the future of the world, as it should be,

[drgn_hntr_alpha]

http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
 
  not sure how to link this on here

[Philosopher]

drgn_hntr_alpha - 8/15/2006  10:06 PM    http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
   
  not sure how to link this on here 

 The whole "Robots will take over the world thing" I don't want it to happen, even though you can live in a life of luxery like that!  

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

After reading the whole thing...

Wow.

Living on the Australia project sounds like the pinnacle of Eden in terms of my preferences for life.

Och. What would YOU do in the Australia Project?

[darkstorme]

Personally, I prefer Arthur C. Clarke's vision of the same design - and his timescale.  He predicted that something like the Vertebrane (Virtubrain.  Clever.) system would begin widespread use in 2800.  A system that can control the muscles of the body?  50 years, perhaps, for it to be feasible without doing long-term damage, since muscle control is not wholly neuroelectric, but chemical as well.  Something that can cut into optical and aural (and tactile, olfactory, and taste) nerves and provide an experience indistinguishable from the real thing?  That'll cost a whole lot more than $600B worth of development money, and take longer than 25 years.  As yet, we've no idea what parts of the brain do, or how information coming through the nerves is processed.

More to the point, to be able to "cut the user out of the loop" with regards to kinesthetics, there needs to be a shunt in the spinal cord where the Vertebrane would work as a signal forwarding device... and it would have to do it in realtime, since reflex reactions and fine motor skills require feedback and response to happen nearly as fast as human thought, and certainly as fast as muscles can react.  The problem here is that we're closing on the upper limit of Moore's law, and are quickly looking towards quantum computation - which, useful as it will be, cannot be compartmentalized into an entirely internal package.

Controlling devices by thought will be possible, probably available to the public within the next 15 years, but it will be a process very much like speech recognition used to be (and to a certain extent still is), since no two brains operate identically.  The program would have to go through an extensive "learning process" wherein the user would be asked to calibrate by thinking about doing various tasks.  The neuroelectric patterns thus generated would be associated with the task, and thereafter the device (computer, robot, whatever) could perform that task as quickly as you could think it.  But the learning would still be essential - a human can be partially lobotomized, have ounces of dense brain matter removed, and still function as a rational human being (though usually with a drastic change in personality.)  The "rewiring" the brain is capable of is astonishing.  With this ability in mind, the ability of a computer of lesser size (since the human brain represents a very-high-end information density schematic) to instinctively map the behaviour of an unfamiliar brain is difficult (nothing is impossible) and certainly beyond the reach of 24 years into the future.

In addition, the protagonist's question as to whether or not the system can be hacked is hugely valid, and the explanation entirely insufficient.  The human brain CAN be reprogrammed, by far cruder means than "uploading something into it".  Hypnosis, stress-based brainwashing, drugs combined with light therapy - all of these can permanently redirect the way the brain operates.  If a computer begins to act more like a brain, then the means of hacking it merely progress to match.  Accurately reading thoughts (as covered above) is prohibitively difficult (again, nothing is impossible, but we're getting closer here), and the lie-detector-esque "intent to do unspecified mischief" would be insufficent evidence to warrant "shut off" or arrest, unless one would be willing to live in a world completely without freedom - in which case he would have given up one prison for another, albeit with a nicer cell.  Without that ability, however, there would be those whose hobby IS mischief - those whose creativity is best measured in the damage they cause.  These are the people who release computer viruses - not for profit, not under duress, but merely to see how much havoc they can cause.  The tools of their trade would have changed - biofeedback to suppress brain wave patterns distinctive to guilt, for example - but the intent would remain, especially with a billion, two billion, a hundred billion minds in which it could be fostered.

Finally, a trivial detail - the explanation of a glucose-powered fuel cell providing wireless communications is moderately unfeasible.  You would either have to have hideously sensitive receptors (in which case you'd have solar-related difficulties, but that's nit-picking), or you would never get enough power out of the human bloodstream... and you would still have byproducts (heat especially) to concern you.

So, even setting aside that this sounds frighteningly like a Brave New World or any of Asimov's doom and gloom short stories (again, a prison, but with a friendly face), the timescale is completely unreasonable.

Addendum:  Oh, and a 10 etaflop or however powerful networked computer would still not "approach the complexity of the human brain" because the brain doesn't OPERATE like a normal computer... and its arrangement makes it less prone to the speed of light becoming a limiting factor, as it would in the parallel processing array described herein.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

... DS. One thing. 50 years. Also, to those of us who, at least the first time, prefer to absorb a story and enjoy its meaning, rather than pick it into a billion little peices, this is still a story which rings a telling note.

I can't see anything stopping MANNA from coming into being, to be honest. The rest of the timeline may have issues, but still.

Anyway, DS, you didn't answer my question. In the hypothetic world of the Australia Project, what would YOU do? I'll answer after I get a few responses.

[darkstorme]

Ah.  I read 2030, but that was when he was placed in an administrator position.  Doesn't particularly matter; 20 years one way or the other wouldn't make a difference, and the presumption is that the Australia project was running for a non-trivial time before they pick him up.  Plus, I can't read a speculative fiction story without seeing any flaws that might exist therein.  Asimov's are remarkably good, if they don't involve Multivac or robots - those stories are good for entertainment, but dated badly because he couldn't forsee how much computer technology would improve, and which directions it would take.

Regardless, I don't think we'll see the interim step of "employee as drone", if MANNA were to come into being - if it isn't already on its way into being.  Employees are only cheaper in the short run.  Anyone who's played Masters of Orion II knows the temptation to replace entire planetary populations with androids who consume a fraction of the resources of their flesh-and-blood equivalents, need none of the protection, and produce twice as much.  So while MANNA might be a harsh taskmaster, I think it's more likely to come into being when humans are taken out of the lower-level service loop altogether.  "Welcome to McSkyNet, can I take your order, please?"

Over on /., there was some discussion about Manna, the consensus being that societal pressure would, at the very least, delay the widespread automation of McDonalds, at least on a visible level.  Said headsets would be easily visible enough to provoke boycotts.

I agree that the disappearance of pretty much all generic labour/service work is virtually inevitable (the question is, will we have an Ayn Rand style proletariat shouting out against the new robot incursion, demanding their fair share, or will we simply see a drastic and unsustainable population reduction?), but it's most of the structure of the Australia project that I objected to anyway.  *chuckles*  Our robot overlords are much better suited than the benevolent alternative.

Regardless, it'd be a stepwise effort with me.  First, (as any good software designer would tell you to do), I'd develop my tools.  I'd work on a thought-recognition program that could have information cached and ready to stream into my visual/auditory cortext (and I'd train myself to be able to absorb information simultaneously through both senses) when I'm thinking about it, so there would be little difference between my own knowledge and a Wikipedian database which (presumably) Vertebrane would have at its disposal.  Once that was developed, I would spend a year or two (with the addition of drug enhancements, possibly less) becoming an expert on nanotechnology and rocket/propulsion design.  I would then engineer any nanotechnologist's nightmare - nanobots capable of infinite self-replication given a source of solar energy - and engineer a telomere-like timed program into them.  (Probably DNA-based, or I'd never be able to fit the whole code in there.)  Then I'd fire the whole shebang, along with cryogencially frozen bacteria, plant seeds, and possibly (technology permitting) frozen embryos for various animal species off to Mars (hence the propulsion design), where it would labour industriously for a decade or two, churning out greenhouse gasses, freeing up water from the ice-caps, transforming the soil and sculpting the terrain, finally releasing and encouraging the bacteria, plants and seeds I'd sent with it, and, hopefully, before I died, transforming the red planet into a green one.  That'd be a legacy. *grins*

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Myself, I would dedicate at least a year to trying every creative venue open to me. First it would be the utterly immersive video games; preferably violent and/or captivating in terms of suspense and RP. Then to creation... Writing, singing, composing, musicianship, sculpture, architecture, tailoring, leatherwork, smithing... Glassblowing. Bookbinding. Candle-dipping and -carving... Whittling. Gardening. Landscaping.

At some point, when it caught my fancy, I would turn to science. Creation and discovery in the fields of biochemistry, nanotechnology, quantum physics... Anything I could find information on, and expand upon.

With endless possibilities stretched out before me, I would take each and every one of them, lifespan permitting. And if my lifespan didn't permit, I'd start working on how to prolong it.