Cosmist/Terran

Appeal to Applied Philosophers (Prof. Peter Singer)

Contents
------

a) My original email (Sept 1999) to Prof Singer (newly appointed to Princeton University as bioethics professor)
b) His reply
c) My reply
----------
d) My reminder (Feb 2000)
e) His reply
f) My reply
---------
g) His reply (July 2000)
h) My reply
---------
i) My reminder (Aug 2000)

My Original Email
-------------

6th Sept. 1999,

Dear Professor Singer,

I invite and challenge you to be the first professional philosopher on the planet (as far as I know) to write seriously and extensively on the issue of species dominance.

I am pioneering the building of artificial brains by evolving neural net circuit modules containing over 1000 artificial neurons each, directly in electronics at electronic speeds, in about a second, and then downloading 64000 of these modules, one at a time, into RAM memory to construct a humanly architected artificial brain of some 75 million neurons. The machine I use to do this is then used to update the artificial brain in real time to control the many behaviors of a lifesized kitten robot.

This achievement is only the beginning however. 21st century technologies, e.g. nanoteched 1 bit per atom, femtosecond switching, reversible, heatless, 3D, self assembling, asteroid sized, quantum computers will give humanity the potential to build "artilects" (artificial intellects) with intelligence levels literally trillions of trillions of trillions of times above the human level. These numbers are calculated from the physics of computation. (I used to be a theoretical physicist, working under David Bohm).

As our machines become smarter every year (we are seeing the beginnings of this process with the AI based electronic pets, Furby, Aibo, etc) I see humanity splitting into two major, bitterly opposed, ideological camps - those in favor of building artilects, the "Cosmists", (taking a cosmic perspective, and arguing that artilect building is the destiny of the human species, a 21st century science-compatible religion), and those against, the "Terrans" (who will fear that artilects in an advanced state may decide, for whatever reason, to wipe out the human species). The Terrans will argue that the only way to ensure that such a risk never arises is that the artilects never be built, which flatly conflicts with the goals of the Cosmists. I foresee a gigadeath artilect war, late 21st century between these two groups. Given the magnitude of the stakes (the survival of the human species) the Terrans will be prepared in the limit to exterminate the Cosmists, if the latter are serious about building artilects.

Some 200 million people died in the 20th century for political reasons. With 21st century weapons, a loglinear extrapolation up the graph of deaths in wars and time, predicts gigadeath. Since Im personally a Cosmist (but not a fanatic one), and the father of the worlds first artificial brain, I dont want to die being seen as the father of gigadeath. So I try to raise the alarm, to get people thinking about the artilect issue before the machines get too smart, so that humanity has time to choose one way or the other. (But, on the other hand, Im a Cosmist). Hence I am contacting you to challenge you to pioneer the planetary philosophical effort needed to thrash out the many ramifications of the Cosmist/Terran dichotomy, and related issues.

The issue of species dominance, "should humanity build artilects" will dominate 21st century global politics. The issues are so profound, when taken seriously, that I suggest you devote more than a chapter to them in the next edition of your "Practical Ethics" , but rather a whole book. Hopefully, you will then point the way for other philosophers to get into the new field of "The Philosophy of Species Dominance", or "Artilect Ethics" or whatever you choose to call this new branch of applied philosophy.

If your curiosity is piqued and you would like to know more, I suggest you hit my web site, for essays on the topic, and a ton of world wide publicity.

http://www.cs.usu.edu/~degaris

I suggest starting with

http://www.cs.usu.edu/~degaris/lifegoals.html

and if that interests you, going further with

http://www.cs.usu.edu/~degaris/essays/index.html

and if you become committed, then you may like to read my 100 page manuscript at

http://www.cs.usu.edu/~degaris/artilectwar.html

Hoping that this email will change your life -

Cheers,

Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garis,
Head, Brain Builder Group,
ATR Labs, Kyoto, Japan.
degaris@hip.atr.co.jp

(from Feb 2000)
Head, Brain Builder Group,
STARLAB, Brussels, Belgium, Europe.
degaris@starlab.net

P.S. You may remember an ex colleague of yours, Carol de Garis (or Carol Gale) who was my first wife.

---------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [Fwd: Prof.Dr. Hugo de Garis, philosophy of species dominance]
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 12:30:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: psinger@Princeton.EDU (Peter Singer)
To: Hugo de Garis

I have received your message, but I am simply too busy at the moment to take a look at your web-site, or think about any new topics. Hopefully that may change in the coming months.

---------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [Fwd: Prof.Dr. Hugo de Garis, philosophy of species dominance]
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 04:55:57 +0900
From: Hugo de Garis
Organization: ATR
To: Peter Singer , degaris@hip.atr.co.jp,
mpiscioneri@hotmail.com, ray@kurzweiledu.com, hpm@cmu.edu, kw@cyber.rdg.ac.uk

Dear Peter,

I understand you must be snowed under with the big move.

When things settle and you find time and mental energy to look at new topics, I hope you will give a little thought to the issue of whether humanity should risk building god like machines that just might turn on us. To get the philosophical community to take this issue seriously, before we scientists/technologists ram it down peoples throats, a pioneering spirit is needed to see the philosophical writing on the wall before the horde does. Im hoping that spirit will be you with your courageous track record.

If you feel you have made your reputation with your work on euthanasia, animal rights, etc, I believe those issues pale in comparison with the issue of species dominance, the issue which will dominate 21st century global politics the way the issue of who should own the machines dominated 20th century global politics. If you want, you could have a whole new career, a second wind. The species dominance issue is so profound, so rich, that philosophers will eventually have a field day. The philosophical nuggets are just lying on the ground waiting to be picked up by the first philosopher-explorers wandering into virgin territory.

I will email you again in about 3-6 months to see if you have a little mental energy to spare (or if some of your grad students do. Perhaps you might be inclined to pass on this email to some of them?).

Cheers,

Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garis

http://www.cs.usu.edu/~degaris

P.S. Matthew Piscioneri (CCed above) is organizing the world's first philosophical workshop on this issue in Hobart. The others are scientists who have written books on the species dominance issue.

===============================

My Reminder (Feb. 2000)
===================

Subject: Artilect Debate reminder
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 17:17:04 +0100
From: Hugo de Garis
To: psinger@Princeton.edu, degaris@starlab.net

Dear Professor Singer,

The last time I emailed you, you were in the thick of moving jobs and had no mind space left for new things. I hope this email finds you more settled.

Im emailing you hoping that you might become interested in the species dominance issue. I include my earlier two emails to you below.

The TV documentary media are now getting very interested in these questions. I have half a dozen TV crews now filming or in the pipeline (Discovery Channel, Equinox, Nova, etc).

Cheers,

Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garis,
Head, Brain Builder Group,
STARLAB, Brussels, Belgium.
degaris@starlab.net
http://www.cs.usu.edu/~degaris

=================

Prof. Singer's Reply
--------------

Subject: Re: Artilect Debate reminder
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:15:15 -0500
From: Peter Singer
Organization: Princeton University
To: Hugo de Garis
Peter Singer wrote:

Dear Professor de Garis,

Thanks for the reminder. I have begun reading the www addresses to which you referred me, but, to be blunt, I am not sure how to place you between the "total flake" and "genius ahead of his time" views of your ideas. I just lack the expertise myself. But in one interview you gave, you said this:
"In my own case, I'm making big claims. I'm being ambitious. I really think it is possible to make artificial brains with current technology and I hope to show the world a working artificial brain before the turn of the millenium. If I can pull it off, then I will get the acclaim such an achievement would deserve."
So now that the millennium has turned [admittedly, barely] can you show us a working artificial brain? If not now, when?

Peter Singer
DeCamp Professor of Bioethics
University Center for Human Values
Princeton University,
Princeton, NJ 08544-1013
USA
Tel: + 1 609 258 2202
Fax: + 1 609 258 1285

============

My reply :
------

Subject: Re: Artilect Debate reminder
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:42:38 +0100
From: Hugo de Garis
To: psinger@Princeton.EDU, degaris@starlab.net

Dear Peter Singer,

Nice to get a reply from you.

I'm hoping that in about a year, you and millions of others, thanks to a string of major TV documentaries on my work and ideas that are in the pipeline now (Discovery Channel, Equinox, Nova etc), the ambiguity of my position between crackpot and genius ahead of his time will have been clarified. Im hoping you will become convinced that one of, if not THE, biggest practical ethical problem to be faced this century, will be whether humanity should or should not build massively intelligent machines. Im trying to persuade you to give the issue some of your energy, and begin inspiring other philosophers to take up the artilect question as I call it (artilect = artificial intellect).

I appreciate that an initial threshold level of credibility in a new topic is needed by a research community before an established figure dares tackle that topic. This threshold is constantly lowering thanks to growing media exposure to the ideas. Im expecting that within about 2 years, the idea that the 21st century will be faced with the prospect of the construction of massive intelligent machines will be common place and widely accepted. It will then be easier for you to begin writing about the many ethical issues that this development will imply. I suggest you wait about a year, then start, if you choose to.

I cant start designing an artificial brain until my brain building machine is delivered. It will come to my new lab STARLAB in Brussels, Belgium in June 2000. This incredible machine can evolve a 1000 neuron net in about 1 second, thus rendering practical the assembly of 10,000s of such evolved circuit modules into humanly architected artificial brains. I had hoped several years ago to have already designed such a brain by the turn of the millenium, but delays due to technical and commercial complications prevented this. Still, 2 of these machines have already been delivered and are just now starting to work. I think you will be hearing in the news that the first such artificial brain will be built within about a year or two from now. We will work up, firstly seeing what single modules we can evolve successfully, then multimodule systems with 10s of circuits, then 100s, 1000s, 10,000s up to 64,000, the capacity of the machine, i.e. about 75 million artificial neurons. Im hoping within about 3 years, a new research field, "brain building" will have been established, and that within 5 years, a "brain based computer industry" will have started to grow.

If you are intrigued by this whole issue, I suggest dabbling quickly into my manuscript at

htpp://www.cs.usu.edu/~degaris/artilectwar.html

If you like what you read, you may like to read it all. Most of my ideas can be summarized briefly in the slogan I use a lot in the media which is -

"Do we build gods, or do we build our potential exterminators?"

I think true flakes dont have track records. Im 52, have an AI/ALife PhD, 4 guest/adjunct professorships (in China, Japan, Europe and the US), 100 publications (journal, conf, book chapters), have invented several research fields (evolvable hardware, brain building) and get $5000 a speech lately. If someone is to be truly pioneering, I think that person needs to have a thick hide, a strong self belief and a lot of guts. You are gutsy and smart, which is the reason why I approach you. If you can be convinced to start writing about the artilect issue (that I believe will dominate global politics this century and your own speciality (applied ethics)) then other philosophers will follow your lead. All that is needed is one courageous competent person to break the ice. Im hoping that person will be you, and that you wont wait too long, because ideas travel so fast now on the web, that others may start writing seriously before you do. You may be pipped at the post.

Cheers,

Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garis,
Head, Brain Builder Group,
STARLAB, Brussels, Belgium, Europe.
degaris@starlab.net
http://www.cs.usu.edu/~degaris
http://www.starlab.org

P.S. Are you finding Princeton more intellectually stimulating than Monash?

Are any of your research students interested in the artilect issue (do we build them or not)? Personally, I get several research students (M.Sc and Ph.D levels) a week wanting to work with me on the technical side. I have difficulty however, trying to persuade people on the humanities side to take up the many ethical/philosophical/political/social issues that the rise of the 21st century artilect generates. I suppose this situation is natural. These ideas are new even amongst the technologists who are creating the problem (such as myself). It takes time for these ideas to filter through to the humanities guys - 2 years Im betting.

==============

His reply (July 2000):
---------------

Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:38:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: psinger@Princeton.EDU (Peter Singer)
To: Hugo de Garis
Subject: Re: Hugo, enquete pour Le Monde

Dear Hugo,

Belated thanks for copying me on the response to Cecile of Le Monde, and also for mentioning me in your replies. I've been away, hence didn't get to read your message until recently. Even though you may not think Bill Joy's article said anything new, it has certainly raised the public profile of the issue - as often happens, this has more to do with who wrote it than with what it said.

I'm thinking of including some mention of this issue in a lecture series I am giving at Yale in the fall - the lectures will be on problems raised by globalization, and the issue of global control of artilects - if that is possible/desirable - would fit into it. May I quote you from your responses to Le Monde?

Hans Jonas, by the way, is dead, so you are unlikely to become enemies now, but I am sure you would have if you had met. But then, he was against a lot of new technology in medicine that has been generally accepted, eg organ transplantations. I usually find myself disagreeing with his writings.

Peter Singer

My reply (July 2000)
---------------

Dear Peter,

I was very happy to get your email and even happier to hear that you are thinking of talking about these issues in an upcoming lecture series of yours. That is a good start from my point of view. Of course, what I am hoping you will do eventually is persuade yourself that the species dominance issue and all the many ethical issues over whether humanity should take the risk of building artilects or not is worthy of a book (perhaps "Artilect Ethics"). Coming from you, such a book would truly launch the field and stimulate other philosophers to think along similar lines. I believe it is only a question of time before philosophers will find these issues to be incredibly rich intellectually speaking.

Cheers,

Hugo

P.S.
The world's first philosophical workshop on artilect ethics (Ethics of AI) is taking place now on the web at

http://www.justlikethat.com/client/philosophy_user/ai.html

Its being organised by University of Hobart Ph D student in philosophy Matthew Piscioneri (mpiscion@utas.edu.au)

=========

My reminder (August 2000)
---------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 17:52:54 +0200
From: Hugo de Garis
To: psinger@Princeton.EDU, degaris@starlab.net, mpiscioneri@hotmail.com
Subject: Hugo, professorial debate on AI Ethics heats up, URL

Dear Peter,

Have you been following the professorial debate on the Ethics of AI (and artilects) to be found at

http://www.justlikethat.com/client/philosophy_user/ai.html

It has had over 30,000 hits already. Some of the names who have already contributed are world class, especially Prof. I. J. Good (of Ultra Intelligent Machine (UIM) fame). (See list of submitted essays below, mostly from university professors). I think you will find this forum worthy of you. Certainly if you contribute to it, it would encourage other world class applied ethics philosophers to take the species dominance issue seriously. I think it is fair to say that the tide is already turning regarding the level of acceptance amongst philosophy professors of this critical topic.

If you do decide to contribute a piece (perhaps a cut and past job taken from one of your fall lectures, could you please email it to

Matthew Piscioneri (mpiscioneri@hotmail.com)

who is organizing this AI Ethics web journal/forum.

Cheers,

Hugo

Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garis
Head, Starbrain,
Starlab's Artificial Brain Project
degaris@starlab.net
http:///www.cs.usu.edu/~degaris
http://www.starlab.org

=============

Henry Cribbs
"Bearing Frankenstein's Children: Artificial Intelligence and Objective Moral Values"
http://www.justlikethat.com/client/philosophy_user/ai_paper/cribbs/cribbs.html

Whitby and Oliver
"How to Avoid a Robot Takeover"
http://www.justlikethat.com/client/philosophy_user/ai_paper/whit.html

Prof. I. J. Good
"Ethical Machines"
http://www.justlikethat.com/client/philosophy_user/ai_paper/goodpaper1.html

Prof. de Garis
"The Artilect War"
http://www.justlikethat.com/client/philosophy_user/ai_paper/artwar.html

Prof. Stuart
"Artificial Rights"
http://www.justlikethat.com/client/philosophy_user/ai_paper/artrights.html