I had a few comments, which you can find here ]]> 2008-05-14T22:46:00-07:00 http://free-the-memes.net/blogArchive/2008-May.html#2008-05-14-10-46 http://free-the-memes.net/blogArchive/2008-May.html#2008-05-14-10-46 There's an idea floating around that if some future civilization had truly powerful computers, they could simulate the past. Possibly, they could... Tyler Cowen asks Does the simulation have an evil or indifferent designer?

I added the following comment:

If we had the ability to simulate the Earth in its earliest period, we could find out how life emerges, and the likelihood of other types of life. We might also vary the physical parameters, to try and evolve radically different types of life.

By analogy, the purpose of this simulated universe (the one we're in) is to understand the emergence of true (artificial) intelligence. Other universes might vary the population of researchers working on AI, in order to see what types of minds might emerge. The rest of the human race are just background.

The simulation ends when the AI emerges, and you no longer need the people.

Science doesn't take reports of flying saucers and alien abductions seriously, but interstellar travel is possible. Two human spacecraft (Pioneer 10 and 11) are on their way out of the solar system even now. True, it will be millions of years before they reach another star, but they have left. Designs for faster ships have been created (see Project Daedalus.)

If a technological species wanted to spread through the stars, it would probably build what's called a von Neumann probe. This is a machine which can reproduce itself. In the original version, it would be launched towards a nearby star, where it would find a rocky planet. Then it would set up a factory and build copies of itself. These would be launched towards other nearby stars. Eventually, the probes would visit every star in the galaxy. What they do there depends on their programming. Given a powerful enough technology, they could do all sorts of things, including starting new colonies of the creatures that built them.

I prefer a more dramatic version. If you assume a more advanced technology, the probe is not simply a machine reporting back to its builders, but instead an artificial organism, with an artificial intelligence. It is the technological species, which isn't exploring the galaxy, but colonizing it. On top of that, assume the technology allows the creature to be the size of a seed, and live in or near a star. Let's call them the Appleseed species.

Charge every employer, formal or informal, a $10,000 fine per day, per undocumented employee. If the employer can't pay, then liquidate their business (or home) and sell it at auction the following month.

• The registries have the usual huge error rate -- something like 5% false negatives. You'll feel a lot worse about this system if your employer is forced to fire you (even white, native you) because of a database error. How long are you supposed to sit around while the government processes the paperwork to verify you are really an American?

• You will of course have to keep the government informed of every address change and every job taken, to keep you from "sharing" your ID with others. That might work fine if you are a suburban wage slave with a corporate job (although there will still be errors.) It doesn't work at all if you are a migrant worker, or just someone who takes odd jobs to make ends meet. Lots of people move regularly. You don't really want to be denied employment because the super-DMV that tracks identity hasn't processed your new address correctly.

• Registries are only as good as the source documents. If a birth certificate can be faked, you can use that to apply for your fake national ID/"right to work" card.

• The stronger the identity system, the more incentive there is to steal identities. Of course, I read an article recently saying that it's now so easy to steal IDs that the price is plummeting. It costs something like $500 to get the social security number, address and bank account details of an average American.

On top of that, I expect the economy to stink by election day, and I'd be surprised if Iraq stays calm for the next four years. Even if neither of them tries to draw down forces there. If we do withdraw, anything could happen. And by 2012 or so, I expect baby boomer retirements to start obviously inflating Social Security and Medicare costs. That issue will become serious far faster than most people expect. So whatever they think their agenda is, I expect the next President to be at the mercy of events.

As for personality, it's true that Hillary seems to be more highly strung, more self-absorbed, and readier to demonize her opponents. Obama seems more relaxed and above the fray. The thing to remember though is that normal people don't run for President. First, you have to think you are up to the job. Given the state of the world, and the challenges facing the country, that's delusional.

Second, you have to think you deserve it. You should be the head of the armed forces with your finger on the button. You should control the executive branch, which eats up 20% of the economy. You should appoint Supreme Court justices. Etc. In other words, you'd have to be full of yourself.

Lastly, you need the temperament to get through the election process. For the better part of two years, you have to give speeches to all kinds of groups about how wonderful you and your policies are. I couldn't do that even once, let alone dozens of times! I'd start laughing and gagging over the words after a few times. The kind of person who can do that must just love the sound of their own voice. Or be able to detach themselves from their words and actions beyond what even actors and other celebrities do. Again, you'd have to be a strange sort of person.

You also have to lie a lot. There are too many one-issue groups that want you to agree with them before they will support you. You can't even run a real race in farm states like Iowa without supporting farm subsidies and ethanol subsidies. Both parties are just collections of interest groups that have to be satisfied. I don't see how you can get through that with any integrity.

In fact, I think the problem with some candidates, like Mitt Romney or Al Gore back in 2000, is that they get cynical about the whole process. They start running the whole campaign by polling for the "correct" response on each issue. I imagine them thinking "the public doesn't want to hear a thoughtful response. So just tell them what they do want to hear. Get elected, then you can do some good." Unfortunately, people eventually detect that lack of enthusiasm, or lack of consistency. You get branded a "flip flopper" or as "wooden." Or just cynical.

So I don't think either Hillary or Obama are normal people who can be taken at their word, or evaluated in the normal way. I don't take their agenda seriously. What's left to decide between them?

Like a lot of people, I'm dismayed at the idea of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. There are a lot of talented people in this country. We don't need to keep electing the same families to office! Also, if Hillary is running on her experience as "co-president", then she's had her 8 years in the White House. Bill certainly has, and there's always going to be the suspicion that he'll be running at least some things behind the scenes. On the other hand, if Bill is really out of there, and Hillary is running on her one term in the Senate and experience as First Lady, then I don't think she's particularly qualified. Of course, neither is Obama.

So finally it comes down to the problem that Hillary has had all along, which is that she's polarizing. If she has to take strong measures on the economy, or pull out of Iraq, she'll get nothing but bitter opposition from the Republicans. Obama may not be any better, but he could hardly be worse. Not much of a recommendation, but it's all I can come up with. ]]>