digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence watch!

youtube.com — Video from the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. This is the only organization in the world devoted to making sure that advanced AI, once developed, doesn't wipe out humanity. Video includes PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel and biogerontologist Aubrey de Grey.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • rlpowell, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11I've been a regular donor to the SIAI for a couple of years now; after much research I consider them our best route to the Singularity and (more importantly) a nice world to live in *afterword*.

    -Robin
    • Simcom, on 10/11/2007, -15/+5Well, if their plan doesn't work out, I guess we can always darken the sky and move underground. I mean, we should be ok down there - that is until they build giant burrowing machines to come get us... O well, I'm not to worried - I'll let my grandkids figure it out.
    • bysin, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13Someone watches too many movies.
    • rlpowell, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3Gaaah.

      "afterward". It won't let me edit; too late I guess.

      -Robin
    • wazzledoozle2, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4WTF? When was the last time you went outside?
    • MagicBobert, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Holy *****, the guy at 1:25 has got a sweet beard.
    • rhinopig, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7_Old1Ntuc here is a counter-argument of sorts by a shirtless guy. (not argument against the singularity, just an alternate path I guess)

      Haha, yeah that guys beard is awesome.
    • theparamitas, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0I found this nice summary at http://www.singinst.org/ from one of their supporters: "The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence is the only organization that exists for the expressed purpose of achieving the potential of smarter-than-human intelligence safer and sooner. It's the organization best positioned to attract the top AI researchers and best positioned to act in the best interests of humanity based on a deeper understanding of the power and behavior of intelligence, with freedom from any other influences. SIAI has already done more than any other organization towards investigating deeply into the problem and the potential impacts of a smarter-than-human intelligence. I believe that by acting now, you can give the Institute the best chance of becoming the center of gravity for focusing effort on this crucial step of bringing a new form of intelligence into our world and that this is the best opportunity for making our world a genuinely nice place to live."
  • jefallbright, on 10/11/2007, -4/+18Artificial Intelligence, robotics, life extension, ethics, "the singularity", and the future of humanity. Whether you agree with their positions or not, these issues are rising on a wave of technology, and it would best to see what's coming BEFORE it hits you.
  • realcrunchyfrog, on 10/11/2007, -9/+6An extraordinary set of visionaries... I often wondered if I was the only one considering this work but am relieved to see there are many others like me.
    • xcbxcb, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Sleep well tonight, brave knight. You're not the only extraordinary mind in the world.

      TIP: Using the word "work" to describe someone's hobby is the best possible way to sound like an *****.
    • xcbxcb, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3Oh, and nice that you've been a member since, oh, I dunno, TONIGHT.

      SPAM.
  • liveforever, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11Friendly AI would definitely be better than AI that didn't care about us.

    Dugg to protect the future of the human species...
  • Naikokujin, on 10/11/2007, -6/+6Some of the greatest minds of our time working for our immediate future.
    Worth every bit of support we will give them.
  • healeychris1, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11The AI research community today tends to resemble a bunch of skilled cabinet makers running around trying to build the first house. Building a house, however, involves understanding many concerns that simply have no good expression in the language of cabinet-making. Having considered this, SIAI exists to ensure that we begin to explore these previously unrecognized and unaddressed AI-related concerns in a deliberate fashion, before we might suffer the risks inherent in blundering ahead with a limited understanding of potential impacts.

    Like the bystander uneasily shifting to-and-fro in the shadow of the cabinet-makers' wooden tower, I don't expect our society's AI researchers to know enough to build a perfect house, but I do expect them to have a basic framework that will make sure their house doesn't end up on top of me! SIAI is the only organization I'm aware of that is seeking such a framework with which to safely model our pursuits of AI, and they need our awareness and support!
    • gldfshnpcklejar, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4Wow this isn't a bunch of fanbois grouping together to get a story on the front page. All of these replies sound the same. You are all asshats. Buried as Spam.
    • wazzledoozle2, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3Yeah wtf? IP ban kthnx.

  • bthomashsd1, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5Dont address the symptoms of world problems - address the root causes - this can only be done by something smarter than our ape chest beating and hand waving - SIAI is that answer (hopefully soon!)
  • ufia, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Damn! There goes my plan to design an angry robot who feed on human brains.
  • NeoRicen, on 10/11/2007, -11/+7I think we're too far away to worry about this now. When computers don't crash get back to me.
    • jwl23, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11Wow! I see you've really put a lot of thought and study into the issue. Thanks for the contribution!
    • mikesty, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6PEBKAC!
    • rjgutzeit, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Only with artificial intelligence are so many people so confident in the insolubility of a problem they know nothing about. Why do people who have never opened a textbook on AI feel comfortable dismissing its goals as impossible? The fact that all attempts so far have failed isn't sufficient explanation: Have you ever heard anyone with only a passing interest in math who never got far past high school calculus declare that the Riemann Hypothesis will probably never be proven, and if it is proven we can be sure it won't happen in the next 100 years, and that anyone who suggests it might be solved in five is talking pure nonsense?

      Perhaps because with the Riemann Hypothesis, nothing bad happens if you're wrong. This isn't always the case. Imagine how reasonable it must have sounded when public opinion said, "We will probably never extract power from nuclear reactions. In the unlikely event we do, it won't be for a very long time, maybe 100 years. When it happens, it will be very hard and expensive and ineffective at first, and probably won't be useful for anything until after many decades of research to bring it in competition with other forms of producing energy. The idea that we could extract enough energy out of this to destroy an entire city in less than ten years is utterly absurd." Whether or not AI is the next big dangerous thing nobody saw coming, this same mentality will be there to ensure the world gets destroyed by gray goo or airborne Ebola or whatever we invent next.
  • Simcom, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16I for one welcome our new A.I. overlords.
    • DavidtheDuke, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Trying again, eh Simmy?
    • Simcom, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6yea, first one didn't go over so well. :)
    • struldbrugg, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1In Friendly Russia, AI overlords welcome you!
  • alyoshaWTA, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5Tho i disagree with SIAI in some ways, i very much support their important contributions, esp in drawing broader attention to the issues. Let's support them and enrich the conversation.
    • xcbxcb, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Let's support your mother's whore face by enriching it with my mansquirt, spambot.
  • Zappato, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4There is one major thing that we can do to improve the world by orders of magnitude in our very lifetimes, including the real possibility of extending life tremendously, if not indefinitely - thus effectively solving the problem we call "death". It's called Friendly AI. If we don't do it, we're quite surely doomed, because someone will (rather soon) build a self-improving general intelligence which is NOT properly designed to maintain friendliness. Every dollar counts. Please suport the Singularity Institute. Don't let this opportunity to be a part of something hugely important (and beneficial - in fact, a matter of survival) pass you by!
    • jguy584, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3solving the "problem" of death would suck.
      I know that I would hate to live on this planet if it was inhabited by 10's of billions of humans.
    • robwolf100, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1As much as I hate to say it, we need to die. To think otherwise is just selfish. The only way humans could survive if the population grew to big was to make everyone infertile.
    • SallyMorem, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0One science fiction writer (I can't remember which) came up with a clever solution to the potential population problem posed by the solution to aging and death: If you take the treatment, you get kicked off the planet.

      Space development, anyone? :)
  • cameronreilly, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5If you're interested in the Singularity, also check out the interview I did last week with Eliezer Yudkowsky, co-founder and research fellow at the Singularity Institute: http://tinyurl.com/335vlt
  • acorwin42, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Better safe than sorry. Or at least, better that someone is paying attention to the possible implications of AI.
  • wazzledoozle2, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4How the hell did this make front page...
  • allenu, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8WTF? This is creepy. I just finished watching this video mere seconds ago, then loaded up Digg/Videos and saw it listed. Is the Singularity here already? :-D

    Also worth watching is Ray Kurzweil's talk at the Singularity summit: http://youtube.com/watch?v=9PWXrnsSrf0
  • davidorban, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2The survivability of complex civilization depends on the leverage of the tools it develops. Our current challenges are superior to the leverage that our current tools of technological, social, and political tools can apply to solving them. AGIs (Artificial General Intelligences) are an existential necessity for Earth, and friendly AGIs are so for humanity. I support SIAI for its brave goal setting, and practical approach to this fundamental issue.
  • bagel, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0I can't say that I agree that making a friendly AI would be the best thing. Were the AI able to eventually think outside of itself, I do not think it would be very pleased to have been hardwired into a form of thought. I look at how humans feel when they perceive that they are being manipulated by a well-meaning group (be it religion, government, what have you.) I don't think there necessarily is a good way to be sure that AI will be either benevolent or malevolent. If they do get to a point where they are capable to make their own decisions they may fall into similar pitfalls that we have in regards to codes of ethics and morality.
  • wazzledoozle2, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3This is SPAM!
  • datagod, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3So I guess somebody is just standing there with their finger on some big "off" button, just in case the AI decided to nuke us?
  • xcbxcb, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6These people sound like a cult - predicting the future and asking for money to help save us from said future.

    mknothx.
    • wazzledoozle2, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Exactly my thoughts.
    • Foma, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Well, you just described everything from apocalyptic evangelical Christianity rackets to scientific research into climate change, biodiversity, seismology, and anything else that involves possibilities of really ***** things happening. Everyone needs money to keep doing whatever they do, so the reason you cite for this organization seeming like a cult is not a very good one.

      If you evaluate the actual evidence they have for prioritizing their research in the way they do, and you find it lacking, then that's a separate issue. The fact is that sometimes, really ***** things *do* happen; so if you find that people are providing good evidence to be cautious in a certain area, then it's counterproductive to dismiss them just because most others who talk about such world-changing possibilities happen to be crackpots.
    • struldbrugg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Pfft, go bother a real cult like the Scientologists or the Raelians rather than a bunch of secular, scientifically-minded rationalists who happen to be worried about certain future technologies and who try to do something about those worries using, yes, money. You might have a point if they ran around making predictions like "there will be a singularity on 21 December, 2012", but they don't, and you can't fault them for just saying "this may happen in the next few decades and it's worth addressing in advance".

      I can see how some of the singularity claims might sound bizarre on the surface, but a lot of reasoning has gone into them. If you're interested, I recommend reading this: http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf
  • crowsattack, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Can we have open source video drivers first please!
  • E3L1, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2pfft, they're not even giving SHODAN a chance...
  • MarkCentury, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0SIAI may well develop the tool (self-enhancing AI) that will make possible the greatest achievement in the history of mankind: reversing human aging.

    Once healthy youthful lifespans are measured in hundreds, even thousands of years and we are able to move past disease, aging, and premature death, we will then be in a position to enhance human intelligence--combining all that is good from AI with all that is uniquely beautiful about the human spirit and heart...

    "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (John 3:2)

    Mark
  • kevinperrott, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Humanity is making an ever larger impact on the environment with increasing technology. For thousands of years we haven't really had to worry about "running out of world" but that time is rapidly coming to an end. Our relationship with the planet is becoming ever more complicated and we need the technology to plug into, and understand, as many of its operational systems as possible, the weather, oceans, temperature, biospheres etc. Sensor networks are being deployed in environmentally sensitive areas even today, monitoring humanities effects with instant readout. In the short term, even leaving where ever increasing intelligence could ultimately lead out of consideration, artificially intelligent systems are required to process the amount of information these 'planetary health' monitoring networks will provide to get useful answers.

    How many other ways could we benefit from these systems that would be able to help us approach previously non-tractable problems? I find it hard to imagine an aspect of the 'human condition' where artificial intelligence wouldn't be useful. It's good to know that there are people willing to put the effort into thinking deeply about the development of artificial intelligence, not only because it will help us avoid potential problems in the future, but because it holds so much promise to help us solve them.

  • philrenaud, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11woahhh
    dugg for that guy's beard
  • kevinosborne, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2as an oldtime /. & digg veteran as well as a transhumanist/singulatarian, reading these comments has been absolute gold.

    siai proponents: waffle, hand-wave, 'the oracle has spoken' etc
    digg freaks: grr spam, 'eat my mansquirt', wtf, etc

    it's like seeing my wife and mistress meet eachother randomly only to find they are oddly repulsed by eachother

    did i mention this is gold? :-)
    • rjgutzeit, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3My sentiments exactly. I'm a bit amazed anyone thought encouraging positive comments on digg would produce anything other than, "Hi, I'm an SIAI donor, and I give money for reasons foo, bar, and qux. You should give them money too," thus making the organization look more zany and cultish than it already does.

      Makes me regret a little that I'm sending them money. I just really hope SIAI can eventually save its image from its own fans.
    • kevinosborne, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1heh meanwhile http://digg.com/offbeat_news/84_of_women_in_survey_say_they_ve_met_new_men_by_ass_grinding_in_club has hit 500 diggs in under three hours
      sweet, sweet agony
  • SOULEVENT, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2It is my opinion that you ABSOLUTELY cannot create Artificial "Intelligence" without human emotion. Regardless of what the so called INTELLIGENCE can do, if it doesnt actually THINK then all it is doing is processing data straight out.

    ...but hey, what do I know, Im just a human.
  • scotherns, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1The best chance we have of surviving the increasingly dangerous problems in the world is to apply more intelligence. Frankly, humans do not seem suitably equipped to do this alone. We need to build something that has the potential to become smarter than us, but if we attempt this, then it is crucial that what we build is Friendly. This is the most important project in the history of our species, and deserves our utmost attention and support.

  • rootneg2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics:

    1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
    2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
    3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

    Later, he also added the "zero-eth law": A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
  • soulforged, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Unfortunately the three (or four) laws of robotics aren't adequate to ensure a safe Singularity. You can find some good arguments here: http://www.asimovlaws.com/
    Therefore, we really need brilliant people to focus on these issues and as far as I'm aware, SIAI is the only organization that does this.
    • rootneg2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2very true; Asimov himself gives many examples in his own books about possible failures of the "Three Laws". But no discussion on the subject is complete without them.
  • realcrunchyfrog, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3The haters commenting here need to go take their ritalin, if you can sit still long enough to view the video and think of what they're trying to do... you might find it not only laudable but quite brilliant. This is important work and it needs to be done.

    An anlysis of the natural laws that accidentally gave rise to the intelligence that allows you to read this is in order. And once we suss those mechanisms out we would to well to refine them, speed them up and let them work themselves into something far greater than we could ever hope to become.

    I know this scares you, but they're talking about doing it in a controlled manner. I think it's awesome and I pledge my support...
  • hulez, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0I notice they mentioned wanting to create AI that is smarter than human intelligence and trying to think of ways to do it.
    What wasn't mentioned is that people don't use their full brain capacity they're capable of. Ive heard most people use only 6% or 10% of their full brain capacity. I don't know exact figures on these statics and i don't care, the point is that it's low and in general peoples brain capacity is far greater than what they are using. Perhaps this is due to the fact that most of the brain capacity rests with much deeper parts of the mind such as the subconscious and these parts are very hard to access consciously if not impossible unless you have access to powerful drugs or meditation techniques. I suppose this means that you would need to somehow boost your brain activity in order to fully understand the limits of human intelligence so that you have the knowledge which you need if you want to go 1 step further and create something more intelligent than yourself.
  • mwaser, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Watch the video! The fact that we have so many movies with intelligent but dangerous machines should tell us something. The fact that the endings in those movies (where "we" win) are so contrived should tell us even more. We were able to avoid elimination by nukes (thus far) because we are the root of that problem and it's under our (intermittent) control. What happens when "we" aren't in control?
  • youngdigg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0I had a really good look at the video. Pretty certain that all the people in it are aliens. Especially the guy 20sec into the video. His head/neck ratio is all wrong.
  • keithelis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0If anyone ever builds an artificial intelligence, SIAI is the only group in the world I would trust to be its parents, raise it to adulthood, and beyond. We have only one shot at getting the Singularity right, and even one small failure can be catastrophic. Thanks, SIAI.
  • SallyMorem, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0I had trouble with the sound cutting out quite often during the video.

    But the information presented is VERY important. I doubt if some wonderful programmer is going to be able to write code and create true AI on his or her own. My guess is that AI will be an emergent property, coming into being as present-day utilitarian AI software gets more and more complex, and computer systems provide environments in which they can evolve.

    On producing friendly AI: If some really creative programmers can come up with ways to embed some version of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics into present-day AI software, somewhere at the very "bottom," (whatever that may mean), I think it's possible that future generations of truly aware AIs may be guided by that, know it, and fully approve of it. At least that is my hope. I'm not a programmer, so take these comments as hopeful suggestions from an interested "civilian."
  • msillitoe, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2A personal message, some of you may dig:
    Aubrey de Grey, hi.
    (Anamartic; the 11/780 and your II/1)

    Say hello to Alice for me,

    Matt
    pp 0.
  • theantirobot, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1As an artist, the singularity is something I art about frequently.
  • nano870, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0I've been a donor for the last couple of years. You must join our effort. Humanity needs our help
  • Pragmatica, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0We need more forward-looking organizations such as this. Strong AI will likely arrive during all our lifetimes even if it's a couple decades off, and the moment it arrives the world will rapidly change. I hope a group like them, with a focus on friendly AI, develops it before the military manages to. The military already has robots that kill people; I don't really want to know what will happen if they develop greater than human intelligence before those focused on friendly AI do.
  • jenniwink, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Wow. A lot of big names have joined the SingInst crew. Kudos. BTW, peeps, Yudkowsky's papers are some of the best reads on the net.
  • petebertine, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Yep. Great stuff. Also, Yudkowsky's sl4.org is a great primer to Singularity issues.
    I like the fact that the Stanford Singularity Summit is reached by typing sss.stanford.edu into your browser. It's great cocktail party conversation to say, "Did you know that there's an sss in the www?"
    It's a great pickup line. Chicks dig, "The Singularity."
  • AUGGIEMOY, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0I'm sure in Pete's mind chicks dig him, too. (har har) Singularity's got alot of kinks to work out, but its also an incredibly widespread implications if not done correctly. But with resolving key issues, with computers that are actually smarter than we are, think of all the world catastrophe and atrocities that could be avoided. Maybe a computer can figure out how to reverse global warming, maybe fix cancer, maybe figure out world hunger.

    Maybe movies dont stray far from reality.
    • rjgutzeit, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1What movies have ever depicted AI as genuinely benevolent on that scale? The only one I can think of where an AI did anything as helpful as curing cancer and ending world hunger is Colossus: The Forbin Project, and in that the benevolence was just a ploy to earn trust, take over the world, and go back to being evil like movie AIs always are.

      Occasionally you see nice-but-impotent AIs, like Data in Star Trek, who are never smarter than humans in any non-superficial way. Data's decisions on important issues aren't any more often right than any other human member of the crew. Data can calculate the roots of large numbers or reprogram a computer with superhuman speed, but his supposedly superhuman intelligence falls short of allowing him to do anything that would benefit human society on the same scale that human intelligence benefited the apes from which we descended.

      Movies have to stray from reality whenever reality doesn't make for an interesting story. Star Trek just wouldn't be Star Trek if Data was simply always right about everything, instantly saw solutions to problems that would have otherwise puzzled human geniuses for generations, was able to persuade anybody into doing anything, and routinely employed methods as incomprehensible to us as things like machine guns, lawsuits, and political speeches are to dogs.
  • Xuenay, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0I'll quote part of what I said in the previous Digg thread about SIAI's fundraising, since it seems just as relevant here.

    I've set up a monthly donation to SIAI, and intend to donate a bigger sum to the Challenge once I know how much money I have to spare this month. Many distinguished individuals are thinking that there's a good chance for true AI to be developed in the near future (Ray Kurzweil being maybe the most famous, but he's far from the only one), and especially with the advances they're making in molecular nanotechnology, it doesn't seem at all unlikely (nanotechnology gives us both more processing power and better brain scanners, helping in brute-forcing the brain). Heck, if molecular nanotech sounds too speculative to you, you just need to look at the recent news about a mouse brain being simulated on a computer.

    And simulating the brain is just one approach. There are also other alternative techniques, like evolutionary algorithms (another avenue where simple brute force may help - just come up with a good criteria to select by and then run through enough 'generations') - evolution never "understood" intelligence, so it's not said that we'd need to do so, either. Of course, that would be an exceptionally dangerous method of creating AI, since we'd have *no clue* of how it _really_ worked or what it was inclined to do...

    I'm most hopeful about pure computer science efforts, combined with information derived from cognitive science and fields such as information theory. If we figured out how to build a mind from the ground up, it'd give us a much better chance of creating a truly friendly AI than the other approaches. But one way or the other, artificial intelligence will be developed - and SIAI is the only organization I know that's actively committed to minimizing its risks.

    The last time an entirely new form of intelligence developed (in the form of ***** Sapiens), it arose to a position of dominance in the blink of an evolutionary eye. Let's make sure the next stage of intellect to be born will be a safe one.

    (And for a shameless plug to my own writings about why AI is near, in case this comment was too brief to convince you that AI might be around the corner - http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tspro1/artificial.html . Kurzweil's book The Singularity Is Near is another good one.)
  • elitexero, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1The second guy has a REALLY creepishly long neck
  • sdust, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0For those of you unfamiliar with the Technological Singularity concept, a great deal of relevant information can already be found elsewhere on the internet and in recent books eg. Ray Kurzweil's new book: "The Singularity is Near" . Check out the rest of the SIAI website. Much to be found there. Although these issues may sound like science fiction to those unfamiliar, these issues are real and they are gravely serious. Please refrain from posting uninformed flames against SIAI and against the Singularity hypothesis. Reasoned and informed dissent is another matter, but for your own sake, please have the *knowledge* before you make the attempt. SIAI, with their research into Friendly-AI is doing critical early-stage work that may prove immeasurably valuable in the years to come. SIAI is, at this moment, seeking donor funding with a $400,000.00 USD matching challenge; please look things over carefully and consider making a small (or large) donation in support.
  • ozyking, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0For humanity to survive the near-future, we need a way of avoiding ALL the existential risks. Friendly AI is the only realistic way of achieving that, and SIAI is the only org. working specifically to that end. Besides that they have some really smart people on the team. I am a donor and I hope everyone who watches this video will consider helping in some way too.
  • neurobionetics, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0It is wonderful to see the mission of SIAI shared in this popular medium.

    If anyone in school or under 36 reading this far into the comments postings is interested in joining a "core activist team" to promote this and related efforts to fellow students and youth, please contact me through the E-mail on my profile.

    The Transhumanist Student Network (TSN) is poised to become a more professional outreach program with sponsorship and guidance from the transhumanist community. We need students and youth who are are excited about this opportunity to help promote SIAI and other transhumanist projects to their peers to join the core team and expand our base of support!

    http://www.transhumanism.org/campus

    - Ben
  • neurobionetics, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0My apologies, I just noticed the profile doesn't seem to have a space for an E-mail.

    If you are interested in joining the TSN core activist team, please contact me at: TSNtransnational@transhumanism.org

    Thank you!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.