Why you'll be immortal if you're still alive in 2040! Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT | |
Kurzweil about how software is actually progressing faster than hardware;
| |
That's illogical and you know it. Just because something has always happened doesn't mean it will continue to. | |
Your right.
Do you think this is a more logical and a better answer? :D | |
It poses an interesting question. To what extent can modern technological advances really be judged as 'evolutionary'- in response to needs in their environment? I'd argue that now-a-days the process is far from the 'indirect' evolutionary process described above, but has now reached the point where new inventions/innovations are not so obvious as to spring to mind. I'd say that it's now more an 'intelligent design' process (I know it always was, but you get the idea), and now we've reached or are reaching the limits of what our intelligence can produce. | |
Everything evolves. Maybe it's natural, maybe it's guided, but it's still some kind of evolution.
| |
Little did the denizens of Planet X know that the machines were spawned somewhere called Earth. In their search for Titty Phones with Waffle Dispensers The Ape Men created mechanical locusts, with the same primitive drive of their creators without any of the limited charm. | |
I will have to ask though, if a computer notices it is smarter than the entire race that gave "birth too it," what logical reason is their to take orders from inferior beings, or make them live forever? | |
We'll probably merge with 'machines' ourselves. 'By the time of the Singularity, there won't be a distinction between So we won't be that inferior. | |
Fair point, although I have to wonder if we can get around the limitations set about by our own brains, such as speed of information, are ever increasing speed which we preiceve time and are limited memory space. | |
Fair point, although I have to wonder if we can get around the limitations set about by our own brains, such as speed of information, are ever increasing speed which we preiceve time and are limited memory space. | |
My point is more that i doubt it's possible for AI software can replicate certain functions of the human brain, such as having original thoughts and thinking outside the box. A way around it may be to make cybernetic brains, so you organically grow a human brain and somehow merge it with AI computing technology so you have a brain which can think as fast as a computer essentially. Wherever that is possible i don't know, but we're a long away from developing such technology. Plus, it raises a load of ethical questions. | |
Well, as far as I know we still haven't proved God or 'the soul'. We're quite sure that the brain is made out of a lot of neurons, who work together, forming complex networks. I don't think there will be much difference between meaty human-neurons or 'silicon' neurons. Supposedly 'unique' human thoughts arise from the complexity of the neurons, not an invisible magical diamond or something. | |
Hmh... wouldn't the curve have to flatten eventually? Exponential growth is a bitch; sooner or later we're looking at progress by the minute. Then by the second. Then by the milisecond. There has to be a cap somewhere, even if it's a physical one (ressources, space, time). Then again, considering how mind-blowing it already is, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong. Figure we'll be blowing ourselves up before we reach that stage, though. CAPTCHA: htler illustrating? O.o Seriously? ~Sylv | |
Considering that we still don't really know exactly how the human brain works (just read the heated discussions about nature vs nurture in relation to gender) and are unsure about how large parts of it interact with each other, it is safe to assume that we've got at least a few more decades worth of studies before we know exactly how our own brains work. And even then, it is not certain that we'll be able to use that information for improved computing or datastorage. It is entirely possible that the human way of processing information is as good as it gets with a human brain. | |
It's probable that we are going to built an artificial brain bottom-up, not top-down. We are starting to understand the bottom, the fundamental, physical principles, quite well. Also, there is quit an amazing gap between the knowledge of the brain of the average Escapist and the knowledge of the brain of leading neuroscientists.
Well, that's roughly what Kurzweil predicts. Singularity is around/before 2045.
Datastorage is already done much better outside of the brain. And... • Another advantage of nonbiological intelligence is that once a skill is mastered by a machine, it can be And by the way, Watson already pwned all humans in Jeopardy. | |
Kurzweil regarding this criticism;
So I don't think progress will continue to continue exponentially forever and eternally, but there is enough room for growth until we've at least reached the Singularity. | |
The problem with the human brain as a basis for an "electronic" brain is that the human brain is designed to function as the task master of an incredibly advanced biological being with a complex physiology. Not only is our brain designed to deal with conscious thoughts and actions, but it also operates unconscious reactions and processes at the same time aswell as regulating several critical functions for our body (such as body temperature) and reacting to emotional cues. Our brain is not only influenced by sensory impressions, but by physiological changes aswell as endocrinal stimuli. It is not that I don't think the human brain is amazing, quite the contrary in fact. But to suggest that the best way to create a "supercomputer" is to mimic the human brain just seems silly. As you yourself mentioned, computers are already a lot better at high speed calculations and data transmission than a human is and the areas where the human brain shines (multi-tasking complex stimuli and interpretation of said stimuli) are areas that a computer doesn't really need to excel at. In the end, the really big question is: Even if you could go all Intersect on someone and put an electronic computer inside their head, how available would this technology be to the public? Kurzweil has some cool theories and visions, but I really doubt he's going to be proven right. | |
I think your over estimating the change in the past 100 years Sure there has been a lot of apparent change but in reality alot is still very similar. Let switch out your great grandmother in 1909 for a young adult in thier 20 who would actualy have an understanding of world events at the time. -First World War- Thats only 5 years from 1909, Any one with some understanding of world politics would probably very easily belive it was a big posibility. They may wish to not think it was possible but if you went up to them and said there was ging to be a World War they would find it believable possibility. -Second World Way- Being that a World War is a believable possibility a second one accruing would not seem far fetched and definantly believable. Remember at the time wars between nations in europe had been quite common. -Invention of the Airplane- Invented in 1903 so it was a known fact by 1903, and balloon craft date back to the 1700's -Invention of Rockets- Date back over 1000 years. The idea that a bigger rocket could carry a person would very believable in 1909 and in fact space ships exsisted in Science fiction dating back at least to 1865 -Landing on the Moon- Again the idea of going to the moon in a spaceship has been around at least since 1865 so telling some one in 1909 that they would see it would not be unbelievable at all. In fact they might actually would have expected it to happen sooner. -Invention of the Television- Movies already exsisted so the idea that in the future you would have a device that you can watch in you own home would be very believable idea especially since a number of famous inventors were had already started theorize such a device in the 1880's and mecanical televisions were built in 1906. In fact 1907 scientists were reproducing images on CRT screens. so such a device would be highly believable to some one in 1909 -Invention of the Color Television- Basicly the same as just a standard television. The already had color photos and even color film by 1909 so a home device that displaced color pictures would be believable. No granted not every thing is exactly how they would have pictured it but the basics were all there to give them an idea of how it would happen. Really the only thing that would be unbelievable to a person in 1909 would be what modern technology is cappable of, and not really what exsists in modern day. | |
Well, that's what is important right? The capabilities? Also... improvement is exponential. But people have a very linear view of technological progression. You're applying 2012's rate of technological acceleration to a person more than hundred years back. You can't imagine the poverty in this area one hundred years back. It was basically a big swamp. Good AI, good robots etcetera are not unimaginable for us. | |
I understand that technology is advancing at an exponentially increasing rate. I understand what the singularity is. How does that mean I'll live forever? If a machine is capable of containing all the memories and processes of a human brain, if I "upload" to it, it is just a copy of me in a machine. The "real" me is constrained in this body. I could copy myself to a computer hundreds of times, and they'd all be "me"; but this consciousness is still stuck in this squishy brain. This squishy brain will eventually die. You shouldn't be talking about technology that will match or exceed the human brain, you should be talking about technology that will sustain a human brain. | |
Have you seen Curiosity - Can we live forever with Adam Savage? We could live forever even without the Singularity. Also...
| |
an AI in a robot thats kept as a slave.. forgetting one thing.. human beings. if they become common people will remove the contraints if for no other reason than for trolling and chaos, not to mention people saying they deserve equal rights, etc , etc. | |
Well Yes and No, the truth is most of todays technology capabilities are really just from increases in efficacy old technology, which while is a form of advancement it is not really much of an advancment. You could go back 30 or 40 years and say to an engineer build me a device with all the cappabilities as the computer you are sitting in front of, and they could do it. It would just be very expensive and probably take up large warehouse worth of space but it would be able to preform every function your computer does. So really in the past 30-40 years all they have done is really make things smaller. Now with smaller things you can come up with more things to do with said technology or combine a bunch of existing tecnology into one item, but thats not actually progressing much.
I agree that progress is speeding up, its just not happening quite as fast as it apears to be happening.
Its obvious to every one the only differeance is an intelligent person in those areas will be able to understand how its going to happen while some one who is not just will understand it will happen. In fact the person who does not understand it may be more accepting of it as they can not understand the road blocks in the way. Good AI and Good robots where not unimaginable to people a 100 years ago either. In fact in 1909 there was a Science Fiction story about a chess playing robot that kills its creater after it got mad because it lost a game of chess. It was in partly inspired by a "real chess playimg robot" built in the late 1700's that beat most human chess players (including Napoleon and Benjamin Franklin) Now obviously it was a hoax, but it fooled alot of people, so they obviously thought the idea was belevable even in the 1700's. Fun Fact it was called the Turk which gives the chess playing robot a very long history in fiction. Chess playing machine in the late 1700's chess playing machine that killes its owner in the early 1900 A chess playing robot that tries to kill every one(Terminator:TSCC) the early 2000's | |
But 'increases in efficiency' is all we need. Our brain is just an advanced chicken brain, that doesn't mean that it doesn't make any differences. I hope. For most persons. And yes, if you invested billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions in technology 30/40 years back, they might have made something with roughly the capabilities of my laptop, but it would have the size of the world trade center.
Kurzweil predicts that technology will shrink to the size of a blood cell, opening up a lot of possibilities for improvement of the human body. While the technology 'only advances', the options improve radically. | |
While I have no doubt technology will improve significantly over the whole of society's existence. I'm having trouble understanding how we'll actually be able to program self thinking computers. To my understanding, everything a computer does has already been programmed into it. Sure, it'll be able to use current knowledge to predict and come up with solutions. But how would it be able to invent entirely new ideas? If we gave it the entire human genome, it might be able to come up with a cure for cancer. If we gave it all of our information on architecture and geography, it might be able to draw a blueprint for a mega structure that covers an entire continent. I don't really know my point here. Uh! I guess what I am saying, we might never be able to build truly sentient AI with unique emotions and a unique look on life. But that seems a bit off-topic to me. I had a point but it's slipped my mind. Would replacing all biological thinkers with artifical thinkers actually work? Since they really only know the information we give them, and quite frankly, I don't think we know even 1% of the information that our universe offers. How would they handle something that humans have never come in to contact with, something that has no connection with anything that we currently know? I don't even know if this is relevant to the topic. | |
Having such a computer would be incredibly helpful, don't you think? Don't you think that would tremendously speed up scientific research? Having an AI that solves all our biological problems effectively gives us immortality.
We can do it bottom-up; recreate a brain neuron by neuron.
Do you ever come up with entirely new ideas? And an AI's input can be way bigger than your input. The AI can effectively read the entire internet and all books mankind has ever written, and remember everything. I think it's output will be more creative than the output of a random twitter user :P
How 'unique' are our emotions and or look on life?
I don't see any reason why a AI that is built bottom-up and as the same structure as a human brain, functioning with the same neurons, would be any less creative and imaginative than a human.
Our creativity is a result of emergence, not magic;
I don't see a reason why a sufficiently advanced AI, computed in the same way as a human brain, with the same big and diverse input humans have, wouldn't have a similarly creative output. | |
Damn necromancers.
No it's not.
A lot of biological problems are computationally hard (otherwise known as NP-complete), such as shotgun sequencing repetitive sequences in our DNA. This is so bad in some areas of our genome that we still can't say with any certainty what the sequence is. Also you'll never get a single cure for cancer - you might get suggestions, which are then tested by humans in the traditional way drugs are. There has to be a human factor involved currently.
The same applies to humans - you can't get output without initial ideas. Combining several ideas to form one new idea isn't really that hard to implement on a computer - you just score many ideas against certain criteria & pick the one with the highest score (simplification, but you get the idea). Getting a computer to do this for non-specific tasks is one of the holy grails for AI, and no-one really knows how to do it.
Doesn't necessarily have to be information we give them - they can have sensors to gain their own information, or look it up on publicly available databases. Computers are much better at remembering things than humans are, but we're much better at abstract thought. | |
That's a very good point you make, I thought about that too, so I'm glad I'm not the only one who takes a step back and says "woah! woah." when someone says they hope they'll one day be able to "upload their minds". The primary question I ask myself is "Will I wake up when this is over, or will it be someone that thinks he's me?" I'm a hopeful transhumanist, and have already done a great deal of thinking on this subject. These philosophical musings lead me to consider just where 'I', by which I mean the Self, resides. After sitting in my armchair for a few hours (not even joking, that's literally what I do) I reached the conclusion that 'I' am my thoughts. The Self is not really a physical thing, but rather the ongoing process of electrical impulses (or chemical reactions, so sue me I'm not a neurobiologist). The unbroken chain of this process is what identifies the Self. To mix up Descartes' famous quote "I think therefore I am"; "I think/am" (that was awful, I know. Sorry). But later that night I realised my error. I was about to fall asleep, therefore I would stop thinking and fall into unconsciousness, and therefore apparently die. Obviously, this thought was not conducive to getting a good load of shuteye. So, a few hours later, I realise my error. Thinking is not the Self, it is simply consciousness. Consciousness is a possible state of the Self. 'I' am not Consciousness, 'I' am what is experiencing consciousness. Therefore, I am my brain. I do not die when I fall asleep, a new person is not waking up in the morning. Thus comforted, I got some rest. So what does this mean for transhumanism? When people talk about transhumanism and 'exceeding human limits' by melding our bodies with machines, I find they always think of replacing body parts like eyes or arms. But when I (and I think others like me) talk about 'melding man and machine', I am referring to augmenting the brain. Not just ADDING increased capabilities on top of what's there already; which remains unchanged, but altering and replacing. Now we encounter a paradox. I think it has some name like 'Theseus's Ship', and the basic problem is this: So you can't just go in and replace all your brain with electronics in one go, it's obviously not you. It seems answer is to do so gradually, over a period of years preferably. And that's is where the philosophy pops up. (Also, there really isn't much of your 3 year old brain left in what's currently sitting in your head, but you're still the same person, just different (if that makes any sense)). Me? I'm going for the gradual replacement. Maybe with an outside power source, so I can be there when my body finally ceases to function, along with the final few strands of my biological brain, and know that I have beaten death. I simply realised that the Self is not actually something that physically exists, (yes I know I'm contradicting, be patient please). Sure the brain is where it is, but the Self is actually conceptual. It is a bit of a hybrid of physical permanence and constant change. If that makes any sense (it shouldn't, I don't quite get it myself). If you preserved the lost bits of my brain, and used them to rebuild an exact replica of it, it would also be me, but it would not be a resurrection of the Self in the same way as waking up. Because without the whole, the parts mean nothing. I am my brain. The parts of my brain are not parts of me. The sum of the whole is greater than the number of parts. All you have done is take some strands of material that used to exist in close physical proximity while interacting with each other, and used them to build an exact replica of who I am as a person. So; transhumanism posits that we are stuck in our squishy brains, but not for long. *thinks Oh bugger. What if, hypothetically, my brain was taken apart and then put back together again exactly as it was? Would I "wake up after this"? Or would it be someone else? If I do wake up, philosophically speaking it would put a complete kibosh on my 'replacement' strategy. But if not, I really do die when I fall asleep! No, wait, of course! I'm already over this! I'm thinking of the Self as something that exists purely as a physical entity again! Multiple minds can exist that are continuations of the same Self, as long as there is a link.... Oh geez I don't know. I guess I'll just think of the Self as an unchanging physical entity when unconscious, and with the definition of the Self constantly being 'reset' while awake. Maybe that'll work. Oh well, I hope I've shined some light on the matter from your perspective. I certainly haven't done so from mine. | |
Just to say, a lot of people seem to equate "singularity" with "AI" or "computers", that's not necessarily right. The concept of the singularity doesn't necessarily have anything to do with machine AI. It could be the point at which human intelligence can be genetically or cybernetically augmented way beyond current levels, it could be the point at which MMI allows humans to interface with powerful computers directly. It could be some kind of intelligence-enhancing wonder drug. It could be the development of synthetic grey matter. The point is that once technology advances to the point that intelligence can be enhanced beyond what is currently humanly possibly, be it human intelligence, machine intelligence, even animal intelligence or some kind of intelligence we haven't seen yet, that's the point in human development beyond which it's impossible for us to even imagine what will happen next, because whatever principles govern social or technological advancement beyond that point will be based on intelligence greater than our own. It's reasonable to assume an intelligence explosion would occur. After all, if humans can find a way to enhance intelligence, then enhanced intelligences can probably find a way to enhance their own intelligence and so forth. However, the point is that like just like a physical singularity represents the breakdown of current laws of relativity, the technological singularity is the point at which our current models for predicting scientific and social development completely break down. So no, it doesn't have to be computers or AI, certainly not as we know them. | |
Ah, the singularity. That ephemeral promise of immortality. Such a thing couldn't possibly be slightly idealistic or naive. After all, 50 years ago, scientists were promising us cities on the moon, and we have those don't we?
...oh. Wait. Well, they promised us that everyone would have a flying car by the year 2000, didn't they? ...damn! Well, what about those robot manservants who would do all our everyday chores for us? I'm sure we're all glad that we have our robot servants to do all the unpleasant jobs that make up everyday living, yes?
...dammit! They really did promise us a load of unattainable shite back in the 50s, didn't they? I've no problems with how technology is progressing or making our lives easier, though I do think we need to put much, much more effort into reducing our impact on the environment. I simply think that anyone trying to make predictions about what technology will be like 50 years in the future is doomed to failure. Humanity is absolutely wonderful at throwing spanners in the works. The idea that technology will advance exponentially to the point where we can 'meld' with computer AIs is an awfully optimistic outlook that misses a few key points. Firstly, melding consciousness with AI is an us yet unexplored, un-experimented, unkown 'science' that seems to have all the legitimacy of 'faster than light' travel. Just because the movies made it look cool, doesn't mean the laws of physics like the idea. Secondly, while technology is increasing exponentially, resources are dwindling at an accelerated rate, and we simply do not have the infrastructure to survive without. In the very near future, as more and more countrieds become industrialised, the very real limits of the world's oil supply with force countries into war with one another to fight for their own stake. We're already seeing the beginnings of this with the US and Iraq, but it will become much more blatant as time goes on. Our governments have not invested enough to be able to make things like enough electricity or plastic for everyone without oil, and this will come back to bite us in the ass in the next few decades. We have the very real possibility that the ice caps will melt, which will have a huge effect on both the climate, and the distribution and movement of the human population. I love science. I love the idea of being able to learn more about universe simply by looking at it long and hard enough, and maybe prodding it a little bit when needed. But this idea of 'transhumanism' isn't science. It's taking the prettiest parts of pop-science, ignoring the very real problems that our understanding of the laws of chemistry and physics have regarding how 'mobile' our minds are, and frankly it gives me the same reaction as meeting a weird religious group. The ideas are the same: both the transhumanist movement and religious groups come to you with unprovable claims about how the future will be so much better if you join their cause, and how by doing so you will be ensuring the immortality of your own soul, and helping to take humanity to a better place. I like science because it means I can ignore crazy groups and their weird claims about how to save humanity. Transhumanists, I believe, are fundamentally naive in how they believe technology will lead us relentlessly to some sort of utopia. While they're all staring starry eyed into their iPad screens dreaming about how they'll one day be able to upload themselves to the internet, the world is slowly beginning to burn up around them. As followers of science, it is our duty to help tackle the problems that face the world today. Renewable energy, clean fuels, more productive ways to grow and manage food, a more harmonious interaction with the environment... these are the issues which scientists need to set their gaze on if they wish the world as we know it to survive. Trying to upload your brain to a computer, or handing all autonomous government decisions to some great AI, these are things to worry about later, when our world isn't teetering on the brink of ecological meltdown, and our governments aren't sharpening up their knives to get ready to go for each others throats. | |
I don't think it's quite like that. I'd especially say that transhumanists aren't like a religious cult at all. We don't live our lives any differently to anyone else. We don't actually have to DO anything related to transhumanism. We just really, really hope we're right, because why not? We're not really asking that massive funding be devoted to artificial intelligence, or anything concrete or proactive. We just expect these things to happen. Your comparison with 50s idealism is, I'll give you, quite astute. But again, they aren't quite the same situations. Now if someone said that nanotechnology will solve all health problems by 2030, I'd be quite skeptical too. But that's not what transhumanism is talking about. 50s futurists were projecting their views based on the technology available at their time, and vastly overestimating its cost and capabilities. Current day transhumanism can hypothesize, but it doesn't pretend to know what kind of technology we'll have by 2040. That's what it calls a paradigm shift; when humanity starts using a completely new form of technology that no one could predict, because predicting it would basically mean you've invented it. By contrast, 50s futurists were really just imagining unfeasibly powerful versions of current technology. Also, about the moon cities thing, I think that never came about because the moon missions were really expensive (and still are). It's just not economically feasible to fund a space race beyond the finish line, as it were. Profits have always been a more reliable motivator than ideals, and current day Transhumanism takes this into account. Finally, I don't think current global issues are all that relevant to the discussion, or at least not its antithesis. Indeed, it has historically been major problems such as starvation, environmental collapse and energy shortages that have been solved through technological progress. But I digress. The point is that what we are mainly talking about advances in AI, computer systems and medical technology. The issues you mentioned don't really interact with these fields much (or at least, not as much as some other things). Just because transhumanists hope and look forward to the great tech of tomorrow, in what way would that mean we would ignore the problems of today? | |
I accept all this, but I still think (barring total social collapse or the end of humanity) the presence of an event recognizable as a technological singularity - no matter when it is - is a pretty reasonable assumption to make, and yes, it's become bound up in all this utopian bollocks, but when we look at what it actually is then it's really not far out there. All that needs to happen is that at some point humans (not all humans, just some) need to find a way to improve on their own intelligence. It doesn't matter if that means merging with an AI, genetically engineering our children to have better cognitive functioning or even just developing some kind of implant which can interface with a human brain. At that point, the entire scope of human history theoretically curves beyond what we can currently see, not necessarily into some utopian scenario, but into the genuine unknown, potentially into a pretty dark place. I think the idea is exciting, and maybe that makes me a transhumanist, but I think the approach of the singularity isn't going to bring everyone together in glorious unity. I expect massive social tension, huge inequality, horrible abuses of power and ultimately a lot of existential terror. I also don't believe I'll live forever, and I don't see any point in people deluding themselves that they will. If anyone does, good for them, but I strongly suspect I won't be one of those people (and part of me is slightly glad of that, I can imagine some of the abuses of power possible with exponentially advancing intelligence, I'd rather not see any of the ones I can't). | |
We will not be immortal in 2040, nor will we have an "I Robot" situation. I take a more cynical approach on the the future. I think certain things are simply impossible according to the rules of the physical world, and therefore can not be done no matter how long our technology has to develop. There will probably also be a point where we have researched nearly everything that can be known, and therefore our technological advancement will come to a near halt. We may even be closer to that point than many people think. | |
TLDR I just came here for free hat. When do I get to be immortal and ride around in a giant robot? | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT | |
Well, the fact that they haven't done that for a century now, or a billion years.
Also the fact that East-Asia is joining the modern world in a very succesfull manner.