Live data from Hacker News

Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

chronicle.com

21–30 of 121 posts

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#21

The book’s premise is that in about a century, it will be possible to scan human brains at "fine enough spatial and chemical resolution," and to combine that with good-enough models of signal-processing functions of brain cells, "to create a cell-by-cell dynamically executable model of the full brain in artificial hardware, a model whose signal input-output behavior is usefully close to that of the original brain." L…

You don't have to think that this is the most likely scenario to think this is a very important book. Even if the chance that em AI beats ab initio AI is only 5%, it's a dramatically different and important scenario to consider.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#22
post #12

He's not an economist, he's a futurist, and not a particularly interesting one. For an actual economist ahead of his time, I recommend Steve Keen.

Hanson is a professor of economics at GMU http://economics.gmu.edu/people/rhanson

He may be an economist by training, he may teach in an economics department, but as described, his course would fit right in at any future studies program. The article certainly makes him sound more futurist than economist.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#23
post #13

Yet another person who has read too many of the Culture Series books by Iain M. Banks and thinks we are close to achieving a lot described within those books. I do think it is achievable, but even the books acknowledge it takes thousands of years to get there.

I don't think the books do "acknowledge" that? I mean in particular there's that nice short story where the Culture visits Earth. So the books are set in our present and not the future.

"Consider Phlebas" takes place in 1331CE whereas "Surface Detail" takes place between 2700 and 3000CE, with the other books in the "series" taking place at different points within that range.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#24
post #6

Living in VR, and the implications thereof, have been written about in SF for decades. The earliest work is "Simulacron 3", from 1964. It's been done to death in anime. "Sword Art Online" is probably the best known stuck-in-VR anime, but "Log Horizon" deals with the philosophical aspects in more depth. Hanson is not breaking new ground; he's recycling SF as economics. Read Hanson's list of "wild ideas".[1] "By 2100,…

> Hanson is not breaking new ground; he's recycling SF as economics.

World-building for purposes of entertainment generally has little to do with successful prediction. Hanson has made this point in a few places, eg, http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/11/science-fiction-is-fan.... I'm not sure if you've read Age of Em but it didn't feel like reading scifi, so much as reading an encyclopedia.

RE: the list of "wild ideas." He estimates that maybe a third of them are true. Quoting a few and acting shocked that that's the case is not a very epistemically hygienic criticism.

BTW if anyone wants to read a summary that carries some of the tone and emphasis of the book itself, https://casparoesterheld.com/2016/08/30/the-age-of-em-summar... is pretty good.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#25
The Age of Em can be read in two ways. One is to treat it like an RPG setting book. An imaginative world with highly detailed descriptions, complete with cool potential plots for your campaign. The second way to read it is as a book trying to predict the future in much the same way as The Flintstones is recording history. Everything is strange yet it's all mimicking the current world with superficial differences.

The chapter about computational reversibility was really annoying - good luck with it if you're not a CS academic. I'm a software engineer and I only have a vague idea what it is and unless you know already you're out of luck as the author will not explain anything.

The rest is ridiculously specific descriptions of a future world - a bit like trying to forecast weather 20 years in advance by trying to get the exact temperature, rainfall, etc. on a particular Thursday in March, in your back garden. This is why I'm going with the former way of reading this book. Maybe someone will write a fiction book based on this setting - could be interesting.

One last thing: the author mentions that economists often predict the future correctly but the irrational^H^H^H^H^H^H^H uncoordinated populace fails to realise the correct prediction (a comment I've read before made by other economists), implying that the only way he can be wrong about his predictions in this book is if we all somehow conspire against him, at which point it's all our fault. AI research must be a traumatising field.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#26

The book’s premise is that in about a century, it will be possible to scan human brains at "fine enough spatial and chemical resolution," and to combine that with good-enough models of signal-processing functions of brain cells, "to create a cell-by-cell dynamically executable model of the full brain in artificial hardware, a model whose signal input-output behavior is usefully close to that of the original brain." L…

He's stated elsewhere he thinks the chances of this scenario are only ~30% IIRC

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#27

The book’s premise is that in about a century, it will be possible to scan human brains at "fine enough spatial and chemical resolution," and to combine that with good-enough models of signal-processing functions of brain cells, "to create a cell-by-cell dynamically executable model of the full brain in artificial hardware, a model whose signal input-output behavior is usefully close to that of the original brain." L…

I think a lot of these predictors underestimate prediction itself. To their credit, there is a lot of emphasis on trends in economies or technologies. That's probably the best tool for predicting, but predicting is hard. I think it's hard to really know how complicated "biology" is, from the current perspective of mystery. Who knows what'll be known decades from now.

I like Elon Musk's perspective as a starting point though. The trends that all these predictions rely on are man made. Technology improves, gets more powerful and more prevalent when smart people work on it hard. It's not a physical force, it's caused by people.

Anyway, if you are expecting narrow AI to do so much, who knows what the relationship between that technology and "true" AI (whatever that means exactly) is. It may not matter much, as you say.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#28
Is anyone else having a hard time disambiguation which of his models and predictions he holds genuinely, and which are merely exercises in reductio ad absurdum attacks on the dysfunction he sees in the establishment? I'm all for free thinking, but this seems all too convenient to hedge his bets.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#29

He's not an economist, he's a futurist, and not a particularly interesting one. For an actual economist ahead of his time, I recommend Steve Keen.

Upvoted. Keen did get a few falsifiable predictions wrong, but his work on bank endogenous money creation, debt instability, and rate based economic modeling I think merit much more serious research in mainstream economics, along with the MMT school. Good of you to mention.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#30

The book’s premise is that in about a century, it will be possible to scan human brains at "fine enough spatial and chemical resolution," and to combine that with good-enough models of signal-processing functions of brain cells, "to create a cell-by-cell dynamically executable model of the full brain in artificial hardware, a model whose signal input-output behavior is usefully close to that of the original brain." L…

There are others who think it an important possibility: http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/brain-emulation-r...
Post reply on HN