Slashdot Mirror


Dmitry Itskov Wants To Help You Live Forever Via an Android Avatar

trendspotter writes in with the latest news about the 2045 Project. "If Russian billionaire Dmitry Itskov has his way, the human lifespan will soon no longer depend on the limitations of the human body. Itskov, a Russian tycoon and former media mogul, is the founder of the 2045 Project — a venture that seeks to replace flesh-and-blood bodies with robotic avatars, each one uploaded with the contents of a human brain. The goal: to extend human lives by hundreds or thousands of years, if not indefinitely."

56 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. I agree with Lewis Black by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Death is not a bug, it's a feature. It's the only way we get rid of old assholes.

    1. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And also the young ones. Being an asshole has nothing to do with age!

    2. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by sahonen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, I think the effort of space colonization and life extension would be more appropriately put toward making the human race *worthy* of exploring the universe and living forever.

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    3. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Death is not a bug, it's a feature. It's the only way we get rid of old assholes.

      Hypothetically, if we were implementing immortality-by-simulation, couldn't we resort to Instance dungeons? No reason why all the avatars have to coexist in one self-consistent reality, when we could instead fork the annoying ones off into an eternal 'The Good Old Days' where they can live out their crabbed fantasies in fuzzy black and white forever...

      (Of course, if somebody's reality is dependent on simulation, and the requirement of self-consistency across all the simulants is dropped, you could could also theoretically cut the priority of everyone within a given instance, and run the in-sim passage of time at less than real time. As long as they don't have access to external timebases, they shouldn't even be able to tell.

    4. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      until someone out side needs to interact with them then they would be a bit peved to find out the a 500 years behind the curve.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    5. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What would that mean and is there any reason why both goals are mutually exclusive? Certainly not every great rocket scientist would be great at psychology or ethics. The good thing about living forever is that you have a lot more time to fix the problems.

      I just hate this "we aren't worthy" atitude. We sure haven't done everything right. Far from. But life has only become more peaceful and in general a lot has improved. Many deaths in the stone age were actually from tribal wars. We no longer solve our problems through violence as often as we used to do. It has however become much more public. We will hopefully continue to improve.

    6. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by Cryacin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The matrix is just part of a bigger matrix.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    7. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In a somewhat inspirational essay This is Water, David Foster Wallace deconstructs this kind of thinking into what it really is: a limited and narrow worldview where only you are the focus and others are "in your way".

      Humorously, xkcd points out that everyone else tends to think the exact same thing. That they're the brilliant, smart one and everyone else is a stupid and mindless automaton. It can only stem from a complete lack of empathy. Perhaps that driver who is going ten mph below the speed limit has general anxiety disorder and is only trying to get to work to the best of his ability.

      Everyone else is stupid and you're the brilliant one... Except you're not.

      Sir Ken Robinson lays out a pretty convincing reason why. Or I can simply fall back on an old Einstein quote about judging fish climbing trees.

    8. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by TheLink · · Score: 2

      It's a feature even if you aren't an asshole.

      Living forever is only going to be good under certain conditions. Otherwise it could be never-ending torture.

      I daresay most (if not all) of us aren't mentally stable enough to enjoy even a billion years alive. The first thousand years maybe, but a billion years?

      And even if you can manage a billion, imagine after a few billion when the last stars have gone dark and you're still alive. What would you do for the rest of your never-ending life? You've not even reached a trillion years.

      So it should actually scare you if it's true that we have immortal souls and it's not complete nonexistence when we die. Because it's only Heaven if you are made perfect. Otherwise it's going to be Hell.

      p.s. one workaround is periodically erasing your memories - but then that's not really living forever is it? I suppose you could selectively edit out certain memories, but after a few trillion years you might eventually decide to wipe yourself out (and thus die).

      --
    9. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 2

      But crazy billionaires are the best chance for all of us to reach the Singularity! I feel a little ill after typing that.

    10. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You verbed stylish!?!?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      He's a reformed Russian oligarch

      You think there's such a thing?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're next granddad.

    13. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

      Unless the universe runs out of new things to learn and create I don't see how anyone could ever get bored.

    14. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      According to who? Will you be the judge of this worthiness? Have you figured out objective good and bad then? Marvellous.

      I'm really growing weary of smug misanthropic assholes who quite comfortably apply negative attributes to billions of unique individuals to either excuse their own shortcomings or justify a vague sense of superiority. You know who's "worthy" to explore the universe and live forever? People who explore the universe and live forever.

    15. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by stenvar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      what fairytale are you living in? humanity is just as bad as it always has been.

      What fairytale are you living in? Humanity has become much less violent, much more intelligent, and much more productive over the last few centuries.

      developing genetic technology to eliminate negative human psychological traits (such as the seven sins) will create a much more cooperative and productive society to achieve goals like space exploration much more efficiently

      What you call "the seven sins" has important biological and social functions. And competition and self-interest are as important as cooperation for progress. The kind of people you are trying to design would be less efficient than what we currently have.

      but that also introduces the possibility that we aren't really fit at all if we are stupid enough to engineer ourselves with unintended consequences that ultimately lead to our premature extinction.

      Indeed. And you just gave a splendid example of that, because the way you think of human evolution and enhancement is like the old eugenicists.

    16. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by stenvar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      couldn't we resort to Instance dungeons [wikipedia.org]? No reason why all the avatars have to coexist in one self-consistent reality

      Where do you think you are?

    17. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by khallow · · Score: 2

      what fairytale are you living in?

      The same one you're living in.

      we have used technological development to come up with new ways to take advantage of each other.

      So? Why I should be denied from some sort of immortality because someone else recently figured out a new angle for exploitation?

      i think the op was implying that rather than spending trillions of dollars trying to get into space and live forever against all the problems of humanity, developing genetic technology to eliminate negative human psychological traits (such as the seven sins) will create a much more cooperative and productive society to achieve goals like space exploration much more efficiently.

      And why would we want to eliminate negative human psychological traits? They might increase the incident of exploitation of one another, but they also increase our resistance to exploitation. I don't see why I should be interested in building a cooperative and productive society of modified humans only to be ruthlessly exploited by the unmodified humans (or perhaps humans modified to amplify traits for exploiting others).

      but that also introduces the possibility that we aren't really fit at all if we are stupid enough to engineer ourselves with unintended consequences that ultimately lead to our premature extinction.

      Keep that in mind next time you feel the desire to remove "negative" human traits. Somehow those traits got into humans in the first place and they probably did because they provided survival or reproductive advantages. Those advantages might continue to be relevant in our future.

      but no less a fairytale than thinking humans living forever would create a better world. it would actually make the world much much worse; medicines, food and clean water would very quickly become a scarcity, and in cities population density would skyrocket to the point where poilce would be overwhelmed by an explosion in crime rates. public transport would grind to a halt, queues for everything would extend ad infinitum to the point where even basic grocery shopping would eventually become impractical.

      Why would that happen? Obviously, population can't grow without limit. Either humans would figure out how to limit population voluntarily or they wouldn't and there'd be a die-off with wiser survivors. Either way, you end up with a population of immortal people who control their population.

      I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it.

      That's the problem with movie quotes. They're made in the context of a fantasy. In reality, it requires considerable discipline to get scientific "power".

      One of the things that is ignored here is that an immortal population of humans has by its nature a much longer view of things than current humans do. For example, it has often been complained about that people today aren't interested in the affairs of people who will be living on Earth a century or two down the road. If everyone today was expecting to be alive in two centuries, then suddenly you have a lot more interest in what happens.

      Another thing that is ignored is the vast pool of experience that would build up in an immortal society and the ability for small groups to do projects that span long periods of time. The prior mentioned space travel thing is one such thing, but there are many things that people could do, if they had the time and resources.

    18. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Personally, I think that being happy about your own mortality is the most triumphant example of Stockholm Syndrome.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    19. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by dcw3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you're an old asshole, you'll learn to understand why we all get that way. At 54, there are physically a lot of things I just can't do nearly as well as only a few years ago. Most of us end up in some sort of chronic pain...knee and shoulder for me. We're pissed off that the inevitable end is nearing. And, we have to put up with young assholes, who think they know everything, when they've had very little life experience.

      Now, get the fuck off my lawn.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    20. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by laejoh · · Score: 2

      On the back of a turtle!

    21. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by AgentSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The matrix is just part of a bigger matrix.

      Hey! You are not authorized to know that!

      [talks in wrist microphone]
      Spawn another agent to take care of this.

    22. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      Sounds like Permutation City by Greg Egan. Also Eternity by I think Greg Bear. No doubt there are others.

      The more valuable you are to (living) society, the closer to real time could be allowed to run. If someone is making great achievements for humanity, they could be simulated in faster than real time, but they would have to slow down or instantiate avatars to interact with live humans.

      Another strangeness is that once freed from human bodies, people's simulacra could alter themselves to enhance or remove cognitive capacities. Some of them could become truly alien.

    23. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by OakDragon · · Score: 2

      I'd have to disagree, we are just as violent (how can we not be it's in our nature) think we aren't go and watch two children playing and see how long before they physically start fighting. That is a genetic feature programmed into us for survival. Now granted as we've grown older as individuals we have suppressed that side of our nature.

      Just look at the facts. Steven Pinker wrote a book on this subject. I don't expect you to take just his word for it, or accept him automatically as an authority, but what he says makes sense to me.

      I also hope you didn't type "much more productive" with a straight face. Are you blind to how lazy we've become? I'd say people were far more productive 100 - 50 - even just 25 years ago than we are today. We may produce more, but long gone are the days we have to grind our own wheat to make flour...

      Well, "productive" refers to how much we produce, not the amount of effort we put into it.

    24. Re:I agree with Lewis Black by stenvar · · Score: 2

      I'd have to disagree, we are just as violent

      It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact, whether you look at homicide rates, executions, wars, violent crime, etc.

      I also hope you didn't type "much more productive" with a straight face

      Again, it's a fact: per capita economic output is much higher than at any time in history.

      I'd say we are in declined and our reliance on our current way of life will come to bite us in the ass.

      I'd say you're a Luddite and a doomsayer.

  2. Ok, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unless you can transfer your consciousness you're still going to be dead.

    1. Re:Ok, but... by bondiblueos9 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps your consciousness could be transferred into an electronic brain the same way it was transferred from your brain several years ago to your current brain: cell by cell. If you could design an electronic brain that was identical to a biological brain and could replace it piece by piece and continue to function in the same way, then presumably you would never notice the transition.

      --
      Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Sigs are Dangerous to Your Health
    2. Re:Ok, but... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unless you can transfer your consciousness you're still going to be dead.

      Spending your waning years of weakness, decay, and degradation, plagued by the constant cruel mockery of your ageless immortal doppelganger is just a fun extra feature!

    3. Re:Ok, but... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps your consciousness could be transferred into an electronic brain the same way it was transferred from your brain several years ago to your current brain: cell by cell.

      FYI, brains don't progressively replace themselves like some organs do. You have almost all the neurons you'll ever have when you're born. There was a story here a few days ago about the discovery of a small region of the hippocampus that does generate new cells, unlike most of the rest of the brain.

      Your post also brings up another interesting thought, a question raised by ancient philosophers. Suppose Jason comes home on the Argo and props it up on blocks to keep for a souvenir. As the years go by, whenever a plank rots he replaces it with a new one. Does it stop being the Argo at some point?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:Ok, but... by mwvdlee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It would also have to be able to form new connections and change existing ones, just like real brain cells.

      I wonder to what amount the rest of your body influences the constant changes in a brain.
      Not talking about the obvious stuff like hormones but something more basic; the type of food you eat influences the cell growth in the rest of your body, how does it impact the brain?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    5. Re:Ok, but... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      and if not and he then later reassembles all of the old rotten beams which is the real argo?

      I think the witch test would actually work here: drop them in water, and if sinks it's the real thing.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Ok, but... by Jamu · · Score: 2

      It stops being the Argo in toto the moment the first plank is replaced and it becomes mostly the Argo. Eventually there is no Argo, except for all the parts that have been removed, assuming they still exist. Maybe consciousness works the same way, and eventually the new you will have nothing in common with the you of the past. Perhaps it would be like knowing you were once another person, but not remembering what it was like.

      --
      Who ordered that?
  3. Copies are not you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Another idiot that doesn't realize the difference between a copy and themself.

    1. Re:Copies are not you! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Another idiot that doesn't realize the difference between a copy and themself.

      What if you implemented the copy by gradual replacement?

    2. Re:Copies are not you! by Bremic · · Score: 5, Funny

      More than this, if you copy yourself to a different vessel, your memories get copied. This will include the movies and television you have seen and the music you have listened to.

      Copying of movies, television and music in any format is big bad evil according to the wonderful US legislators who take lots of money from record companies and movie studios - so backing yourself up is a copyright violation.

      This will be important to remember when the uber wealthy (probably the executives of the same record companies and movie studios) back themselves up. Because then we charge them with illegal copyright violations and get them to vacate their new bodies. Of course by then they will give each other free distribution rights and use it as a hammer to stop the "irrelevant plebs" from ever being able to save themselves.

    3. Re:Copies are not you! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      The first uploads would be test subjects. The second batch would be the mega-rich, because only they would be able to afford it at first. The mega-rich have lobbyists and friends in high places - they'll sort the legal issues out. It may involve workaround like a trust fund required to act upon the orders of the upload, until such time as they can get a law passed to recognise them as effectively living humans.

    4. Re:Copies are not you! by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Another idiot that doesn't realize the difference between a copy and themself.

      Define "self".

    5. Re:Copies are not you! by dinfinity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the only truly insightful comment in this thread.

      Everybody is so hung up on the pervasive illusion of a spatiotemporally continuous consciousness that they forget that nothing on any reasonable macro level even exists without a definition.

      For some definitions of 'you', you didn't exist a minute ago. For others, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there are multiple instances of 'you'. It just happens that those definitions are not as useful to work with in daily life. It is more effective for an organism to have any instance of consciousness feel responsible for the next one that may arise in it and the ones that previously arose in it. We can't prove that our current consciousness is 'the same' as it was yesterday. We can only define that it is.

      Which leads to the only reasonable conclusion: You define whether 'you' die in copy/teleportation thought experiments.

    6. Re:Copies are not you! by coinreturn · · Score: 2

      This is the only truly insightful comment in this thread.

      Everybody is so hung up on the pervasive illusion of a spatiotemporally continuous consciousness that they forget that nothing on any reasonable macro level even exists without a definition.

      For some definitions of 'you', you didn't exist a minute ago. For others, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there are multiple instances of 'you'. It just happens that those definitions are not as useful to work with in daily life. It is more effective for an organism to have any instance of consciousness feel responsible for the next one that may arise in it and the ones that previously arose in it. We can't prove that our current consciousness is 'the same' as it was yesterday. We can only define that it is.

      Which leads to the only reasonable conclusion: You define whether 'you' die in copy/teleportation thought experiments.

      I always consider myself a new person each day. The previous day's person died when he went to sleep. It's a great defense in court, too. "Your Honor, I'm not the guy who committed that murder, he died that night. And if you lock me up, you'll be unjustly punishing an endless series of people who achieve consciousness in this body each day."

  4. Any guesses? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How long before existing ransomware is adapted to these bold robotic avatars, and the infected get the exciting opportunity to not have the sensation of full-body chemical burns replayed on loop in exchange for a modest and reasonable payment by Western Union?

    1. Re:Any guesses? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Greg Egan covered that in a short story. Some nefarious types got hold of a scan of his (still-living) wife, ran a simulation of her and subjected it to torture. I think he paid up in the end.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  5. Transporters by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ISTM that Star Trek transporters are a type of 3D scanner/printer. But somehow they have to get your hundred-trillion synapses to connect the right cells, and at the right connection strength. Possibly even the current neural firing patterns, since when you get 'printed' you immediately have all your facilities and remember what you were up to when you got into the transporter.

    I don't think that's ever going to be possible. But if it was, would the end result still be you, or just an artificial twin?

    If transporter technology was feasible, they should be able to keep the original and print the copy using the contents of the refrigerator. I suppose that, like forking a process, it wouldn't be easy for the participants to tell who is the original and who is the copy, but I wouldn't expect them to share a common consciousness.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  6. Obligatory by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2
  7. Re:22 posts... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...and not one question about how long it would take the NSA to get a court order allowing them to copy your memories from whatever system you have them coppied to?

    Apparently they don't need to get a court order anymore. (Some people are saying that *that* is the real scandal.)

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  8. Re:Hmmm... by black3d · · Score: 2, Insightful

    On the contrary, you believe in the illusion of continuity. Has quantum physics taught you nothing? If the universe was stable, your conjecture would hold. As the existence of energy is provably not stable nor absolute, you've been conned into universality. Don't get me wrong, we're definitely stardust. But consciousness is a temporary unstable state. Your consciousness doesn't continue to exist after you die - only the constituent parts of it do. What you're suggesting is akin to "your unspoken dreams exist forever because the energy that comprised them does." Not only does your energy not exist forever, but entropy means your dreams are gone when you are.

    On the other hand, if you actually believe in a coherent universal consciousness, then you're just batshit crazy instead.

    --
    "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
  9. Re:thats the idea.. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    There are no fundamental laws that say it cannot be done. It's just an engineering problem. Engineering problems can be solved with a combination of time and gigantic piles of money.

  10. Re:Android avatar, really? by cripkd · · Score: 3, Funny

    Especially with today's smartphone battery life.

    --
    Curiously yours, crip.
  11. Re:Hmmm... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's pretty derp for Slashdot.

    FTFY.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  12. Not living forever by TuringCheck · · Score: 2

    echo "Goodbye cruel world!"; rm -rf /

    1. Re:Not living forever by din0 · · Score: 2

      rm: cannot remove `/': Permission denied by Anonymous Government Agencies who are not done spying on you

  13. lol by luther349 · · Score: 2

    even if you managed to copy my brain and put it into a new body the original is still dead.

  14. Re:Hmmm... by SuperGus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Onsciousnesscay isway alreadyway immortalway. Eway areway ethay universeway itselfway, elievingbay otherwiseway isway elievingbay inway ethay illusionway ofway eparatenesssay.

  15. Re:Don't do it! by EdZ · · Score: 2

    It's a real shame that the two most common representations of cyborgs in popular culture (The Borg and Cybermen) are really shitty cyborgs, with all the downsides of biological and electromechanical components combined (stuck in a humanoid form, lurching about slowly, with rigid 'logical' thinking. They're basically zombies in tinfoil) without any of the upsides. The third most popular is the 6 Million Dollar Man who is somewhat better, but is still stuck in the idea of prosthetic bodies trying to ape the human body. When was the last time you saw, outside of manga/anime or more obscure science fiction novels, somebody putting their brain in a jar, and putting that jar in a non-humanoid body?

  16. Re:thats the idea.. by lxs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Despite Dan Dennett handwaving the whole matter and declaring that consciousness in an illusion (but fails to define who or what is falling for that illusion), nobody has the faintest clue what consciousness is, which makes it more than an engineering problem.

  17. Re:thats the idea.. by The+Cat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's nothing more entertaining than a random collection of chemicals that, according to itself, crawled out of the muck 5 minutes ago in cosmic terms and is now going to lecture the universe on how things are.

    You don't know dick. In cosmic terms, the human race is a toddler that has just now learned the lights go on when the switch is up, and off when the switch is down. Our "engineers" are the toddler that flips the light on and off repeatedly while making a noise like "huhuHUHUHuHuHuHUUhuUHUHUhuuH"

    Any scientific pronouncements uttered by humanity are chuckled at by the cosmos and the various advanced beings in it the same way adults chuckle at a toddler who marches around the house wearing a pasta strainer on their head.

    The human race can't even feed itself and wipe its own ass yet. Get the fuck over yourself.

  18. Re:thats the idea.. by foniksonik · · Score: 2

    It's not the brain alone though. It's the sum of you. There is a somatic context. Recreating that somatic context with an artificial construct may be possible but we have no real understanding of what that does to self awareness.

    I'm not aware of any broad psychological studies on people before and after accidents where large parts of their body has been lost or replaced. Are those people the same or radically different? Are the known psychological changes a result of the trauma, loss of functionality in the eyes of those around them or a result of physiological impacts on brain chemistry from loss of the body parts in question.

    The brain is more than the conscious frontal lobes also. What would the impact be to have no autonomous signals coming from the heart, lungs, etc. We haven't even considered simulating the hind brain or the mid brain which both control our body, receive all sensory input and translate it to signals we are consciously aware of.

    It's not just the brain "doing its thing" unless by that you mean, monitoring and aggregating/filtering all stimulation from the body into self awareness. It needs a body to do that. Anything less is likely to cause the brain to shutdown into a coma. So you'd need to recreate that brain body system to have self awareness.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.