Metaculus Help: Spread the word
If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.
Will human brain emulation be the first successful route to human-level digital intelligence?
partnered with Center for the Study of Existential Risk, Machine Intelligence Research Institute, and The Future of Life Institute
In the quest for "strong" Artificial Intelligence, defined here as digital intelligences rivaling or surpassing that of humans, a number of potential path have been discussed. Among them is "brain emulation," in which the physical functioning of a human brain is directly simulated, at some level of detail, in a digital computer.
In an interesting recent book, The Age of Em, Robin Hanson explores the potential dynamics of human society assuming such "Ems" can be created, and that this occurs prior to the advent of other forms of strong AI. (See also a recent post by Hanson discussing the relative timing of different AI paths.)
There is considerable debate about the technological feasibility of such simulation: though there is general (though not universal) agreement that the brain, being a physical system, is amenable to being simulated, the necessary computations (and data gathering) span many orders of magnitude depending upon the level of detail required. Significant intellectual effort and funding is being directed toward understanding the Brain well enough to simulate it, for example in the massive Blue Brain Project, but there is no clear consensus as to how much progress has been made toward the ultimate goal. See for example this NYT editorial with a skeptical evaluation of brain emulation, and this response by the Brain Preservation Foundation
To gather thinking about this and track how the relative probabilities of "Ems" vs. other types of AIs evolve with time, we ask here:
Will the first human-comparable digital intelligences be simulated human brains?
Resolution is positive if the effort to create a viable (functioning, lasting, sane, etc.) emulated human, based on direct simulation of the neural connectome (and a requisite level of its physical instantiation), succeeds before another form of human-level digital intelligence. The latter will be defined as a digital entity capable of equalling or surpassing most or all core human cognitive capabilities. No view is taken as to the timeline for either effort except that a resolve date of 2060 is set, and resolution is ambiguous if neither effort has succeeded by then.
(Edit 10/20/18 to state that it resolves ambiguous rather than negative in the event of no AGI by 2060.)
Metaculus help: Predicting
Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.
The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available. With tachyons you'll even be able to go back in time and backdate your prediction to maximize your points.
The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.
Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.
Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.
This question is not yet open for predictions.
Metaculus help: Community Stats
Use the community stats to get a better sense of the community consensus (or lack thereof) for this question. Sometimes people have wildly different ideas about the likely outcomes, and sometimes people are in close agreement. There are even times when the community seems very certain of uncertainty, like when everyone agrees that event is only 50% likely to happen.
When you make a prediction, check the community stats to see where you land. If your prediction is an outlier, might there be something you're overlooking that others have seen? Or do you have special insight that others are lacking? Either way, it might be a good idea to join the discussion in the comments.