They dumbed down science in US schools so much that Musk can get away with his grandiose ketamine-fueled fraudulent claims! The brain appears to be a kind of quantum receiver, sender, & processor. Maybe they think quantum computing will mimic the brain but how on earth are they going to put consciousness in a machine when they don’t even understand what consciousness is? The very first thing they need to do is define consciousness and figure out its source. But they can’t do this via material science, as you so eloquently say. If they can’t even define it, that means consciousness can never be uploaded to a machine.
The final nail in the coffin of the Mars (or Moon) delusion is gravity. Long-term life under low g is unfeasible. It causes not only muscle and bone deterioration, but also damage to the eyes and brain. And there is no artificial gravity technology that does not involve increasing the mass of the Moon or Mars to achieve 1g, which literally requires the power of the gods. And no, the use of centrifuges, which might work for spacecraft, is not viable on a planetary scale.
It becomes more and more obvious that missions like AGI/superintelligence and space travel to the moon, Mars, and beyond are giant pyramid schemes, fed by greed and gullibility. A lot of people (real people, present and future, including those who are all in right now) are going to get hurt by these futility/vanity projects. Smartness is no longer distinguishable from stupidity when it lacks wisdom and compassion.
I f*cking agree! It’s madness. Makes absolutely no sense. Earth is an absolutely magnificent, exquisite little oasis in space. This place *is* a paradise, if only people would recognize that. I wonder what the history books in 200 years will say about this time period. I assume the word “stupidity” will appear quite frequently, lol.
Startship is the dumbest rocket architecture I have ever seen. The orbital refueling plan requires up to 20 unproven zero-g tanker launches just to refill a single Starship which continuously looses fuel due to boil off (nobody accrually knows how many tankers are need). Musk claims that "the best part is no part," but then builds a heavy steel rocket covered in 18,000 maintenance-heavy ceramic tiles with 33 engine mission critical failiure points. Worse, because the steel body is so heavy, the "most powerful rocket ever" can barely deliver any cargo to space made worse by a terrible methane fuel choice based on a Mars "in-situ" resource fairy tale. Its a joke.
Still reading through it! Good reading so far. Out of interest, has anyone here read the trilogy of "Red Mars" and know how did they figure out living on the red planet before terraforming? I think Kim tried to be as realistic as he possibly could when writing it?
Haven’t read it. But someone told me just recently that they saw Kim give a talk in which he said that (basically) he hates himself for having played a role in inspiring the current rush to colonize Mars. Lol.
I have read the Mars trilogy and I don't think it took into account that the regolith is apparently poisonous or that Mars' (lack of) gravity could have deleterious effects. It also assumed they would find water, which they did. However, the first 100 colonists did end up having to move out of their "trailer park" into underground habitats once they realized how much radiation they were taking on. I think KSR was more optimistic about Mars than what we know now.
Two quite different objections : a) I think that SpaceX’s essential mission is to make Elon Musk incredibly rich - the Mars mission is just smokescreen ; b) I think that Wolfram has shown convincingly the consciousness is computationally irreducible
Lol, this is totally fair! I guess my article can be read as actually supporting your claim here — the SpaceX mission is obviously BS, so, what’s the point of promoting that mission? To raise money for something else! Appreciate the feedback.
There's the ethical problem of sending sentient beings to Mars without their agreement even if that was possible. In all these fantasies there's never a serious examination of governance. Musk and his friends never once mention governance. None of their longtermism ever brings up democracy except to show their hostility.
It's cool. You can't hit all the problems with the Muskian fantasy in a short essay. The dialog is important that's how we get to share and get closer to what's true. 😺
Good that you mention O‘Neill cylinders - we were supposed to have those by the end of the 20th century, and we still only have the equivalent of a tin can in orbit, barely large enough for a handful of astronauts.
Why?
Because when you’re dreaming of the future, it always helps to ignore the details and tricky questions like: „Does this vision/dream rely on multiple technologies which do not exist, and do those multiple technologies require other technologies that also don’t exist, and do any of them require breaking the laws of physics or contradict known facts in biology and chemistry?“
I was a young person, reading about going to Mars (in the 70s). Was fascinated.
Then I grew up.
We write about this stuff on a regular basis. Check it out:
Hey, Emile. Good read. I just want to bring up a point for the AMA, that's not really a question but a challenge to one of your positions, and has nothing to do with this post.
It has to do with the position you take where you don't want people to side with TESCREAL individuals are actually pushing for banning superintelligence, at least for the next few decades.
I'm by no means a TESCREALIST, I agree with you that it's a flawed ideology and most of all, that is not being pushed democratically (meaning that these people want to achieve their end goals regardless of the will of Humanity as a whole).
That being said, in a democracy, it's of vital importance to get as much people to push for positive change as you can get, since that's the way protest grows and pressure amounts.
Right now, me, you and Eliezer (for example), agree that superintelligence should be banned, so our optimal strategy to achieve this goal is to join together.
There will become a time where Eliezer will become our enemy, as you pointed, he's perfectly fine wiping out Humanity without the people's consent, if he believes that all humans can upload themselves digitally, going as far as to say it's a moral obligation.
However, we are not in this time yet , and so for now, he is our ally, even if we find him to be derranged. To achieve our goals, our best strategy is to form coalitions with these people, that, for now, agree with us and can help make the immediate future safer.
The classic example always being given for this position is that FDR also aligned with Stalin to defeat the Nazis. It doesn't mean, however, that FDR championed Stalin's politics. They just happen to have a mutual goal and cooperated to achieve it, and that's what I think we should do.
People with power (specially those who want power for the sake of power) do this all the time. We should do it too if we want to have any chance in this fight, not doing it, in my opinion, is a sure path to defeat. Just to clarify, when I say fight I mean fighting interests, not an actual fight.
It may be morally repugnant, but it's our best strategy if we really want to make the future safer.
AMA 2: TESCREAL and extinctionism, do we throw away completely some ideas for the sake of.. controversy? Or what? It feels like there is no nuance, when there are interesting elements inside.
AMA 3: Can some kind of optimism for a future survive your critiques? If you could somehow describe it?
They dumbed down science in US schools so much that Musk can get away with his grandiose ketamine-fueled fraudulent claims! The brain appears to be a kind of quantum receiver, sender, & processor. Maybe they think quantum computing will mimic the brain but how on earth are they going to put consciousness in a machine when they don’t even understand what consciousness is? The very first thing they need to do is define consciousness and figure out its source. But they can’t do this via material science, as you so eloquently say. If they can’t even define it, that means consciousness can never be uploaded to a machine.
agree 100%, but before they get around to defining consciousness maybe someone should start by defining intelligence ;-)
LOL! I agree!
The final nail in the coffin of the Mars (or Moon) delusion is gravity. Long-term life under low g is unfeasible. It causes not only muscle and bone deterioration, but also damage to the eyes and brain. And there is no artificial gravity technology that does not involve increasing the mass of the Moon or Mars to achieve 1g, which literally requires the power of the gods. And no, the use of centrifuges, which might work for spacecraft, is not viable on a planetary scale.
To consider there is an alternative to fixing Earth is very destructive.
It becomes more and more obvious that missions like AGI/superintelligence and space travel to the moon, Mars, and beyond are giant pyramid schemes, fed by greed and gullibility. A lot of people (real people, present and future, including those who are all in right now) are going to get hurt by these futility/vanity projects. Smartness is no longer distinguishable from stupidity when it lacks wisdom and compassion.
Musk has walked slowly away from the Mars exploration idea. He did it so well you didn’t notice.
Why would you ruin your own planet and then colonize another? Isn't it easier to save your home planet? The idea is flawed at its core.
I f*cking agree! It’s madness. Makes absolutely no sense. Earth is an absolutely magnificent, exquisite little oasis in space. This place *is* a paradise, if only people would recognize that. I wonder what the history books in 200 years will say about this time period. I assume the word “stupidity” will appear quite frequently, lol.
Startship is the dumbest rocket architecture I have ever seen. The orbital refueling plan requires up to 20 unproven zero-g tanker launches just to refill a single Starship which continuously looses fuel due to boil off (nobody accrually knows how many tankers are need). Musk claims that "the best part is no part," but then builds a heavy steel rocket covered in 18,000 maintenance-heavy ceramic tiles with 33 engine mission critical failiure points. Worse, because the steel body is so heavy, the "most powerful rocket ever" can barely deliver any cargo to space made worse by a terrible methane fuel choice based on a Mars "in-situ" resource fairy tale. Its a joke.
Still reading through it! Good reading so far. Out of interest, has anyone here read the trilogy of "Red Mars" and know how did they figure out living on the red planet before terraforming? I think Kim tried to be as realistic as he possibly could when writing it?
Haven’t read it. But someone told me just recently that they saw Kim give a talk in which he said that (basically) he hates himself for having played a role in inspiring the current rush to colonize Mars. Lol.
I have read the Mars trilogy and I don't think it took into account that the regolith is apparently poisonous or that Mars' (lack of) gravity could have deleterious effects. It also assumed they would find water, which they did. However, the first 100 colonists did end up having to move out of their "trailer park" into underground habitats once they realized how much radiation they were taking on. I think KSR was more optimistic about Mars than what we know now.
Two quite different objections : a) I think that SpaceX’s essential mission is to make Elon Musk incredibly rich - the Mars mission is just smokescreen ; b) I think that Wolfram has shown convincingly the consciousness is computationally irreducible
your missing the main point. spcx's main goal is to raise money for the loss making xAI division.
Lol, this is totally fair! I guess my article can be read as actually supporting your claim here — the SpaceX mission is obviously BS, so, what’s the point of promoting that mission? To raise money for something else! Appreciate the feedback.
Robotaxis. Someone may colonize Mars, but I guarantee it ain’t gonna be Musk…
There's the ethical problem of sending sentient beings to Mars without their agreement even if that was possible. In all these fantasies there's never a serious examination of governance. Musk and his friends never once mention governance. None of their longtermism ever brings up democracy except to show their hostility.
"There's the ethical problem of sending sentient beings to Mars without their agreement even if that was possible.”
Great point! I hadn’t even considered that. It’s just assumed that these digital beings will be willing to go work on Mars for us. Thanks for this!!
It's cool. You can't hit all the problems with the Muskian fantasy in a short essay. The dialog is important that's how we get to share and get closer to what's true. 😺
Good that you mention O‘Neill cylinders - we were supposed to have those by the end of the 20th century, and we still only have the equivalent of a tin can in orbit, barely large enough for a handful of astronauts.
Why?
Because when you’re dreaming of the future, it always helps to ignore the details and tricky questions like: „Does this vision/dream rely on multiple technologies which do not exist, and do those multiple technologies require other technologies that also don’t exist, and do any of them require breaking the laws of physics or contradict known facts in biology and chemistry?“
I was a young person, reading about going to Mars (in the 70s). Was fascinated.
Then I grew up.
We write about this stuff on a regular basis. Check it out:
https://thestandarddispatchandmail.substack.com/p/the-eternal-promise-of-the-future?r=hllyh&utm_medium=ios
Thanks for the link!
Great read.
Thanks for reading!
Hey, Emile. Good read. I just want to bring up a point for the AMA, that's not really a question but a challenge to one of your positions, and has nothing to do with this post.
It has to do with the position you take where you don't want people to side with TESCREAL individuals are actually pushing for banning superintelligence, at least for the next few decades.
I'm by no means a TESCREALIST, I agree with you that it's a flawed ideology and most of all, that is not being pushed democratically (meaning that these people want to achieve their end goals regardless of the will of Humanity as a whole).
That being said, in a democracy, it's of vital importance to get as much people to push for positive change as you can get, since that's the way protest grows and pressure amounts.
Right now, me, you and Eliezer (for example), agree that superintelligence should be banned, so our optimal strategy to achieve this goal is to join together.
There will become a time where Eliezer will become our enemy, as you pointed, he's perfectly fine wiping out Humanity without the people's consent, if he believes that all humans can upload themselves digitally, going as far as to say it's a moral obligation.
However, we are not in this time yet , and so for now, he is our ally, even if we find him to be derranged. To achieve our goals, our best strategy is to form coalitions with these people, that, for now, agree with us and can help make the immediate future safer.
The classic example always being given for this position is that FDR also aligned with Stalin to defeat the Nazis. It doesn't mean, however, that FDR championed Stalin's politics. They just happen to have a mutual goal and cooperated to achieve it, and that's what I think we should do.
People with power (specially those who want power for the sake of power) do this all the time. We should do it too if we want to have any chance in this fight, not doing it, in my opinion, is a sure path to defeat. Just to clarify, when I say fight I mean fighting interests, not an actual fight.
It may be morally repugnant, but it's our best strategy if we really want to make the future safer.
Thanks so much for this!! I really appreciate the criticism. I’ll include a response in an upcoming article, and link to it here. Thanks again. :-)
No problem, thank you for your work, really. Looking forward to reading your take.
AMA 1: Risks of echo chambers?
AMA 2: TESCREAL and extinctionism, do we throw away completely some ideas for the sake of.. controversy? Or what? It feels like there is no nuance, when there are interesting elements inside.
AMA 3: Can some kind of optimism for a future survive your critiques? If you could somehow describe it?