|
PWS Discussion |
Brad Hutt, 5th year School of Architecture student, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. September 2001.
The idea of the Cyberborg community existing in a specially designed environment that facilitates their independence while making them accessible to the avatar masters, conjures a few interesting scenarios.
Given that these individual creations can continue to operate under pre determined "settings" even in the event of the death of its creator begs the question; who will they serve at this point? Will they be skilled workers with pre programmed experience that can be traded as a commodity, or simply turned off?
What form of currency will they earn? Will currency cease to exist and "cyber-knowledge/performance" replace the tradition forms of barter?
If they earn money for a creator accumulates as they "sit at the beach", can the ideas and the dreams of that creator continue in a pre-programmed plan after they become deceased? This would create a new economy that provides an ultimate form of capitalism allowing for the creators of these PWS. Cyberborgs continue accumulating revenue infintley. Everyone with a PWS could become wealthy beyond the scope of current possibility. Even PWS' continue to grow, change and reflect progress regardless of the passing of a cyberborg creator.
Now, we have to create the cyber banking system for this new currency.
Cyber Planners?
Not unlike retirement planning, is the possibility of "death planning" a future reality that allows the creators the ability to have their PWS. Cyberborgs continue to create revenues for a deceased creators and have the wishes of that creator continue to be fulfilled in the form of an "Almost Last Will and Testament" after their demise?
Are we threatening the cusp of immortality in the creation of this new "cyberborg society"? Finally, again the burning question is governance?
Brad- really cool thoughts. I thought that the cyberborgs would be free agents after the death of their creators. Earning money for themselves to spend on stuff in RL and in the Metaverse like more data storage, faster AI or better nanomachines for telepresence in RL. BMF
G. Waddington" <geoff@realdecoy.com> 09/14/01 02:08PM
Another interesting perspective (albeit a little more alarmist) ontechnology evolution can be found at the following URL: http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Singularity/sing.html
Abstract
Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.
Is such progress avoidable? If not to be avoided, can events be guided so that we may survive? These questions
are investigated. Some possible answers (and some further dangers) are presented.
There are several interesting papers debating this concept of the"singularity" on that site.
The events of the past week make the concept of a "personal assistant" kind of dangerous. Technology, even technology not designed for harm, can cause incredible damage in the wrong hands. The danger is not solved when *your* robot follows Asimov's rules, because someone else can create one that doesn't.
Those are the more fundamental issues that must be addressed before these ideas get implemented.
________________________________________________________________________
Geoffrey Waddington
President and CEO
RealDecoy Inc.
Geoff- I realize the events of the last week (the destruction of the World Trade Center Buildings in NYC, Tuesday, September 11, 2001) are terrifying. I think they will put a chill on all achievement. I hate to think we will now be too frightened to challenge our limits- to build tall structures or do other great things because they make you stand out and that we will then feel too threatened to boldly go to new places and do new things. BMF
Emily Greenfield, 5th year School of Architecture Student, Carleton Univerisyt, Ottawa, Canada. Septemebr 2001.
An interesting article, it certainly is a step between the present use of Personal Web Pages, and the future of the Metaverse predicted by Stephenson and Tad Williams. I haven't heard the term "cyberborg" before, it certainly fits your idea
quite concisely. I am particularily intrigued by the idea of these cyberborgs existing in society as separate entities that like us must
struggle for survival.It is slightly ironic that, according to many, the advance of computer technology and the supposed "ease" that it will bring to everyone's lives will be perhaps balanced by the work load the cyberborgs would need to maintain. A symbiotic relationship? An unbalanced worker/master relationship? (Farhenheit 454, will the workers rebel from
their forced slot in society?) Or a rekindling of what (I certainly think) society has lost....the work ethic? Should humans then be forces to compete with these virtual workers. Asimov's rules of robotics imply the idea that these virtual beings would
one day take corporeal form.Your last addendum is reminiscent of the warning of film's such as Blade Runner : that creating artificial intelliegence,which is incapable of experiencing and can only mimick human emotions, may become ultimately controlled by them.Especially if they view themselves as being unfairly treated!
Thanks, I wonder what disadvantage that would give to the cyberborgs in an open market, where people are not programmed like they would have to be to obey the laws. Morality, I think, would be easier to program than it is to
teach.
Emily- nicely done. Cyberborgs would need to obey the laws of robotics and other laws even in cyber form because they could really create havoc in the metaverse. If they don't follow the law in all its forms including the right to privacy, property rights, etc., they are sanctioned, which at the extreme means termination. BMF ps. it is Fahrenheit 451 not 454.
Arsalan Zargar, Carleton University B. School Graduate, 2001.
This was indeed a very thought provoking paper for me. Engineers have traditionally been concerned with improving the quality of life with inventions. But it seems to me in this paper, we are proposing to act as god and use our civil and criminal laws as the "holy book" of our creations.
While I agree with the first half of the paper about PWSs and sharing our IP with others to improve humankind, I do not agree with creating cyberborgs to be an extension of us. I quote part of you paper,
"higher skilled cyberborgs will be in greater demand and will be paid more, one assumes. An architect's cyberborg can presumably get a job in an office running a CAD system; ……. It needs to get along with people and other cyberborgs. It needs to be able to work in teams. I suppose they will compete for resources so that they can get more real estate (for data storage, say) or, more fundamentally, so that no one pulls the plug on a useless cyberborg that simply takes up netspace or breaks the law."
Does this not remind us of such creatures called humans? And as the creators of these cyberborgs, are we not acting as God? Furthermore, what will happen to a cyberborg who is 3 or 4 generations old? Will it be able to adapt to the new changes that technology will bring? And when a human "pulls the plug" on a cyberborg, are they not committing murder? How shall we punish the human?
As humans we have gotten bored of having control over what exists in our current environment and so we are trying to create yet another thing that we can control.
Arsalan- I hear you but I don't necessarily agree with you. I see cyberborgs as a powerful new Metaverse tool- a productivity tool to raise human living standards. I put your comments on the discussion page- I think a lot of people will agree with you though. BMF