Here's a press release I was forwarded from the SENS Foundation. This is an unprecedented event because it shows that the Oxford University Scientific Society is taking the possibility of defeating aging seriously by holding a debate on it. The views of this society have strong influence on the world of science in general.

Leading Scientists to Debate Views on Rejuvenation Biotechnologies

MOUNTAIN VIEW, California (April 17, 2012) - The Oxford University Scientific Society is hosting a debate on Wednesday, 25th April, 2012. The debate will begin at 7pm local time (11am Pacific, 2pm Eastern) in the University of Oxford's Sheldonian Theatre; doors open 45 minutes earlier.

Dr. Aubrey de Grey will propose the motion "This house wants to defeat ageing entirely" and Professor Colin Blakemore will be opposing. The debate will be chaired and moderated by Professor Sir Richard Peto. This debate will address whether it is feasible and appropriate to consider ageing as a target of decisive medical intervention, raising the possibility of substantial extension of human lifespan.

Aubrey de Grey is currently Chief Science Officer of SENS Foundation, a biomedical research charity that aims to develop, promote, and ensure widespread access to rejuvenation biotechnologies that address the diseases and disabilities of ageing. SENS Foundation aims to bring ageing under comprehensive medical control. Its research agenda consists of the application of regenerative medicine to ageing - not merely slowing the ageing clock, but resetting it to early adulthood. To learn more about SENS Foundation, please visit sens.org.??

Colin Blakemore is Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences. He is an expert in vision, development of the brain and neurodegenerative disease. He is active in communication of science and is president and adviser to several charities concerned with brain disorders. Prof. Blakemore was formerly Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council, the UK's largest public funder of biomedical research. ?

Along with presentations and discussion from Aubrey de Grey and Colin Blakemore, the debate will provide an opportunity for questions from the audience. ??

The entire event will be moderated by Professor Sir Richard Peto, Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology at the University of Oxford, and an expert on the hazards of smoking and benefits of stopping.?The Oxford University Scientific Society is a student society that aims to disseminate science research and to promote scientific discussions.

For more information on the debate, please visit the OUSS website at
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~science/.

For background information on the presenters, please visit the following links:? ?

http://www.sens.org/users/aubrey-de-grey
http://www.dpag.ox.ac.uk/academic_staff/colin_blakemore/

This is a preprint of a paper by Luke Muehlhauser and Anna Salamon that will appear in the forthcoming Singularity Hypothesis volume.

Abstract: In this chapter we review the evidence for and against three claims: that (1) there is a substantial chance we will create human-level AI before 2100, that (2) if human-level AI is created, there is a good chance vastly superhuman AI will follow via an “intelligence explosion,” and that (3) an uncontrolled intelligence explosion could destroy everything we value, but a controlled intelligence explosion would benefit humanity enormously if we can achieve it. We conclude with recommendations for increasing the odds of a controlled intelligence explosion relative to an uncontrolled intelligence explosion.

You can also find this paper linked from the Singularity Institute's publications page.

Here's a writeup.

Embedded below is an interview conducted by Adam A. Ford at The Rational Future. Topics covered included:

-What is the Singularity?
-Is there a substantial chance we will significantly enhance human intelligence by 2050?
-Is there a substantial chance we will create human-level AI before 2050?
-If human-level AI is created, is there a good chance vastly superhuman AI will follow via an "intelligence explosion"?
-Is acceleration of technological trends required for a Singularity?
- Moore's Law (hardware trajectories), AI research progressing faster?
-What convergent outcomes in the future do you think will increase the likelihood of a Singularity? (i.e. emergence of markets.. evolution of eyes??)
-Does AI need to be conscious or have human like "intentionality" in order to achieve a Singularity?
-What are the potential benefits and risks of the Singularity?

Interesting article by Rachel Marone at H+ magazine which was picked up by the New York Times Bits & Bytes blog:

Are negative predictions dangerous because they stand the risk of becoming influential? Hugo de Garis talks about an upcoming artilect war between machines, cyborgs, and non-enhanced humans. Is Hugo de Garis increasing the probability of an artilect war by putting these ideas in the open? Is Ray Kurzweil increasing the probability of the Singularity? As visionaries, we cannot help but recognize patterns and share predictions whether they lead us to a happy or depressing ending.

If we went by the model of strategic foresight we might conclude that the Singularity would only happen because of our influence. The future could not be predicted and the only thing Ray Kurzweil would be doing is influencing the future. This does not sound very rational to me. Technological acceleration, much like science, is more than the sum of our influence. It seems clear to me that Kurzweil is predicting the future as opposed to creating it. The Singularity would happen whether Kurzweil was around to discuss it or not.

The article explores some of the subtle details of the connections between predictions and when they contribute to their own fulfillment.

I see the article as hinting that the claim of strategic foresight that "the future is not predictable" goes too far.

New paper on superintelligence by Nick Bostrom:

This paper discusses the relation between intelligence and motivation in artificial agents, developing and briefly arguing for two theses. The first, the orthogonality thesis, holds (with some caveats) that intelligence and final goals (purposes) are orthogonal axes along which possible artificial intellects can freely vary—more or less any level of intelligence could be combined with more or less any final goal. The second, the instrumental convergence thesis, holds that as long as they possess a sufficient level of intelligence, agents having any of a wide range of final goals will pursue similar intermediary goals because they have instrumental reasons to do so. In combination, the two theses help us understand the possible range of behavior of superintelligent agents, and they point to some potential dangers in building such an agent.

Just reposting a comment that was left by "Braking Future" during my haitus...

It sure looks pretty bleak around here these days. By the looks of it transhumanism is near dead, certainly very deep into the rehash territory, a mere zombie of what it was 10-20 years ago. What went wrong? Probably nothing. It seems transhumanism has reached one of its main goals: seems everyone involved with H+ gets funded these days, yet nothing much seems to happen. If anything’s advanced it’s the level of hype that has really got refined over the years, toned down enough to make it palatable for the mainstream.

Hope that in another decade people finally get wise and stop throwing money down this well-marketed pseudo-productivity drain and fund something real like peer-reviewed science (now there’s a concept not much discussed around transhumanists, while gushing breathlessly about the latest science-y startup) funding that actually gets things done.

These days transhumanism = the future expertly marketed. The question is: was it ever anything else?

Oh my! A good amount of people do seem to believe this, including bitter older transhumanists (you know who you are). I can think of a lot of reasons why this comment is wrong, but some of why it is correct in some ways... I could say that transhumanism is incredibly powerful when unleashed in the proper way, and useless when unleashed improperly. To know the difference, a lot of knowledge is required. The people who do know the difference are in well-connected elite circles and those who don't are whining on message boards. There's a huge difference.

The unfortunate (?) thing I've discovered in the last two years is that transhumanism-in-reality is primarily a SF Bay Area/New York City phenomenon. In these areas, there is a critical mass of so much transhumanism that there are communities with thousands of people who take H+ for granted. Their collective wealth is immense, their accomplishments numerous, but they see little need to blog about it. They are satisfied with changing the world and talking about their achievements at dinner parties, not on blogs. Every once in a blue moon their candid philosophical thoughts on revealed in an op-ed or on a podcast, but this rare.

Despite the "elite" nature of the conversation and the power of the philosophy, these people are not necessarily elitists with respect to who they are working to benefit. They are working to benefit everyone, it just isn't in their immediate interest to trumpet H+ in public. Who can blame them? The more powerful the H+ philosophy gets, the more cautious people are about spreading it. Why alert people to the existence of special circles when things are more stable and predictable when the situation is contained? I haven't thought about this too much, honestly, I'm just saying it as I see it.

Hi everyone, sorry for never blogging... basically I've blogged like mad for many years, the traffic plateaued, it didn't feel new, I'm doing all these things behind the scenes, etc. I've been editing H+ magazine, building IRL relationships, working on crucial SIAI projects as well. Not "women and booze" as one commenter said. :)

This blog kept getting infested by hackers, infected over and over again, so I thought "what's the point of blogging if it's just going to infect everyone's computer with spam?" Etc. Thankfully my awesome colleague Louie Helm recently fixed everything, so I feel better now. (Thank you Louie!)

It's worth noting that my Twitter is relatively active.

To start things off again, I suggest reading the new Journal of Consciousness Studies issue on the Singularity, all responding to Chalmers' 2010 paper "the Singularity, a Philosophical Analysis". Check it out, and stuff!