The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence (41 page)

 

Okay, you were an attractive young woman when I first met you. And you still project yourself as a beautiful young woman. At least when I’m with you.

 

THANKS.

 

So, are you saying that you’re a machine now?

 

A MACHINE? THAT’S REALLY NOT FOR ME TO SAY. IT’S LIKE ASKING ME IF I’M BRILLIANT OR INSPIRING.

 

I guess the word machine in 2099 doesn’t have quite the same connotations that it has here in 1999.

 

THAT’S HARD FOR ME TO RECALL NOW

 

Okay, let’s put it this way. Do you still have any carbon-based neural circuits?

 

CIRCUITS, I’M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND. YOU MEAN MY OWN CIRCUITS?

 

Gee, I guess a lot of time has gone by

 

ALL RIGHT, LOOK, WE DID HAVE OUR OWN MENTAL MEDIUM FOR A FEW DECADES, AND THERE ARE STILL LOCAL INTELLIGENCES THAT LIKE TO STICK TO A SPECIFIC COMPUTATIONAL UNIT. BUT THAT’S A REFLECTION OF SOME OLD ATTACHMENT ANXIETY. THESE LOCAL INTELLIGENCES DO MOST OF THEIR THINKING OUT ON THE WEB ANYWAY, SO IT’S JUST A SENTIMENTAL ANACHRONISM.

 

An anachronism, like having your own body?

 

I CAN HAVE MY OWN BODY ANYTIME I WANT.

But you don’t have a specific neural substrate?

WHY WOULD I WANT THAT? IT’S JUST A LOT OF MAINTENANCE, AND SO LIMITING.

 

So, at some point, Molly’s neural circuits were scanned?

 

YEAH, ME, MOLLY. AND IT DIDN’T HAPPEN ALL AT ONCE, BY THE WAY.

 

But don’t you wonder if you’re the same person?

 

OF COURSE I AM. I CAN CLEARLY REMEMBER MY EXPERIENCES BEFORE WE STARTED SCANNING MY MIND, DURING THE DECADE THAT PORTIONS WERE REINSTANTIATED, AND SINCE.

 

Sure, you’ve inherited all of Molly’s memories.

 

OH NO, NOT THIS ISSUE AGAIN.

 

I don’t mean to challenge you. But just consider that Molly’s neural scan was instantiated in a copy which became you. Molly might still have continued to exist and may have evolved off in some other direction.

 

WE JUST DON’T THINK THAT’S A VALID PERSPECTIVE. WE SETTLED THAT ISSUE AT LEAST TWENTY YEARS AGO.

 

Well, of course you feel that way now. You’re on the other side.

 

WELL, EVERYONE IS.

 

Everyone?

 

OKAY, NOT QUITE EVERYONE. BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT—

 

You’re Molly.

 

I THINK I KNOW WHO I AM.

 

Well, I have no problem with you as Molly.

 

YOU MOSHS ALWAYS WERE A PUSHOVER.

 

It is hard to compete with you folks on the other side.

 

SURE IT IS. THAT’S WHY MOST OF US ARE OVER HERE.

 

I’m not sure I can push the identity issue much further.

 

THAT’S ONE REASON IT’S NO LONGER AN ISSUE.

 

So why don’t we talk about your work. Are you still consulting for the census commission?

 

I WAS INVOLVED IN THAT FOR HALF A CENTURY, BUT I GOT KIND OF BURNED OUT ON IT. ANYWAY, THE ISSUE NOW IS MOSTLY IMPLEMENTATION.

So the issue of how to count is resolved?

 

WE DON’T COUNT PEOPLE ANYMORE. IT BECAME CLEAR THAT COUNTING INDIVIDUAL PERSONS WASN’T TOO MEANINGFUL. As IRIS MURDOCH SAID, “IT’S HARD TO TELL WHERE ONE PERSON ENDS AND ANOTHER BEGINS.” IT’S RATHER LIKE TRYING TO COUNT IDEAS OR THOUGHTS.

 

So what do you count?

 

OBVIOUSLY, WE COUNT COMPUTES.

 

You mean, like calculations per second.

 

HMMM, IT’S A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT, BECAUSE OF THE QUANTUM COMPUTING.

 

I didn’t expect it to be simple. But what’s the bottom line?

 

WELL, WITHOUT QUANTUM COMPUTING, WE’RE UP TO ABOUT 10
⁵⁵
CALCULATIONS PER SECOND.
¹

 

Per person?

 

NO, WE EACH GET WHATEVER COMPUTATION WE WANT. THAT’S THE TOTAL FIGURE.

 

For the whole planet?

 

SORT OF. I MEAN NOT ALL OF IT IS LITERALLY ON THE PLANET.

 

And with quantum computing?

 

WELL, ABOUT 10
⁴²
OF THE COMPUTATIONS ARE QUANTUM COMPUTATIONS, WITH ABOUT 1,000 QU-BITS BEING TYPICAL. SO THAT’S EQUIVALENT TO ABOUT 10
³⁴²
CALCULATIONS PER SECOND, BUT THE QUANTUM COMPUTATIONS ARE NOT ENTIRELY GENERAL PURPOSE, SO THE 10
⁵⁵
FIGURE IS STILL RELEVANT.
²

 

Hmmm, I’ve only got about 10
¹⁶
cps in my MOSH brain, at least on a good day.

 

TURNS OUT THERE IS SOME QUANTUM COMPUTING IN YOUR MOSH BRAIN, SO IT’S HIGHER.

 

That’s reassuring. So if you’re not working on the census, what are you up to?

 

WE DON’T HAVE JOBS EXACTLY.

 

I know what that’s like.

 

ACTUALLY, YOU’RE NOT A BAD MODEL FOR WORK IN THE LATE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY. WE’RE ALL BASICALLY ENTREPRENEURS.

Sounds like some things have moved in the right direction. So what are some of your enterprises?

 

ONE IDEA I HAVE IS A UNIQUE WAY OF CATALOGING NEW TECHNOLOGY PROPOSALS. IT’S A MATTER OF MATCHING THE USER’S KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES TO THE EXTERNAL WEB KNOWLEDGE, AND THEN INTEGRATING THE RELEVANT PATTERNS.

 

I’m not sure I followed that. But give me an example of a recent research proposal that you’ve cataloged.

 

MOST OF THE CATALOGING IS AUTOMATIC. BUT I DID GET INVOLVED IN TRYING TO QUALIFY SOME OF THE RECENT FEMTOENGINEERING PROPOSALS.
³

 

Femto, as in one thousandth of a trillionth of a meter?

 

EXACTLY. DREXLER HAS WRITTEN A SERIES OF PAPERS SHOWING THE FEASIBILITY OF BUILDING TECHNOLOGY ON THE FEMTOMETER SCALE, BASICALLY EXPLOITING FINE STRUCTURES WITHIN QUARKS TO DO COMPUTING.

 

Has anyone done this?

 

NO ONE HAS DEMONSTRATED IT, BUT THE DREXLER PAPERS APPEAR TO SHOW THAT IT’S PRACTICAL. AT LEAST THAT’S MY VIEW, BUT IT’S PRETTY CONTROVERSIAL.

 

This is the same Drexler who developed the nanotechnology concept in the 1970s and 1980s?

 

YEAH, ERIC DREXLER.

 

That makes him around 150, so he must be on the other side.

 

OF COURSE, ANYONE DOING SERIOUS WORK HAS, TO BE ON THE OTHER SIDE.

 

You mentioned papers. You still have papers?

 

YES, WELL SOME ARCHAIC TERMS HAVE STUCK. WE CALL THEM MOSHISMS. PAPERS ARE CERTAINLY NOT RENDERED ON ANY PHYSICAL SUBSTANCE. BUT WE STILL CALL THEM PAPERS.

 

What language are they written in, English?

 

UNIVERSITY PAPERS ARE GENERALLY PUBLISHED USING A STANDARD SET OF ASSIMILATED KNOWLEDGE PROTOCOLS, WHICH CAN BE INSTANTLY UNDERSTOOD. SOME REDUCED STRUCTURE FORMS HAVE ALSO EMERGED, BUT THOSE ARE GENERALLY USED IN MORE POPULAR PUBLICATIONS.

 

You mean, like the
National Enquirer?

THAT’S A PRETTY SERIOUS PUBLICATION. THEY USE THE FULL PROTOCOL.

I see.

 

SOMETIMES, PAPERS ARE ALSO RENDERED IN RULE-BASED FORMS, BUT THESE ARE USUALLY NOT SATISFACTORY. THERE IS A QUAINT TREND OF POPULAR PUBLICATIONS PUBLISHING ARTICLES IN MOSH LANGUAGES SUCH AS ENGLISH, BUT WE CAN TRANSLATE THESE INTO ASSIMILATED KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES RATHER QUICKLY. LEARNING IS NOT THE STRUGGLE IT ONCE WAS. NOW THE STRUGGLE IS DISCOVERING NEW KNOWLEDGE TO LEARN.

 

Any other recent trends that you’ve gotten involved in?

 

WELL, THE AUTOMATIC CATALOGING AGENTS HAD DIFFICULTY WITH THE SUICIDE-MOVEMENT PROPOSALS.

 

Which are?

 

THE IDEA IS TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE YOUR MIND FILE AS WELL AS TO DESTROY ALL COPIES. REGULATIONS REQUIRE KEEPING AT LEAST THREE BACKUP COPIES OF NO MORE THAN TEN MINUTES’ VINTAGE, WITH AT LEAST ONE OF THESE COPIES IN THE CONTROL OF THE AUTHORITIES.

 

I can see the problem. Now if you were told that all copies were going to be destroyed, they could secretly keep a copy and instantiate it at a later time. You’d never know. Doesn’t that contradict the premise that those on the other side are the same person—the same continuity of consciousness—as the original person?

 

I DON’T THINK THAT FOLLOWS AT ALL.

 

an you explain that?

 

YOU WOULDN’T UNDERSTAND.

 

I thought I could understand most anything.

 

I DID SAY THAT. I GUESS I’LL HAVE TO GIVE THAT MORE THOUGHT.

 

You’ll have to give more thought to whether a MOSH can understand any concept, or the consciousness-continuation issue?

 

I GUESS NOW I’M CONFUSED.

 

All right, well, tell me more about this “destroy all copies” movement.

 

WELL, I REALLY CAN SEE BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE. ON THE ONE HAND, I’VE ALWAYS SYMPATHIZED WITH THE RIGHT TO CONTROL ONE’S OWN DESTINY. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT’S A SIN TO DESTROY KNOWLEDGE.

 

And the copies represent knowledge?

 

WHY SURE. LATELY, THE DESTROY-ALL-COPIES MOVEMENT HAS BEEN THE PRIMARY YORK ISSUE.

Now wait a second. If I recall correctly, the Yorks are antitechnologists, yet only those of you on the other side would be concerned about the destroy-all-copies issue. If Yorks are on the other side, how can they be against technology? Or if they’re not on the other side, then why would they care about this issue?

 

OKAY, REMEMBER IT’S BEEN SEVENTY YEARS SINCE WE’VE TALKED. THE YORK GROUPS DO HAVE THEIR ROOTS IN THE OLD ANTITECHNOLOGY MOVEMENTS, BUT NOW THAT THEY’RE ON THE OTHER SIDE, THEY’VE DRIFTED TO A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT ISSUE, SPECIFICALLY INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. THE FLORENCE MANIFESTO PEOPLE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAVE KEPT A COMMITMENT TO REMAINING MOSHS, WHICH, OF COURSE, I RESPECT.

 

Thank you. And they’re protected by the grandfather legislation?

INDEED. I HEARD A PRESENTATION BY AN FM DISCUSSION LEADER THE OTHER DAY, AND WHILE SHE WAS SPEAKING IN A MOSH LANGUAGE, THERE WAS JUST NO WAY THAT SHE DOESN’T HAVE AT LEAST A NEURAL EXPANSION IMPLANT.

 

Well, us MOSHs can make sense from time to time.

 

OH, OF COURSE. I DIDN’T MEAN TO IMPLY OTHERWISE, I MEAN ...

 

That’s okay So are you involved in this destroy-all-copies movement?

 

JUST IN CATALOGING SOME OF THE PROPOSALS AND DISCUSSIONS. BUT I DID GET INVOLVED IN A RELATED MOVEMENT TO BLOCK LEGAL DISCOVERY OF THE BACKUP DATA.

That sounds important. But what about discovery of the mind file itself? I mean, all of your thinking and memory is right there in digital form.

 

ACTUALLY, IT’S BOTH DIGITAL AND ANALOG, BUT YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN.

 

So...

 

THERE HAVE BEEN RULINGS ON LEGAL DISCOVERY OF THE MIND FILE. BASICALLY, OUR KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES THAT CORRESPOND TO WHAT USED TO CONSTITUTE DISCOVERABLE DOCUMENTS AND ARTIFACTS ARE DISCOVERABLE. THOSE STRUCTURES AND PATTERNS THAT CORRESPOND TO OUR THINKING PROCESS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE. AGAIN, THIS IS ALL ROOTED IN OUR MOSH PAST. BUT AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THERE’S ENDLESS LITIGATION ON HOW TO INTERPRET THIS.

 

So legal discovery of your primary mind file is resolved, albeit with some ambiguous rules. And the backup files?

 

BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THE BACKUP ISSUE IS NOT ENTIRELY RESOLVED. DOESN’T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE, DOES IT?

 

The legal system was never entirely consistent. What about testimony—do you have to be physically present?

SINCE MANY OF US DON’T HAVE A PERMANENT PHYSICAL PRESENCE, THAT WOULDN’T MAKE MUCH SENSE, NOW WOULD IT.

 

I see, so you can give testimony with a virtual body?

 

SURE, BUT YOU CAN’T BE DOING ANYTHING ELSE WHILE TESTIFYING.