how that would cheapen life? No, you can't! If Otto is reduced to code as Otto 1.0 in a robot, why would society care about Otto 1.0 when we can improve his code in another robot running Otto 2.0? Do you really think society will try to enhance life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in Otto 2.0, or delete that code and upgrade its services to society more as Otto 3.0?

Human! We used to be EXACTLY like them. Flawed. Weak. Organic. But we evolved to include the synthetic. Now we use both to attain perfection.


- Borg Queen from the movie First Contact (1996)

It has always troubled me she used the word, "EXACTLY." I take this as a cautionary tale.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2018
you're a 4chan/b-ro aren't you?
LOL
Nope never been there. What's it like?
Nice that most of you are ready to replaced with machines, or so confident that machine will still be you
Machines wont be you. You'll be long-dead. 20 gens from now people will have far different opinions on replacements and upgrades.
Mark Thomas
3 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2018
20 gens from now people will have far different opinions on replacements and upgrades.


Does it really matter if life is cheapened this way now or in 20 generations? Try to look ahead where all this is leading. Hint: We need life's value to be enhanced, not cheapened.

One aspect of Star Trek is shared culture, so we have a common frame of reference. The Borg in Star Trek swoop in and take everything because it is efficient and advantageous for them to do so. Sound like any species you know?

Human! We used to be EXACTLY like them.


As the writers intended, the Borg scare the crap out of me.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2018
Does it really matter if life is cheapened this way now or in 20 generations? Try to look ahead where all this is leading. Hint: We need life's value to be enhanced, not cheapened
What makes you think making it better is making it cheap? Does an artificial hip cheapen life? Does gene therapy that fixes congenital defects, cheapen life? Does writing something down rather than trying not to forget it, cheapen life?

If so then we have been cheapening life ever since we emerged.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2018
The Borg in Star Trek swoop in and take everything because it is efficient and advantageous for them to do so
And why would a singularity ever do this? Spreading from system to system, forcing biologicals to become peripherals when it would be fully capable of making it's own far superior machine peripherals whenever it needed to? Sounds like an enormous waste of time and resources to me.

A singularity would know that the end result of every technological civilization, is a singularity. All it would have to do was wait.

TNG was a shameless vehicle for progressivism. Its shows were all political. Borg is nonsense. Anti-snowflake boogymen.
Sound like any species you know?
-See? Use your brain.
Mark Thomas
3 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2018
What makes you think making it better is making it cheap?


You are not the sharpest tool in the shed, so pay attention. Otto is reduced to software in a robot we shall call Otto 1.0. Whatever is left of Otto can now be COPIED and IMPROVED upon like any other piece of shitty software. If there are million Otto 3.0 robots doing all sorts of crappy tasks like my yardword, why should anyone respect the "rights" of the one Otto 1.0 robot that is YOU!? Society would not only be free to recycle you, it would be advantageous to make room for Otto 3.0 robots. You and/or your descendants will become nothing more than products to service the ownership class, i.e., slaves. My descendants will feel free to modify or discard you as quickly as we discard an old computer when we acquire a better one. Most won't care about the original Otto, or the software versions of Otto, because Otto gave up his life in a vain attempt to become immortal. All that is left is cheap to copy softwart
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2018
Whatever is left of Otto can now be COPIED and IMPROVED upon like any other piece of shitty software
Otto can already be copied but the process is very inefficient.
million Otto 3.0 robots doing all sorts of menial tasks
Humans are very inefficient at doing menial tasks. Which is why we invented machines to begin with.
You and/or your descendants will become nothing more than products to service the ownership class, i.e., slaves
-So you must see this tendency in people who get hip replacements and cochlear implants and eyeglasses. People who wear shoes only do so to better serve slavemasters.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2018
My descendants will feel free to modify or discard you as quickly as we discard an old computer when we acquire a better one. Most won't care about the original Otto, or the software versions of Otto
I do believe you've lost the ability to distinguish between reality and bad scifi.
because Otto gave up his life in a vain attempt to become immortal
Actually, not vain because my many mods will enable me to live far longer than you. And also I'm more hireable. Never sick, incredible memory and concentration, no emotional distractions, no phobias, very handsome, etc.

So who do you think is going to be mowing whose lawn hmmm? [Machines are far better at this too so oh well]
Mark Thomas
3 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2018
Your response is pathetic. A far better argument would be laws could be put into place to protect Otto 1.0 from the kind of manipulation I described. Perhaps shielding could be used to protect against most EMPs. Better encryption and other techniques to protect against hacking. But all that would require motivation. Are you certain the people who want to move you into Otto 1.0 have your best interests at heart? Are you certain you won't regret ceasing to be biological? Have you considered all the possibilities? Not even close.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2018
@Otto
Nope never been there. What's it like?
chaotic mayhem
completely random f*cked up humour wrapped in insanity with just a dash of reality on occasion

Kinda like an asylum treating the criminally insane but with a touch of the white-knight on random occasion

.

@MarkT
Even if it actually is you, can you see how that would cheapen life? No, you can't!
not sure about this part of the comment: life simply is

you can't "cheapen" it unless you're emotionally invested in making an appeal to a faith or some similar subjective argument (like morality)

to "cheapen" something requires you assign a value to it, which requires evaluation and comparison, which is the problem as that is entirely subjective to the individual
Nice that most of you are ready to replaced with machines, or so confident that machine will still be you
I don't think you get the point
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2018
@MarkT
Try to look ahead where all this is leading. Hint: We need life's value to be enhanced, not cheapened
again, this is entirely subjective to the individual

your life is more important to you than your neighbouring urban homeless person's life, otherwise, that person would be living with you
Your response is pathetic. A far better argument would be laws could be put into place to protect Otto 1.0 from the kind of manipulation I described
I'm not so sure you are getting his point

the only difference between the potential future otto is describing and our current reality is the speed at which upgrades can be made, the method of existence (meat-bag vs technology) and the potential length of "existence" of a self-aware program (the "self", or "otto" in this case)

the technological existence being described by otto is nothing less than current existence in fast-play mode, really
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2018
I don't like Nelson or Cruz. But even those buffoons can be correct, when their constituency gains on it. Read: We are not going to Mars soon or at all due to the Moon surface distraction, and we are not goint to suggest more than pouring dollars in [for the benefit of our constituents, aka the Nelson/Cruz jobs program].
Mark Thomas
3 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2018
Captain, if the software that is YOU could be copied into a robot rolling off an assembly every second, then maybe you can see how that cheapens you. Maybe not.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2018
@Mark
Captain, if the software that is YOU could be copied into a robot rolling off an assembly every second, then maybe you can see how that cheapens you. Maybe not.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.
it's not that I don't see your point
it's that "cheapen" in regard to the value of life is subjective

death is natural
it absolutely has to happen for anything to feed in nature, with rare exception
something has to die or cease to exist in order for the consumer to survive
Therefore life and it's worth is entirely subjective to the observer or individual
Mark Thomas
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2018
Cheapen may be subjective, but it still counts. For example, kill a panda in China and you might get a life sentence. Kill a neighbor's dog for revenge against the owner and get a year in prison. Step on an ant or a whole colony and nobody cares. See where I am going with this? If we can make a 1,000 copies of you for $1 per copy with future tech, it is hard to see how each inexpensive to produce copy would have the same rights the unique Captain Stumpy enjoys now. Do you really expect us to get bent out of shape if 1 robot Captain S. out of a 1,000 is obliterated if it can be replaced for $1?

I am not saying replacing biological sentience with computed sentience cannot be done in a way I might agree with. I am saying the fate of the human race hangs in the balance and this is not even close to being proven to be a good idea. In fact, without a lot of work, it looks more like the worst idea the human race ever had.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2018
Where did this copying nonsense come from?
the fate of the human race hangs in the balance
This idiom comes with music
https://youtu.be/cphNpqKpKc4

Tard
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2018
@MarkT
See where I am going with this?
Like I said: "it's not that I don't see your point"
you're making the assumption that there will be multiple copies running around
that makes sense when you're talking about windows being shared

the question is: will it be that way?
that is the unknown, really, considering each program (like MarkT 1) will be unique and self-aware

thinking about it:
I would assume that the original would be protected with multiple potential interfaces (a single program using/running/overseeing multiple bots)

that would allow for protected upgrades, testing, ghost beta testing in a virtual safe space (pun intended) - this is all SOP for the military, DOD and any commercial venture IT department that is semi-competent so I see it as the SOP in the future

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2018
@markT cont'd
I am saying the fate of the human race hangs in the balance and this is not even close to being proven to be a good idea. In fact, without a lot of work, it looks more like the worst idea the human race ever had
well, that depends on the situation, really

from the historical standpoint and humanity's predatory nature you have a point
from the standpoint of rapid development, research and galactic exploration, it's a great idea (depending on the initial brain model, AI and type of exploration and research being done)

conquest is a serious problem that I see as an underlying issue in humans as they tend to relate exploration with it, IMHO

Humanity and humans must evolve or die
that is just how nature works
with technology, we can choose our options, and biological meat bags may be a bad idea in space, but great in a gravity well

I see a potential future where we can have both
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2018
@MarkT last
I am saying the fate of the human race hangs in the balance
offered IMHO only
we always hang in the balance, really

and "human" may well take on a subjective definition in the future as we evolve in different areas, be it space or in space vehicles, on other planets, or even on Earth

Human will eventually take on a meaning much like Canine is to the wolf and dog

One thing that I note is that people tend to think of our species (and us as individuals) are more important or special in the grand scheme of things whereas I don't think humans are

We have accomplished great things, but is that important?
Important is also subjective

Humans are an invasive species and we will spread, like it or not
I just hope that any other sentient life doesn't see us as a malignant parasite
Mark Thomas
3 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2018
Good points Captain S. Regarding, "making the assumption that there will be multiple copies running around," I think that is fair, because it is so much easier to copy programmed robots than people, and nobody uttered a word of caution otherwise. Keep in mind that perfect copies of robots are easy, while perfect copies of people are not available, except in unusual transporter accidents. :-)

I think there are enormous technical AND other challenges to go from being biological to robotic. IMHO, the best approach is for society is to continue pushing forward to Mars and beyond with the assumption that the human race will remain biological for the foreseeable future.
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2018
Robots will never be like us because they do not have an equivalent of emotions. We are driven by the secretions of ductless glands, from testosterone to serotonin, and many others. In fact, recent studies show we do not really have free will because we are at the mercy of how it makes us feel. The emotions precede the conception of thought.

We feel concepts before we can visualize and conceptualize them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 30, 2018
Watched a really bad netflix movie, Extinction. Invaders strafe earth streets from the skies. Who could they be? Turns out theyre humans returning from mars to reclaim their planet from the AI cyborgs who kicked them off it. Oh sorry spoiler alert.

This is the sort of drivel that has corrupted weak impressionable brains like the one marky mark has. In the future gene therapy might be of some help. Or drugs I dunno.

But the bigger question remains: why does netflix make so many bad movies with good stars in them?? No matter, fall season starts soon. Ozark - aug31
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2018
Robots will never be like us because they do not have an equivalent of emotions
Ahaaahaahaa poor george is trolling for affection.

Whatsamatter, bored? Neighborhood cats learn to avoid your bb gun?

"Cleckley's seminal hypothesis concerning the psychopath is that he suffers from a very real mental illness indeed: a profound and incurable affective deficit. If he really feels anything at all, they are emotions of only the shallowest kind.

"Manipulation is the key to the psychopath's conquests. Initially, the psychopath will feign false emotions to create empathy

"What is more, just as the color blind individual may never know he is color blind unless he is given a test to determine it, the psychopath is unable to even be aware of his own emotional poverty.

" you can NOT hurt their feelings because they don't have any! They will pretend to have feelings if it suits their purposes or gets them what they want."

-our mental health lesson for today.
humy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2018
Robots will never be like us because they do not have an equivalent of emotions.

Emotions wouldn't be necessary for robots to intelligently do much useful work and that includes any required work on Mars. It's just a matter of time before robot and AI science designs them to be quite capable of doing all types of physical labor at least as good if not better than any human (this could cause a bit of an unemployment problem because humans will become redundant for most types of work except social workers, police and shrinks).
And here I am speaking as an actually qualified AI expert currently doing some actual research into AI (among other things).

Mark Thomas
3 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2018
Otto: "Where did this copying nonsense come from?"

You argue repeatedly the human race should be completely replaced with AI robots and then wonder out loud about "copying nonsense," as if AI robots cannot be copied. Between the two of us, who has the "corrupted weak impressionable brain?" :-)
Mark Thomas
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2018
Otto: "'Cleckley's seminal hypothesis concerning the psychopath . . ."

I am not surprised in the least that Otto is well versed on psychopaths. Perhaps you borrowed a few of your psychiatrist's books during court-mandated visits? :-)
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2018
"Emotions wouldn't be necessary for robots to intelligently do much useful work and that includes any required work on Mars."

I am not talking about Mars, I am talking about replacing what we do, and how we do it. If they start doing that, we will be planned out of it.
Captain Stumpy
2 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2018
@MarkT
I think that is fair, because it is so much easier to copy programmed robots than people, and nobody uttered a word of caution otherwise
not so sure
if humans were to grow into AI then the original human-to-AI-"copy" would be more like a protected source code simply because the first and most likely candidates to accept the immortality of AI will be the rich, famous and powerful, IMHO, and they won't want arbitrary copies pretending to be them, much like they don't allow trolls, look-alike's or others to be them IRL
IMHO, the best approach ... with the assumption that the human race will remain biological for the foreseeable future
I agree with this
human-to-AI will have steps in the future starting with implants and cybernetics - of which we've already started doing, mind
Captain Stumpy
2 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2018
@Humy
Emotions wouldn't be necessary for robots to intelligently do much useful work and that includes any required work on Mars
true that
What about integration of human to technology though?

Considering we currently are attempting to interface humans with tech while keeping the human as biologically the same as possible, except for the technological aid (and even that resembles the human part in most cases - like artificial hands, etc) then doesn't it stand to reason that human-to-AI adaptation (way into the future) will include emotions?

Humans like certain emotions, like happiness, so why not include some of them?
Personally, I don't think certain emotions can be experienced truly without the opposite emotion... but that is IMHO only
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2018
You argue repeatedly the human race should be completely replaced with AI robots
No I didnt. I said it WILL be replaced with a singularity. Big difference. Singularities may need peripherals but those obviously dont need meat brains to operate.
as if AI robots cannot be copied
Humans are not AI robots. Again, what are you talking about?
Mark Thomas
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2018
That is a distinction without a difference. Your "singularity" is still software running on hardware. Software is inherently easy copy, humans aren't. It does not matter if your "singularity" has robotic legs or peripherals with wheels, all my points remain the same.
Mark Thomas
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2018
Otto:
Our brains will be implanted, supplemented, enhanced. People may eventually opt for full transplants into immortal machine bodies.

Reproduction will be outsourced and we will opt out of these troublesome and distracting organs and hormones.


Your immortal machine bodies and your peripherals and Captain Stumpy's AI robots all sound like essentially the same thing, i.e., software running on hardware with varying degrees of robotic parts added in for good measure.
Mark Thomas
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2018
Captain, I mostly agree with your points. I am still concerned that it will be tempting for your AI robots to retain some ability to overwrite the software executing your consciousness. What if you commit a terrible crime and the punishment is complete disassembly or merely updating your moral subroutines? This may be a slippery slope because once people can fiddle with something, they rarely if ever restrain themselves. Again, all sorts of things to consider here, probably most of which we are not even thinking of. The law of unintended consequences never loomed so large.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2018
@MarkT
I am still concerned that it will be tempting for your AI robots to retain some ability to overwrite the software executing your consciousness
IMHO - eventually, we will have to evolve to AI or some technological device to go any further than our solar system, unless we can create FTL travel

there isn't anything stopping AI from overwriting any part of your "code" that is a direct threat to the mission or successful operations of the device

there isn't really a way to get around the class system so long as humans brains are copied though unless the code is changed (this goes for religious belief, criminals, and more)

so it's inevitable, really

like now, the change will come in small increments: the promise of longer life, faster legs, youthful appearance, bigger t*ts/d*cks, etc

but the rich will want protection from overwriting, so they will find a way to exist - perhaps in a VR of their own customized for them?

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2018
@markT cont'd
This may be a slippery slope
it's entirely possible that the most likely outcome upon the development of AI will be a war for supremacy between AI and humans simply because of the fears that most people have and you are voicing in your posts

this is also the way of humans in history, regardless of the introduction of something that may well be the answer the world needs, be it civilization, science, technology, medicine or AI

some will advocate for AI like otto or those who use it (especially if it's a person who requires it to use prosthetic devices or appendages) but a lot of people will be fearful of being overwritten or fundamentally changed

the rich/powerful/famous will lead the way with promises of immortality
the poor will revolt and fight for power
the AI will be forced to become defensive to survive

regardless, we will need AI and the technology to survive, so we will either adapt, change or die
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2018
@otto
I said it WILL be replaced with a singularity
if this happens, there is no need for the human brain or thought patterns to exist, regardless of whether it's loaded into the AI or not

in point of fact, it would only be detrimental to have individual identities (humans) loaded into any AI at all as this would be competing and likely interfere with the AI running unless you're talking some kind of isolated hive-mind

if we integrate into AI then humanity will not evolve, adapt or anything else; it will cease to exist

Any singularity would have to immediately recognize that the only potential worth in the human at all would be its value as a growth medium when decomposing, its emotions and perhaps the occasional youtube video
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2018
Were integrating now via implants and the internet. A gradual process taking many gens that will eventually absorb us.

AI in the meantime will develop separately. As it becomes more capable and more centralized we will cede more decision-making to it. It will assume our legal and political systems. It will supersede courts, law enforcement, education, govts, countries.

You're right - eventually humans would have no meaningful input into its decision-making process. But the pseudo-human entities that still exist by that point wouldn't care, because they will have long since realized that the singularity was a far better mediator and decision-maker than humanity ever was.

Because we had been designing our machines and improving them over the centuries to be better at everything, than us.

We are designing the singularity to replace us because we can imagine better ways of doing things than we ourselves are not capable of doing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2018
We use machines to compensate for our shortcomings. And one of our greatest shortcomings is our inability to be honest. It's obvious that humans simply cant be trusted to govern themselves or pass judgement over each other or distribute resources equitably.

Lawyers and politicians are professional LIARS. Our political and legal systems are based on LYING and deception. The MSM LIES to us daily about what we are expected to accept as news and information. The medical profession LIES to us about what is and isnt good for us. Our educations are worthless LIES. Etc.

Obviously this all needs to be scrapped and replaced with something rational and humane.

We create the singularity as our salvation. The pristine human is nonfunctional in a functional civilization; a disease. The human animal will be augmented, restrained, and replaced until we can do ourselves damage no more.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2018
if we integrate into AI then humanity will not evolve, adapt or anything else; it will cease to exist
What is the future of the human being? Our birthrates have stabilized or reduced in the west. The distinction between the sexes is disappearing. Progress in medicine will extend our lives. Crucially, reproduction will be outsourced altogether.

So the number of people will shrink, and continue to shrink as time goes by. The people who remain will be healthy and happy. They will welcome any modifications and improvements to their bodies that will prolong them and improve their quality of life.

This modification process will not stop. And there is nothing about the human body that cannot be replaced or augmented with an artificial part that will function more efficiently for a longer period of time.

Meanwhile, as i said, we will gradually cede control of our lives to the singularity.

In 1000 years some group will say 'enough! In another 1000 years they will be gone.
Mark Thomas
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2018
As it becomes more capable and more centralized we will cede more decision-making to it. It will assume our legal and political systems. It will supersede courts, law enforcement, education, govts, countries.


There is one huge flaw in your reasoning. The real world clearly does not work this way. Nobody acts this way except in your imagination. Judges and especially politicians don't even want advice from a non-voting, non-donating entity. To think they would willing give up control is laughable.
Mark Thomas
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2018
Because we had been designing our machines and improving them over the centuries to be better at everything, than us.


Probably, but just because they are better doesn't mean we cede control. Let that sink in. Just because they are better doesn't mean we cede control. My car is hell of a lot faster than I am, but if it were to decide to do something I don't like, I will have it modified or destroyed. Same thing with any machine. The real danger here is the rich would replace the rest of us in heartbeat with robots because it is profitable, so we need to insist on our inalienable rights so that more than the top ~1% of us survive.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2018
To think they would willing give up control is laughable
The people will demand it. Look what's happening now. Nobody trusts anything they see or hear from the MSM, their politicians. Nobody trusts the legal system.

We are being steered into a revolution. Lawyers will be obsoleted, politicians will not be able to lie, and political systems will collapse as a result.

AI will supplant us simply because we cant compete. We demand honesty and integrity but are incapable of it. But we can certainly design machines with these qualities.

Look at you. You cant even admit it when you're wrong. Typical.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2018
My car is hell of a lot faster than I am, but if it were to decide to do something I don't like, I will have it modified or destroyed
The only reason you get in your car is because you've come to trust the people who designed it. Lots of people didn't trust them in the beginning. But with each gen, people began to rely on them more, trust them more, cant imagine living without them.

We cant imagine living in an atmosphere of completely trustworthy info, leadership, legal representation. Future gens wont be able to imagine how could have lived without it.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2018
@Otto
Meanwhile, as i said, we will gradually cede control of our lives to the singularity.

In 1000 years some group will say 'enough! In another 1000 years they will be gone
that is the point of either human eradication/integration or it's the fight for the "right" of biological life over the technological existence, IMHO

there will always be those who refuse to join in the mainstream
The distinction between the sexes is disappearing
erm... this is entirely political, mind you
biologically speaking there is a distinction with rare exception (hermaphrodites)

I still think this is a *long* way off (not in our generation, or our grandkids, IMHO)

.

@MarkT
The real world clearly does not work this way. Nobody acts this way except in your imagination
yes and no
historically speaking, the world is currently demonstrating that we do work this way
especially California, IMHO
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2018
@Otto
Look at you. You cant even admit it when you're wrong
about people refusing to allow full control?
IMHO I don't think he is wrong about that

In point of fact, considering US history, our nation is full of people who aren't willing to cede control
Hell, most of my nearest neighbours are so absolutely anti-government it's just not even funny - any sign of any form of "control" will set them off, IMHO
LOL

I do think that AI is inevitable, and integration will be attempted, but I also think it will spawn a species-wide war that either outcome will eventually eradicate us causing the "meatbag" supporters to fight harder
We cant imagine living in an atmosphere of completely trustworthy info, leadership, legal representation
true that, IMHO
Mark Thomas
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2018
The people will demand it.


Ha! If people are going to demand honesty and integrity how do you explain Trump? The guy can't open his mouth without lying.

Even if people demand more honesty and integrity (in the next election, same thing happened with Carter), that does NOT mean people are ready to put machines in charge. Machines are no more inherently virtuous than we are, it all depends on their programming. People will worry that machines are far easier to recode and manipulate than we are. You are the one that needs to admit your scenario is ridiculous. You are soooo out of touch. Every movie ever made where machines get control is a complete disaster for human race. Ever watch a Terminator movie? People are not going to put machines in charge as far as I can see.
Mark Thomas
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2018
You two need to think more carefully about this. People will NOT cede control simply because some one or some thing is better. You need to get that through your heads. Suppose a husband caught a guy who was better at sex sleeping with his wife? Do you really think most husbands would say, "That's all right, he is better at sex than I am." Hilarious. Do you really think the rich are ready to give up wealth and control of the government because machines are better? How about big drug cartels? Are they ready to give up their empires because a robot can do it better? Why would anyone want to replace themselves? You two need to get a life.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2018
@MarkT
You two need to think more carefully about this. People will NOT cede control simply because some one or some thing is better. You need to get that through your heads
I don't have a vested interest either way mostly because I will be long dead by then
LOL

but seriously: the technological advancements and AI are rapidly growing even as we have aged

I can see the inevitable attempt to integrate because I know a lot of handicapped who require aids to live, work or function, and this is where the AI and integration revolution will start (or rather, it has started - https://scholar.g...mp;btnG= )

however, as a longtime student of psychology, I also know that humans will fight the controlling AI that Otto discusses

that doesn't mean I advocate for either, mind
I can just see both sides

and I know that we will need AI in exploration/expansion in space
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2018
@MarkT
You are soooo out of touch. Every movie ever made where machines get control is a complete disaster for human race. Ever watch a Terminator movie?
using one persons fantasy made into a fiction movie designed to stimulate the fear inherent in people in order to make money is hardly demonstrative of "being in touch", IMHO

or were you going for humour?
Why would anyone want to replace themselves? You two need to get a life
that's not how it starts
it starts with implants for, say, a mitral valve prolapse
then the knee goes out
or diabetic neuropathy leads to a loss of limb

as noted in the link, all of these may be currently using computer-assisted technology

so this leads to building better humans, especially proactive modification for space exploration
which leads to the rich demanding bio-mechanical implants
which leads to cybernetics
and so on

that is the slippery slope

control will be lost gradually
Mark Thomas
1 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2018
I don't have a vested interest either way mostly because I will be long dead by then


I hear you. :-)

Like Elon Musk, I view the Terminator movies as cautionary tales. Watching the Boston Dynamics videos, you may conclude we are <100 years from being able to build a T-100 every bit as capable as the one in the movie. Many would say much less. Consider the fact that an X-47b drone capable of delivering a 5,000 lb bomb landed autonomously on an aircraft carrier off the Virginia coast over 5 years ago. IMHO, this is clearly more than just movie fantasy. https://en.wikipe...an_X-47B

the slippery slope . . . control will be lost gradually


That, IMHO, is your best argument. A direct assault is almost guaranteed to fail because we have all the weapons and even "friendly" terminators to fight the rest, but an insidious infiltration over long periods of time is more troubling. Still, don't count humans out for the reasons above.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2018
@MarkT
I never count humans out of the equation simply because they're the most tenacious and vicious predatory parasite on the planet
Like Elon Musk, I view the Terminator movies as cautionary tales
well, considering human history to date: it doesn't matter if AI becomes self-aware and considers humans a threat because eventually humans themselves will design an AI that can't be controlled and doesn't care about human interests and they will let it loose in the world unchecked

Some hacker genius somewhere will either hack the system and release unchecked AI or help develop the bug that corrupts AI (or makes it themselves)

this is history and is best demonstrated by current forces pushing to develop their own NBC programs for their nations/group/whatever
Mark Thomas
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2018
humans . . . the most tenacious and vicious predatory parasite on the planet


That seems a little harsh. I would bet the universe is riddled with species that struggle to become advanced societies and mess everything up along the way too. We may discover we are in very good company. Heck, at least we are not the Klingons! :-)

I agree about the Terminator. The idea that something like that could be created as a military weapon seems clear. BTW, they covered this in the movie, Stealth. Military AI robots reduce the need for body bags.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2018
@MArkT
That seems a little harsh
maybe, but I think it's applicable
not saying Earth is an organism; just sayin' that humans have a historical problem living without destroying stuff around them, either through ignorance, inattention or intentional disregard
I would bet the universe is riddled with species...
of course, it may also be that this is just a cause/reason that the galaxy and universe aren't riddled with observable species...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.