IP: real fun readinmg, look at site Wanna Bet?

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Wanna Bet?

September 1, 2002
By AMY HARMON 




 

WITH the de facto end of summer upon us, there is a natural
tendency for the pulse to quicken, for the mind to snap out
of repose and for debate to begin on the immediate burning
questions of the fall. Will an invasion of Iraq come before
Christmas? Which fashion fad will we succumb to first -
pencil skirts or rugby shirts?

The Web site Longbets.org urges a longer - and less idle -
view. Designed to sharpen long-term thinking on issues of
social or scientific significance, the nonprofit site (a
spinoff of the Long Now Foundation, headed by veteran
Silicon Valley pundits Stewart Brand and Kevin Kelly),
solicits prophecy backed by currency. To divert gamblers
and kibitzers from the mesmerizing press of the next five
minutes, the minimum bet is $1,000 and the minimum period
is two years. Bets are tax deductible and winnings (all in
good time) go to a charity of the victor's choice.

Since its debut in April, Longbets has published 11 bets on
topics ranging from where alien life will be discovered to
when commercial planes will regularly fly without pilots.
The prognosticators with deep pockets include technology
executives, scientists, writers, philosophers - and the
actor Ted Danson. Both sides must post a defense of their
position, and anyone can participate in the ensuing online
discussion. 

Before the short-range seduction of September kicks in,
then, here are excerpts from conflicting visions of a more
distant future, and some wagers still in search of a taker.
   


The biggest bet (so far)


"A computer or 'machine intelligence' will pass the Turing
test by 2029" 


Most Longbettors stick to the minimum stake of $1,000 each.
Here Mitchell Kapor, the founder of Lotus Development,
explains why he was confident enough to wager a $10,000
that no computer in the next 27 years will be able to
impersonate a human well enough to fool a human judge (the
Turing test): 

While it is possible to imagine a machine obtaining a
perfect score on the SAT or winning Jeopardy - since these
rely on retained facts and the ability to recall them - it
seems far less possible that a machine can weave things
together in new ways or to have true imagination in a way
that matches everything people can do, especially if we
have a full appreciation of the creativity people are
capable of. . . . Computers look relatively smarter in
theory when those making the estimate judge people to be
dumber and more limited than they are.

Ray Kurzweil, an artificial intelligence pioneer and
entrepreneur, on why he is equally sure Mr. Kapor is wrong
(and why he believes the $20,000 total will go to his
selected charity, the Kurzweil Foundation):


The brain is self-organizing, which means that it is
created with relatively little innate knowledge. Most of
its complexity comes from its own interaction with a
complex world. Thus it will be necessary to provide an
artificial intelligence with an education just as we do
with a natural intelligence. But here the powers of machine
intelligence can be brought to bear. Once we are able to
master a process in a machine, it can perform its
operations at a much faster speed than biological systems.
As I mentioned, contemporary electronics is already more
than 10 million times faster than the human nervous
system's electrochemical information processing. Once an AI
masters human basic language skills, it will be in a
position to expand its language skills and general
knowledge by rapidly reading all human literature and by
absorbing the knowledge contained on millions of Web sites.
. . . 

  
The longest bet (so far)


"At least one human alive in the year 2000 will still be
alive in 2150" 



Unless one of the bettors turns out to be the human in
question, they'll never know who won. But according to the
rules of the service, which is set up to be administered
for several centuries, Longbets will award the winnings in
148 years "with great fanfare." Peter Schwartz, a futurist,
makes a case for scientific progress:

If one simply looks at the historical trend, one finds that
over the last century, we have nearly doubled human life
span. The average lifespan of human beings (average, not
maximum) has gone from about 45 to about 85. With the
advances in microbiology and molecular biology, there's no
reason to imagine that we won't do at least as much in the
next century. . . .

Melody K. Haller replies with her own unique interpretation
of Darwin: 

Humans may succeed in overcoming self-limiting life spans
but the result is likely to be contra-indicatory to the
continued success of humans and other life. . . . I am
betting money against his prediction purely because I
believe that the further radical prolonging of human (and
pet) longevity would not benefit the human species. . . .

  
The sports bet 


"The U.S. men's soccer team will win
the World Cup before the Red Sox win the World Series."

Nestled in among propositions on the fate of the universe
and the likely future Nobel Prize, this bet might seem to
flout the "social or scientific significance" rule, but
Mike Elliot, an editor-at-large for Time magazine, somehow
manages to wrap in globalization and metaphysics:


As immigration and technology continue to make the U.S. a
more international nation, so the quality of its soccer
team will continue to increase. Already, American teenagers
can hold their own with players from more established
countries, while players like Claudio Reyna and Kasey
Keller have become acknowledged international stars. The
Curse of the Bambino, on the other hand, is one of those
mystical truths that are beyond the reach of human
intervention. Cheers, Ted.

Perhaps not one for intellectual pretense, Ted Danson, who
played a retired Red Sox pitcher on the sitcom "Cheers" for
11 seasons, grounds his reply in pragmatism:


The Red Sox have had such bad luck in the 20th century, I
have to believe that in the new millennium it can only get
better. Besides, statistically, scoring goals is harder
than hitting a home run, and in the World Cup, you have the
whole WORLD against you, but in baseball, the Red Sox only
really have to beat the Yankees.

Count on a discussion group participant, "micromike" to
return to more sober astronomical postulation. In a post
titled "I feel bad for Danson," he writes:


It must be hard living a delusional life thinking that
Boston will ever win the World Series!!! A team from outer
space will win the series before Boston does. . . .

  
Tired of the future? Ready to embrace back-to-school
shopping for things you can use, say, next week? But wait,
before deliberations begin on what's for dinner, say,
tonight, here's a sampling of the more than 20 bets that
remain open. Any can be joined with $1,000 and a few clicks
at Longbets.org. 

• By 2100 a world government will be in place and in
control of: business law, environmental law and weapons of
mass destruction. 

• By 2020, bioterror or bioerror will lead to one million
casualties in a single event.

• By the year 2015 solar electricity will be as cheap or
cheaper than that produced by fossil fuels.

• By 2030 all surgical anesthesia will be administered and
monitored by computers, with no need for professional
medical supervision beyond the surgeon.

• By 2050, we will receive intelligent signals from outside
our solar system. 

• By 2070, at least six countries will have officially
implemented a 4-day working week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/01/weekinreview/01WORD.html?ex=1031901752&ei=
1&en=6ef2dfc2ca309d14

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/