A variety of links are broken- these include the link about suppression of firearms, the Cheyenne mountain link, the 2011 Thailand flood link, and the experience curve effect. It appears that something has messed up all the links that were to Wikipedia.
This piece seems to be proposing a solution to something that isn’t obviously the thing to worry about. There are a variety of other threats to long-term human survival that require technological improvement to combat. Three obvious issues are asteroid impacts, large scale disease (due to modern infrastructure allowing the fast spread of otherwise localized diseases), and resource limitations (such as running out of easily accessible fossil fuels). Some of these are not directly connected to chip improvements- the Apollo program happened with mid 1960s level technology, and it is likely that the technological barriers to dealing with an annoying asteroid or comet are not strongly connected to computer tech level. However, others are not so limited- better computers mean better treatment of disease from better drug design and detection. Similarly, more efficient chips mean less use of oil (since less energy cost for the same computation) and less use of rare earth elements (which while not actually rare, are distributed in ways that make them inefficient to obtain except for in specific locations).
In general, the worry here is not existential risk threats by themselves: If an event or series of events puts us back a few centuries, it isn’t obvious that we will have the resources to bootstrap us up back to current levels. Easily accessible oil and coal played a major part in allowing the technological and infrastructural improvements of the last two centuries. While we will likely have coal reserves for a long time, and to a lesser extent have oil reserves, none of the remaining reserves are nearly as accessible as those used in the 19th century or the first half of the 20th century.
Finally, it is very hard to suppress one area of technology in a narrow fashion without suppressing others as well. Many other areas require heavy duty computations, and computational power in many areas of biology, astronomy, math and physics are a major limiting factor. Your essay uses the Tokugawa period as an example of a technology being given up. However, there’s a fair bit of controversy over how much guns were actually suppressed, and the point has been made that the Edo/Tokugawa period was relatively peaceful. More to the point in this context, almost no scientific or technological research was occurring in Japan of any sort until the Meiji restoration.
However, others are not so limited- better computers mean better treatment of disease from better drug design and detection. Similarly, more efficient chips mean less use of oil (since less energy cost for the same computation) and less use of rare earth elements (which while not actually rare, are distributed in ways that make them inefficient to obtain except for in specific locations).
This is true. I’m not claiming that ending Moore’s law via regulating or attacking chip fabs would only affect brain uploads & de novo AGI, without affecting any other existential threat. The question here is whether the chip fabs are vulnerable and whether they would affect uploads, which I think I’ve established fairly well.
It’s not clear to me how the latter would go: nanotech and bioterrorism both seem to be encouraged by widespread cheap computing power, and forcing research onto highly supervised grant-paid-for supercomputers would both slow it down and make it harder for a rogue researcher (as compared to running it on his own laptop), but the slowdown in global economic growth has horrific opportunity costs involved.
Hence, whether this is a strategy anyone would ever actually want to use depends on some pretty difficult utilitarian calculuses.
However, there’s a fair bit of controversy over how much guns were actually suppressed, and the point has been made that the Edo/Tokugawa period was relatively peaceful. More to the point in this context, almost no scientific or technological research was occurring in Japan of any sort until the Meiji restoration.
Yes, I’ve read about that. Even the contrarians admit that guns were hardly used and locally manufactured guns were far behind the local state of the art.
to dealing with an annoying asteroid or comet are not strongly connected to computer tech level.
I think it is. For to answer the question “What is the minimal action to avert all the near Earth objects for a long time?”—a lot of computing would be needed. And the computed answer might be “Just send a rocket with mass M, at the time T, from the location L, in the direction D, with the speed S—and it will meet enough of those objects and redirect them, to Earth be safe at least for the next 100 years.”
If such a trajectory exists at all, it could be calculated with enough computing power at hand. If it doesn’t exist, there is a minimal number of them and that could be calculated also.
Even if one had near indefinite computing power, making such a calculation would be extremely difficult simply due to the lack of precision of observations. Small changes in the estimated size or trajectory of an asteroid could have drastic results on their long-term behavior. Comets are even more ill-behaved. The limiting factor to such calculations would be at least as much observational as calculational.
Moreover, since large impacts are extremely rare threats, dealing with individual impact threats as they arise is a much more optimal strategy.
A variety of links are broken- these include the link about suppression of firearms, the Cheyenne mountain link, the 2011 Thailand flood link, and the experience curve effect. It appears that something has messed up all the links that were to Wikipedia.
This piece seems to be proposing a solution to something that isn’t obviously the thing to worry about. There are a variety of other threats to long-term human survival that require technological improvement to combat. Three obvious issues are asteroid impacts, large scale disease (due to modern infrastructure allowing the fast spread of otherwise localized diseases), and resource limitations (such as running out of easily accessible fossil fuels). Some of these are not directly connected to chip improvements- the Apollo program happened with mid 1960s level technology, and it is likely that the technological barriers to dealing with an annoying asteroid or comet are not strongly connected to computer tech level. However, others are not so limited- better computers mean better treatment of disease from better drug design and detection. Similarly, more efficient chips mean less use of oil (since less energy cost for the same computation) and less use of rare earth elements (which while not actually rare, are distributed in ways that make them inefficient to obtain except for in specific locations).
In general, the worry here is not existential risk threats by themselves: If an event or series of events puts us back a few centuries, it isn’t obvious that we will have the resources to bootstrap us up back to current levels. Easily accessible oil and coal played a major part in allowing the technological and infrastructural improvements of the last two centuries. While we will likely have coal reserves for a long time, and to a lesser extent have oil reserves, none of the remaining reserves are nearly as accessible as those used in the 19th century or the first half of the 20th century.
Finally, it is very hard to suppress one area of technology in a narrow fashion without suppressing others as well. Many other areas require heavy duty computations, and computational power in many areas of biology, astronomy, math and physics are a major limiting factor. Your essay uses the Tokugawa period as an example of a technology being given up. However, there’s a fair bit of controversy over how much guns were actually suppressed, and the point has been made that the Edo/Tokugawa period was relatively peaceful. More to the point in this context, almost no scientific or technological research was occurring in Japan of any sort until the Meiji restoration.
This is true. I’m not claiming that ending Moore’s law via regulating or attacking chip fabs would only affect brain uploads & de novo AGI, without affecting any other existential threat. The question here is whether the chip fabs are vulnerable and whether they would affect uploads, which I think I’ve established fairly well.
It’s not clear to me how the latter would go: nanotech and bioterrorism both seem to be encouraged by widespread cheap computing power, and forcing research onto highly supervised grant-paid-for supercomputers would both slow it down and make it harder for a rogue researcher (as compared to running it on his own laptop), but the slowdown in global economic growth has horrific opportunity costs involved.
Hence, whether this is a strategy anyone would ever actually want to use depends on some pretty difficult utilitarian calculuses.
Yes, I’ve read about that. Even the contrarians admit that guns were hardly used and locally manufactured guns were far behind the local state of the art.
I think it is. For to answer the question “What is the minimal action to avert all the near Earth objects for a long time?”—a lot of computing would be needed. And the computed answer might be “Just send a rocket with mass M, at the time T, from the location L, in the direction D, with the speed S—and it will meet enough of those objects and redirect them, to Earth be safe at least for the next 100 years.”
If such a trajectory exists at all, it could be calculated with enough computing power at hand. If it doesn’t exist, there is a minimal number of them and that could be calculated also.
Even if one had near indefinite computing power, making such a calculation would be extremely difficult simply due to the lack of precision of observations. Small changes in the estimated size or trajectory of an asteroid could have drastic results on their long-term behavior. Comets are even more ill-behaved. The limiting factor to such calculations would be at least as much observational as calculational.
Moreover, since large impacts are extremely rare threats, dealing with individual impact threats as they arise is a much more optimal strategy.