The NYT article by John Markoff discusses the rebirth of scientific interest in artificial intelligence, which had a bad spell after initial rosy forecasts did not pan out.  But will a self-aware superbrain emerge any time soon, and will it be nice or nasty?  Markoff notes that this question is moving from  science fiction into reality.  He brings in Kurzweil about half way through the article.  Through his sources, Markoff expresses skepticism about Kurzweil’s idea of living long enough to live forever. For instance, the article concludes with a quote from robotics expert Gary Bradski: “Kurzweil will probably die, along with the rest of us not too long before the ‘great dawn’ . . . . Life’s not fair.”

In truth, it is easy to be skeptical about living forever.  No one has ever done it.  Even the most optimistic religions present heaven in terms of “life after death.”  Kurzweil is cutting out the death part.  As I said, it’s easy to be skeptical.

Markoff focuses on the issue of emerging artificial intelligence and Kurzweil’s notion of humans and computers mind-melding somehow or other. But in his book, Kurzweil spends as much time discussing two other technologies — genetics and nanotech — which he argues will provide a “bridge” to the joining of human and machine minds. How much of a difference that makes, I don’t know.

Markoff provides a link to a trailer of “Transcendent Man,” an entry at the 2009 Tribeca Film Festival that explores the debate over Kurzweil — is he the crackpot prophet of a new religion or a legitimate scientific investigator?

Even though the book was a best-seller in 2005 and proclaimed the 13th most blogged about book of 2005 by the NY Times, I somehow missed it. I had heard of or read eight of the first twelve books on the list, so it isn’t that I am completely out of the loop.  (Oddly, the 14th most blogged about book for that year was Orwell’s 1984.  This suggests to me that there is a lot of paranoia on the Web.)

Anyway, I was surprised that I hadn’t heard about Kurzweil until recently because living forever happens to be one of my ambitions. According to Kurzweil, we just may be able to do it; “we” includes Baby Boomers who take care of themselves enough to last another 30 years or so.  By then, accelerating advances in bio-tech, nano-tech and computer science should guarantee anyone who wants it immortality.  You will, of course, have to get intimate with machines; that is, become a machine yourself. Some may see this as a drawback, especially if you get stuck in a computer running, say, Windows 2038. (I think this will be one time to spend a little more and go with a Mac.) Then there is the question of room-mates. What if you get stuck with neighbors you can’t stand and you can’t get away from them ever for all time? However, from the scientific perspective, being dead also has clear drawbacks for any organism. And it makes it harder to get credit or a good table.

Kurzweil calls this approaching change the “Singularity” because it will be a one-time event in human history — perhaps in the history of the universe. He thinks that the destiny of the universe is to achieve a maximum state of information.  Merging human intelligence (including emotional intelligence) with artificial intelligence is a big step toward fulfilling that destiny.

It sounds a little nuts in summary — a geeky, secular version of The Rapture. And there is a risk that if we don’t handle things just right, trillions of malevolent nanobots will take over and destroy us all.  Those of us who are getting up there in years and facing oblivion in the next couple of decades, give or take, may be willing to accept the risk. But is it right to gamble the future of humanity to achieve personal immortality?  Or for once in our self-centered lives, ought we just to go gentle into that good night?

Newsweek acknowledges that its poll shows a much greater lead for Obama than other national polls, but insists that Barack’s Bounce is real and far beyond the poll’s four point margin of error.

I downloaded the PDF of the poll results and took a look.

Among independent voters, Obama leads 48% to 36%. Among men voters, Obama leads 47% to 40% and among women voters, 54% to 33%.

Hillary Clinton’s supporters prefer Obama over McCain by a 69% to 18% margin.

Now comes the rub: age. Younger voters (18-39) are going for Obama by a ratio of greater than two to one. But the middle-aged and older voters — the voters who actually show up to vote — display a much lower degree of Obama-mania. They give the younger candidate the nod, but by a margin that is within the poll’s margin of error. And twice as many over-40 voters are undecided as compared to the under-40 voters.

So, a considerable chunk of Obama’s lead is among younger, less reliable voters. Newsweek admits that “the two candidates are statistically tied among older voters,” but makes nothing of it. What I would make out of it is this: Newsweek is polling registered voters, not likely voters. Now, it could be that the young people will turn out this November in great numbers, on a par with their elders, even though they never have before. Sure, it could.

But don’t bet on it, Barack. Youth is fickle. Go for the mature types — the grizzled ones who know which school gym to line up to vote in.

“Substance in Red Wine, Resveratrol, Found to Keep Hearts Young” (Science Daily):

How, scientists wonder, do the French get away with a clean bill of heart health despite a diet loaded with saturated fats?

The answer to the so-called “French paradox” may be found in red wine. More specifically, it may reside in small doses of resveratrol, a natural constituent of grapes, pomegranates, red wine and other foods, according to a new study by an international team of researchers.

What’s new here is the “small doses” finding. Previously, it was thought that you needed to down several buckets of red wine a day to see any heart benefits. The cost to your liver seemed to offset any heart gains. But now it looks like a glass or two of red wine each day will do the trick. As one scientist quoted in the article puts it, “This brings down the dose of resveratrol toward the consumption reality mode.”

And it looks like the benefits go beyond the heart. Low doses of resveratrol apparently give much the same general anti-aging benefits as a restricted calorie diet (a diet with 20-30% fewer calories than the norm).

Let’s see — reduce my food intake by one-fifth or drink a glass of wine every day . . . What to do, what to do . . .

Given her relative youth, I am shocked — shocked, I say — that Cathy meets even these two criteria of emergent decrepitude. I don’t have a compass in my car, though somebody gave me one once. I have it here somewhere . . . . And I can read the paper fine with the arms I have. I just need to take off my glasses and hold the paper against my nose. Maybe a little closer.

Just for the record, my teeth and I still sleep together and I am constantly embarrassed by my lawn mower. I can’t take it anywhere.

While greeting their college graduates back home, [Baby Boomer] mothers also assume economic responsibilities for the care of an aging parent, grandparent, or relative. A 2008 study indicated that almost 3 out of 10 baby-boomer mothers now fit the term “sandwich generation,” supporting a child under the age of 18 and a parent or grandparent.

Seventy-five percent of caregivers are women, assuming weighty financial obligations. Long-distance annual caregiver expenses were almost $9,000, with caregiver expenses for someone living nearby half that amount, according to a 2007 study by Evercare and the National Alliance for Care-giving. The majority of mothers will provide care for three or more years. And they frequently trade off a secure retirement to financially support an aging parent, taking out loans or increasing credit-card debt.

Comment: Not for the first time, I’m glad I’m a dad. But enjoy your day, Moms. If it were up to me, you would get two.

According to SSA data, in the prime Boomer birth year of 1952, the most popular names for girls and boys were Linda and James, respectively. Emily and Jacob did not crack the Top 100. In fact, Emily and Jacob did not make it into the Top 100 until 1973 and 1974 respectively.

Linda, #1 for girls in the early 1950s, now ranks 496th in popularity. James stayed in the Top 5 boys’ names until 1980, and is still a respectable 15th.

Mitchell has never been very popular. I am not surprised. You get a sense of that growing up. Mitchell was 157th most popular boys’ name in 1952, and is 304th today. It did make the Top 100 for boys from 1988 – 1997, for what that’s worth. But at least the name is solidly identified with males, never making the Top 1,000 names for girls. As for Mitch, it hit its peak in 1961 when it came in 397th.

Get out, Hillary. Get out, Hillary. Get out, Hillary.

Yeah, it’s time. The media say so, the money’s dried up, and Bill’s looking hang-dog.

Rack up one last meaningless win in West Virginia, Senator, and then exit, stage left.

See:

“Rahm Emanuel: Obama Is Our Presumptive Nominee” The Huffinton Post

“Obama Takes Lead in Superdelegate Tally” ABC News

“Obama Takes a Victory Lap” The New York Times