Do you think this show might be seen as "divisive" or "problematic" as this technology gets more real?

[u/Neverfinishedtheeggs]

If you've been on this subreddit a while, you probably already know about the fly brain that was scanned and simulated, and that Sam Altman actively wants to make UIs a reality. ​

AI technology already has a lot of controversy attached to it, and we all know how contentious the concept of uploading is. ​With the show's portrayal of uploading as a valid choice, and its firm stance that UIs are sentient, do you think it will become polarizing as these discussions break into the mainstream?

[u/DenseBeautiful731]

Only if quantum computing advances to the point of ubiquity.

Quoting Wikipedia, a very detailed full reconstruction of the human connectome would require a zettabyte (10²¹ bytes) of data storage.

Storing a zettabyte in a single data center is highly impractical with current technology, as it would require millions of servers and vast physical space.

The world can only create a total of 150-200 UIs based on global data volume. Note that this is an imprecise approximation I can't find a reliable source on ATM.

Long ways to go - you might not even live to see the technology used on humans in its infancy.

Personally, I maintain that SOMA has captured the consequences quite well. It's copy and paste. Pantheon's Deep Scan doesn't transform the brain materially to silicon. The method vapourises it. I'd be more convinced of a Ship of Theseus situation.

[u/Private_HughMan → u/DenseBeautiful731]

Glad you mentioned the storage. I was focused on the processing but the storage would also be ridiculous. And that's a non-dynamic reconstruction without the actual processes and translation layers that make it work.

[u/DenseBeautiful731 → u/Private_HughMan]

At least the show acknowledged backups and inactive CIs/UIs. Not redundancy, though. I can see the elites having access to it while the poors are faced with data deletion/optimisation or compression, lossless or lossy. But imagine being a lossy UI! Worse than a backup.

The amount of data generated for endless digital synaptogenesis since UIs don’t die, then their ever-accumulating knowledge/memories, plus their “work” outputs too. Among many other types of backend data like logging. We have to store that somewhere.

Not sure if Earth’s finite resources will allow us to level up on the Kardashev scale to provide and maintain such structures for UIs because Jevons paradox.

The lengths humanity will go to when faced with mortality, pretending they’re exempt from the second law of thermodynamics…

[u/sapiengator → u/DenseBeautiful731]

The first season of Altered Carbon explored some of these ideas well.

[u/DenseBeautiful731 → u/sapiengator]

Haven’t seen it but hell yeah I’ll give it a go

[u/thuaq → u/DenseBeautiful731]

That's part of the central question though right? Is a copy of David still David? 

[u/DenseBeautiful731 → u/thuaq]

Yes, of course.

Let’s think of it like a video game.

David is David on a save point.

David is David on duplicate save.

If David can be copied, David can exist more than once. Concurrently.

And because David believes he’s David, David is David. Then, David is David to anyone who recognises David.

Let’s say David’s first save is played by Maddie.

David’s second save is played by MIST.

Can you merge both Davids to generate a super David save? In the cloud, certainly.

David remembers being in two places at once. David also recognises MIST’s David and Maddie’s as himself.

If the duplicate save gets removed/deleted from the super save? Then MIST’s David becomes part of Maddie’s David’s memory. If you save here, and it gets deleted, then we’re back to David on his original save point.

David still thinks he’s David.

The previous Davids that were wiped out live on through Maddie and MIST.

I think as long as David recognises David, it’s cool. David thinks that his brain houses his entire, pure, unadulterated identity.

But me? I’ve a different relationship with identity. I’m more than my brain.

I’m my brain, and my gut microbiota (I am what I eat, woot!). My virome, my endogenous viruses.

I guess we can digitise all that too, but then it’s just “reality” in a different substrate/medium.

To me, perfect fidelity means perfect replication of mortality. But that’s not the point of UIs and the virtual worlds they create.

[u/Jamjam4826]

I think the show threads the needle of the issue well enough that it will only be "problematic" to those with extreme beliefs on either end which seems like a good place to be? though I think the metaphor for real world AI progress rather than literal UI will be relevant far sooner

[u/MannerNo7000]

Yes 100% and in a way this show is ironically or unironically ‘ahead’ of its time.

[u/No-Economics-8239]

Most things can seem divisive or problematic if you listen to the rabble rabble of those posting on social. I think the show itself follows in the footsteps of other great sci-fi media in offering us some cautionary tales of the future and a great exploration of some of the ideas involved and offering us perspectives while leaving us room to make up our own minds. I think we can appreciate that even if there are those who treat them as blueprints to build the Torment Nexus or if they want to view Holstrom as a great man to emulate.

Technology has always been scary and disruptive. Frankenstein was just the starting gun of our misgivings about the direction we might potentially take new technologies. But in most cases, it's not the technology we should be afraid of. It's just the 'wrong hands' we don't want them to fall into. And, of course, we don't all agree on who's hands are wrong.

I appreciate how the show sidesteps the more controversial issues around when a program becomes a person and focuses instead on if we can make a person into a program. We are all over the map regarding what might make a program seem people-like and the new LLMs passing the Turning Test has made that even more problematic. But when we start with a person, we now have a different comparison. And I think it provides a thoughtful view into what that might require and look like so that we can consider if that is something we might even want.

Even if the show offers us an example of what it might look like if we get the technology 'right' it doesn't explore all the potential pitfalls it might require to get there. Chanda, perhaps, gives us a few glimpses into that road. But what about all the possible simulations that seem similar to the original person... but are still missing 'something' ephemeral. We already have companies today who are looking to offer bringing the dead back to 'life' by scanning in their videos and words and creating an 'experience' where you can talk to and see them again. Which offers the same sort of perspectives from the show. Is that something we might want? Would adding in a fatal brain scan make that 'better'?

[u/Private_HughMan]

Absolutely. I felt very uneasy while watching it because I know so many weirdos want to make this real.

I don't think computers are there yet. The hardware limitations are insane. For one, there's the number of connections. I'm not sure how many transistors one transistor can connect to in modern CPUs/GPUs, but one neuron can connect to thousands of other neurons. And they have one MASSIVE advantage that current materials just can't do; they can connect and disconnect with other neurons. Transistors in computers are fixed. You can break connections but you can't make new ones. And the power draw is ridiculous for an LLM compared to a human brain.

The show has interesting transhumanist ideas but the people who want to make it real are frightening and they don't seem to care about humans at all.

[u/dr_gamer1212 → u/Private_HughMan]

The people who want this to be real are the same who think it would be cool to live in the oasis from ready player one. They ignore soo much warning from dystopian works and it's terrifying. I always think to when meta marketed the metaverse partly by saying it would be similar to the ready player one universe and thinking why is that seen as good

[u/ModernStreetMusician → u/dr_gamer1212]

The real future will always be way more frightening and complex than we can imagine in works of fiction.

[u/Mr_Squirrelton]

Probably not no. It's just not popular enough to gain such a status.

And besides, human brain uploading will only be achieved in the short term if AI begins to rapidly accelerate its own development first. So, the more popular AI movies and scenarios would by far take the spotlight before any UI content. And even then, Pantheon would still probably lose the UI spotlight to, like, The Amazing Digital Circus.

It'll certainly be discussed. On some podcasts at some point, or by AI Researchers (I know Sam Altman likes the show, and I've seen other AI researchers name drop it before as memes), just not in mass imo.

Could be wrong though! The future will tell.

[u/fholland23]

I hate to break it to you, but we are nowhere near this being possible. We are, at the very least decades away, but more likely centuries or it may not even be fully possible at all. And I guarantee running a human brain would not work at all like it does in the show, especially not initially. Amazing show, but it’s not going to happen anytime soon (if ever), fly brain or not.

[u/SnooDrawings6192]

Depends how uploading the first human would go. People are scared of things they don't understand indeed and an uploaded human mind is very unpredictable. There will for sure people that no matter what will try to spin it as unethical, even if upload would be pretty much a human but digital as in the show. I can also see corpos trying to use these uploads for their own means which will also result in controversies.

[u/Scarlet_Skye]

Respectfully, the way the technology in Pantheon works has already turned the show into an unintentional period piece, since our technological development has already taken a sharp left turn from anything we saw in Pantheon. Nobody who knows the first thing about computers is gonna look at this and be like "oh wow, an accurate depiction of our future".

Look, my dad's a computer scientist. I managed to convince him to watch the show with me, and he said "there's no way that would ever work" multiple times during the first season. Pantheon's portrayal of technology isn't bad, but it's also not accurate enough for any computer scientist to take its stance seriously (Sam Altman excluded, of course).