cthulhuspawn82: 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.
I don't remember the exact names so I can't find the story, but I heard once that a famous phycisist was told when he decided to study physics (end of 19th century), that he shouldn't do it, because nearly everything in phsysics is already known. And then came quantum mechanics and the universe and dark matter and neutrinos going faster than light et cetera et cetera.
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).
Perhaps. While I certainly agree with you in that I believe 'trans-human' technology made available in the near future will simply increase social disparity and fracture humanity into more clearly defined 'haves' and 'have-nots' than at any other point in our history, I simply cannot see how we can expect civilisation to keep expanding and progressing, or even plainly survive, under the amount of momentum and pressure it is currently under.
We have got limited resources, and the threat of ecological meltdown. When first world nations are fighting each other for the remaining oil, and half the populated world is either flooded or transformed into an inhospitable oven (as will happen with much of Africa, India and other hot, dry countries), I simply do not think civilisation will be able to afford the time and money necessary to research such luxuries as super intelligent AI, or increasing the scope of human intelligence.
Considering that we still know only the barest essentials about the human brain, and next to nothing regarding the precise relationship between physical neurons and our immaterial thoughts and dreams, I cannot believe that we will have magically learnt enough about the brain and the mind (two related but separate topics) to be able to 'enhance' human intelligence and transfer consciousness from body to machine before the ice caps melt and the world goes to shit.
Pessimistic, I know, but then again, look at the world right now. We're certainly not planning for the future, and it's going to bite us in the arse.
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.
But how will things such as advances artificial intelligence happen without massive funding being allocated to things like research into artificial intelligence? And when the economy goes tits up again, where will R&D into artificial intelligence get the money for its funding from? Governments are notoriously stingy at giving out research funds in times of economic turmoil. Just look at Nasa. Arguably the most famous, most advanced science and technology research base in the world, and for first time since its inception, it doesn't have a working space program.
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.
And historically it has been major crises such as wars and social collapse that have destroyed intellectual and technological progress and caused society to stagnate. Look at the libraries of Alexandria. The largest collection of scientific and historical knowledge that the world had ever seen. Home to more than a million scrolls, topics ranging from the curvature of the earth (Egyptian scholars had already worked out that the Earth was round) to the nature of constellations, to the history of the collected civilisations. There had never been a more concerted effort in the history of civilisation to pool all of humanity's collected knowledge, and to lead research into new, unexplored territories.
The library was burned down by Caesar. Nearly all of its scrolls went up in flames, and the collected knowledge of the entirety of the human race was wiped from the earth. The destruction of Alexandria was singularly responsible for the lack of scientific advancement in the centuries that followed. Had it survived, there would have been a wealth of ground-breaking ideas available for scholars to use as jumping off points for new research. As it was, we ended up having to spend over a millenium re-discovering all the knowledge that had been destroyed in Alexandria.
The advancement of civilisation is closely tied to the world in which civilisation sits. If global unrest becomes as deep and widespread as many predict, then there is a very real chance that we will enact a second Alexandria. If we allow ourselves to ruin the earth and its climate, and get swept up in fighting for the last few scraps of resources that we can find, then it may well be that we end up destroying years and years worth of scientific advancement in our haste to destroy each other. Make no mistake, as the Earth warms up, it is going to have very real, negative consequences on humanity, and how we relate with each other.
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).
They all require large amounts of money to fund extensive research. Money that will probably be in short supply if another economic crash takes place. AI and computer research require large amounts of energy in constant supply, something that again could be in short supply if developed nations are reduced to fighting each other for oil as many think will be the case. Those fields of research, while removed in themselves from everyday life, are still nonetheless dependant on the support and supply of everyday necessities, necessities which could very well end up becoming scarcer as time goes on.
And historically it has been major crises such as wars and social collapse that have destroyed intellectual and technological progress and caused society to stagnate. Look at the libraries of Alexandria. The largest collection of scientific and historical knowledge that the world had ever seen. Home to more than a million scrolls, topics ranging from the curvature of the earth (Egyptian scholars had already worked out that the Earth was round) to the nature of constellations, to the history of the collected civilisations. There had never been a more concerted effort in the history of civilisation to pool all of humanity's collected knowledge, and to lead research into new, unexplored territories.
The library was burned down by Caesar. Nearly all of its scrolls went up in flames, and the collected knowledge of the entirety of the human race was wiped from the earth. The destruction of Alexandria was singularly responsible for the lack of scientific advancement in the centuries that followed. Had it survived, there would have been a wealth of ground-breaking ideas available for scholars to use as jumping off points for new research. As it was, we ended up having to spend over a millenium re-discovering all the knowledge that had been destroyed in Alexandria.
The advancement of civilisation is closely tied to the world in which civilisation sits. If global unrest becomes as deep and widespread as many predict, then there is a very real chance that we will enact a second Alexandria. If we allow ourselves to ruin the earth and its climate, and get swept up in fighting for the last few scraps of resources that we can find, then it may well be that we end up destroying years and years worth of scientific advancement in our haste to destroy each other. Make no mistake, as the Earth warms up, it is going to have very real, negative consequences on humanity, and how we relate with each other.
Well, we are in complete agreement about the dangers posed by dwindling resources and ecological collapse, but I still still put my faith in science to solve these issues. What happened to the Library of Alexandria is not actually all that relevant. I'd argue that, historically speaking, science and technology has always been humanity's first and foremost tool for survival. It has been what allowed us to expand across the Earth, gather sufficient food, build cities, and cure diseases. Global Warming and renewable resources are simply another, rather large problem to solve. And as the issue becomes more pressing, the time till we find a solution becomes shorter.
So no, I don't think the world will end with developed, first world nations fighting each other over the last few dregs of oil, when it is SO much more cost effective to simply implement currently existing renewable energy sources and reallocate funding to develop more reliable renewable energy resources. Hell, as soon as it becomes profitable to do so, it will probably be companies that drive forward the major advances in that field. Sure, it will be quite the event, but civilization will not crumble beneath us. Sure the rate of change is a bit slow right now, but it's happening.
They all require large amounts of money to fund extensive research. Money that will probably be in short supply if another economic crash takes place. AI and computer research require large amounts of energy in constant supply, something that again could be in short supply if developed nations are reduced to fighting each other for oil as many think will be the case. Those fields of research, while removed in themselves from everyday life, are still nonetheless dependant on the support and supply of everyday necessities, necessities which could very well end up becoming scarcer as time goes on.
I think you're vastly overestimating the cost to conduct research of any kind. I'm assuming that we won't be reduced to playing out the early stages of Mad Max, so as long as these Bright Young Things don't have to post a sentry to shoot at over eager scavengers, it's really a bit of a non-issue.
But how will things such as advances artificial intelligence happen without massive funding being allocated to things like research into artificial intelligence? And when the economy goes tits up again, where will R&D into artificial intelligence get the money for its funding from? Governments are notoriously stingy at giving out research funds in times of economic turmoil. Just look at Nasa. Arguably the most famous, most advanced science and technology research base in the world, and for first time since its inception, it doesn't have a working space program.
NASA is not a good example, its money does not go towards R and D nearly as much as it does towards regularly sending several tonnes of metal screaming through the atmosphere powered by some of the most expensive fuel on the planet.
Overall, I, believe it or not, remain optimistic about humanity's future. In fact, I think you are the one being a bit too pessimistic.
EDIT: Even I must admit, my response to your post isn't the most well argued one I've ever made, sorry.
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.
The Times wrote this about the Singularity;
Computers are getting faster. Everybody knows that. Also, computers are getting faster faster - that is, the rate at which they're getting faster is increasing. True? True. So if computers are getting so much faster, so incredibly fast, there might conceivably come a moment when they are capable of something comparable to human intelligence. Artificial intelligence. All that horsepower could be put in the service of emulating whatever it is our brains are doing when they create consciousness - not just doing arithmetic very quickly or composing piano music but also driving cars, writing books, making ethical decisions, appreciating fancy paintings, making witty observations at cocktail parties. If you can swallow that idea, and Kurzweil and a lot of other very smart people can, then all bets are off. From that point on, there's no reason to think computers would stop getting more powerful. They would keep on developing until they were far more intelligent than we are. Their rate of development would also continue to increase, because they would take over their own development from their slower-thinking human creators. Imagine a computer scientist that was itself a super-intelligent computer. It would work incredibly quickly. It could draw on huge amounts of data effortlessly. It wouldn't even take breaks to play Farmville.
The difficult thing to keep sight of when you're talking about the Singularity is that even though it sounds like science fiction, it isn't, no more than a weather forecast is science fiction. It's not a fringe idea; it's a serious hypothesis about the future of life on Earth. There's an intellectual gag reflex that kicks in anytime you try to swallow an idea that involves super-intelligent immortal cyborgs, but suppress it if you can, because while the Singularity appears to be, on the face of it, preposterous, it's an idea that rewards sober, careful evaluation.
...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?
I do have a robot servarnt to do my housecleaning for me, actually.
I mean is our sample not to limited to make such estimates?
Well, I am quite sure that exponential growth in computing is quite steady. Of course, it's not magical, but if the growth can 'survive' world wars without noticeable dents or spikes, it seems pretty steady. Anticipating on future paradigms like quantum computing, we can be quite sure that exponential growth will continue for another few decades. And he's not predicting that exponential growth will continue until the year 33243, he's talking about 2045.
Seekster: Yeah and they promised flying cars by now too. The future sucks, I want my money back.
And portable nuclear powerplants, domed ecological cities, robotic butlers, automated ovens and at least a colony on the moon. Predictions about the future has a tendency to hilariously overestimate what will come to happen
Seekster: Yeah and they promised flying cars by now too. The future sucks, I want my money back.
And portable nuclear powerplants, domed ecological cities, robotic butlers, automated ovens and at least a colony on the moon. Predictions about the future has a tendency to hilariously overestimate what will come to happen
Tell me about it. Case and point, the opening line of "Destroy All Monsters" which is a Godzilla film from the 60s is "The year is 1999, mankind has conquered space". Yeah I know its a sci-fi movie but its about right. Yes technology advances quickly but not as quickly as our imaginations do.
Gethsemani: And portable nuclear powerplants, domed ecological cities, robotic butlers, automated ovens and at least a colony on the moon. Predictions about the future has a tendency to hilariously overestimate what will come to happen
Seekster: Tell me about it. Case and point, the opening line of "Destroy All Monsters" which is a Godzilla film from the 60s is "The year is 1999, mankind has conquered space". Yeah I know its a sci-fi movie but its about right. Yes technology advances quickly but not as quickly as our imaginations do.
Were those 'promises' supported by as much careful analysis and explanation as Kurzweil's ideas?
The difficult thing to keep sight of when you're talking about the Singularity is that even though it sounds like science fiction, it isn't, no more than a weather forecast is science fiction. It's not a fringe idea; it's a serious hypothesis about the future of life on Earth. There's an intellectual gag reflex that kicks in anytime you try to swallow an idea that involves super-intelligent immortal cyborgs, but suppress it if you can, because while the Singularity appears to be, on the face of it, preposterous, it's an idea that rewards sober, careful evaluation.
Gethsemani: And portable nuclear powerplants, domed ecological cities, robotic butlers, automated ovens and at least a colony on the moon. Predictions about the future has a tendency to hilariously overestimate what will come to happen
Seekster: Tell me about it. Case and point, the opening line of "Destroy All Monsters" which is a Godzilla film from the 60s is "The year is 1999, mankind has conquered space". Yeah I know its a sci-fi movie but its about right. Yes technology advances quickly but not as quickly as our imaginations do.
Were those 'promises' supported by as much careful analysis and explanation as Kurzweil's ideas?
The difficult thing to keep sight of when you're talking about the Singularity is that even though it sounds like science fiction, it isn't, no more than a weather forecast is science fiction. It's not a fringe idea; it's a serious hypothesis about the future of life on Earth. There's an intellectual gag reflex that kicks in anytime you try to swallow an idea that involves super-intelligent immortal cyborgs, but suppress it if you can, because while the Singularity appears to be, on the face of it, preposterous, it's an idea that rewards sober, careful evaluation.
Actually yeah they were. There were popular science articles talking about stuff like that and everything.
I know Singularity is not a fringe idea, neither was the idea that we would have regular spaceflight and routine trips for civilians to the moon just about 50 years ago.
I've read up on the Singularity and while it might happen its by no means certain. History is filled with predictions like that which never quite pan out.
Personally I think the law of diminishing returns kicks in at some point. First how would we be smart enough to design something notably smarter than us? Second, why would we do that? What demand would such a machine fill?
Seekster: Actually yeah they were. There were popular science articles talking about stuff like that and everything.
You probably haven't read "The Singularity is Near", Kurzweil's book. It makes a very convincing argument. It's way more than "Hey, robots might be possible in the future!".
Seekster: I know Singularity is not a fringe idea, neither was the idea that we would have regular spaceflight and routine trips for civilians to the moon just about 50 years ago.
Well, as I said, it's not merely a prediction... it's more like.. a perspective.
Seekster: I've read up on the Singularity and while it might happen its by no means certain. History is filled with predictions like that which never quite pan out.
It's not certain, but it seems likely.
Not everything that Kurzweil predicts may come to pass, but a lot of it will, and even if you don't agree with everything he says, it's all worth paying attention to." - The Philadelphia Inquirer
Seekster: Personally I think the law of diminishing returns kicks in at some point.
I agree. Post-Singularity. We, the human race, are still incredibly limited. With the technologies that will become available to us in the next decades, with East-Asia catching up... well, the end of exponential growth doesn't seem likely the next couple of decades.
Seekster: First how would we be smart enough to design something notably smarter than us? Second, why would we do that? What demand would such a machine fill?
Well, we're already doing it. 'Wikipedia' has more factual knowledge than any of us. But of course, Wikipedia is merely a database and we, humans, still have to read it to turn 'information' into 'intelligence'. But... http://www.wolframalpha.com/
And...
And...
Look at; 1:25-1:50
We're already creating things that exceed our intelligence. Asking how we could design something that's smarter than as us is like asking how we could design something that's faster than us.
Seekster: Actually yeah they were. There were popular science articles talking about stuff like that and everything.
You probably haven't read "The Singularity is Near", Kurzweil's book. It makes a very convincing argument. It's way more than "Hey, robots might be possible in the future!".
Seekster: I know Singularity is not a fringe idea, neither was the idea that we would have regular spaceflight and routine trips for civilians to the moon just about 50 years ago.
Well, as I said, it's not merely a prediction... it's more like.. a perspective.
Seekster: I've read up on the Singularity and while it might happen its by no means certain. History is filled with predictions like that which never quite pan out.
It's not certain, but it seems likely.
Not everything that Kurzweil predicts may come to pass, but a lot of it will, and even if you don't agree with everything he says, it's all worth paying attention to." - The Philadelphia Inquirer
Seekster: Personally I think the law of diminishing returns kicks in at some point.
I agree. Post-Singularity. We, the human race, are still incredibly limited. With the technologies that will become available to us in the next decades, with East-Asia catching up... well, the end of exponential growth doesn't seem likely the next couple of decades.
Seekster: First how would we be smart enough to design something notably smarter than us? Second, why would we do that? What demand would such a machine fill?
Well, we're already doing it. 'Wikipedia' has more factual knowledge than any of us. But of course, Wikipedia is merely a database and we, humans, still have to read it to turn 'information' into 'intelligence'. But...
We're already creating things that exceed our intelligence. Asking how we could design something that's smarter than as us is like asking how we could design something that's faster than us.
No I have not but just because there is a book that says something doesnt make it so. I understand its possible but forgive me if I remain skeptical.
Yeah I've read the wiki on this subject. I love the bit about humans deciding to join with the robots before they decide to take over. I really loved the quote to the effect of "the computer does not hate you, but you see you are made of atoms and the computer has concluded that those atoms can be put to more efficient use."
PRESS RELEASE: Researchers from Chalmers and the University of Gothenburg have shown that nanocellulose stimulates the formation of neural networks. This is the first step toward creating a three-dimensional model of the brain.
When the nerve cells finally attached to the scaffold they began to develop and generate contacts with one another, so-called synapses. A neural network of hundreds of cells was produced. The researchers can now use electrical impulses and chemical signal substances to generate nerve impulses, that spread through the network in much the same way as they do in the brain. They can also study how nerve cells react with other molecules, such as pharmaceuticals.
Danyal, I've been studying Kurzweil and his ideas for a while. His good friend Peter Diamandis is more believable than him, in my opinion.
All of his ideas and especially your blind belief can be contradicted with the simple notion of control. We technologists, we "sheeple" do not control anything. The world powers, those in charge, decide what happens next, in regards to everything. At the moment, these people are bankers, pharmaceutical CEOs (leaders) and of course, petrol/oil giants.
If there comes a point where immortality is possible, be assured you will never get to taste it. Overpopulation is already a problem, how misguided (to use a nice term) do you have to be to believe that we want to allow people to live forever?
The only technologies we currently need are those that can meet our existing needs (food, water, energy) and create more convenience in our lives but that probably won't happen, just like the rise of the computers didn't reduce the amount of work we all have to do.
I won't even get into the debate about Kurzweil's ideas in regards to computing power being equal to understanding the inner working of the brain. It is ridiculous and biologists have said that quote 'Kurzweil does not even understand basic biology'. We will not be able to simulate a human brain in the next few years through his CURRENT ideas.
We could go on and on, debating all of his points but the beauty about being a futurist is that nobody can prove you wrong, until of course, you get enough 'predictions' wrong.
vecinu: Danyal, I've been studying Kurzweil and his ideas for a while. His good friend Peter Diamandis is more believable than him, in my opinion.
I know a little bit about him and just searched for his specific ideas on the Singularity. I couldn't find his ideas properly summarized, could you explain me what he thinks? Maybe you've got a good source?
vecinu: All of his ideas and especially your blind belief
Blind belief? Sorry, no.
vecinu: can be contradicted with the simple notion of control. We technologists, we "sheeple" do not control anything. The world powers, those in charge, decide what happens next, in regards to everything. At the moment, these people are bankers, pharmaceutical CEOs (leaders) and of course, petrol/oil giants.
Jeez, I was afraid you had a genuine counter-argument. So, the bankers are the people who decide that the growth of RAM is exponential, and that there will be no Singularity?
vecinu: If there comes a point where immortality is possible, be assured you will never get to taste it. Overpopulation is already a problem, how misguided (to use a nice term) do you have to be to believe that we want to allow people to live forever?
I hadn't thought this would be so useful when I first heard about it... I present to you..
When our mortality rates dropped with 75%, our birth rates did the same shortly afterwards, and the current problem of modern, Western nations is underpopulation. You notice all those immigrants? We need those because we're too lazy to reproduce.
vecinu: I won't even get into the debate about Kurzweil's ideas in regards to computing power being equal to understanding the inner working of the brain. It is ridiculous and biologists have said that quote 'Kurzweil does not even understand basic biology'. We will not be able to simulate a human brain in the next few years through his CURRENT ideas.
I remember one neuroscientist indeed saying that Kurzweil didn't understand the brain, but as far as I know, that guy didn't understand Kurzweil.
vecinu: We could go on and on, debating all of his points but the beauty about being a futurist is that nobody can prove you wrong, until of course, you get enough 'predictions' wrong.
He has made predictions for decades now, also for years that have already passed, you might want to look them up. And, you can criticize the way he actually 'builds' those predictions, his logic.
Jeez, I was afraid you had a genuine counter-argument. So, the bankers are the people who decide that the growth of RAM is exponential, and that there will be no Singularity?
No, but the people with the fiscal means control what research gets funding and what research to introduce to the public. Just look at what happened to the, superior, electric cars arund the turn of the 20th century. The petroleum companies managed to prevent them from ever reaching the larger production.
Even when things are introduced they can be inhibited by harsh legislation, prohibtively high pricing and many other ways to make them hard to access for the public. Just because we might have the ability to get past the singularity, there's nothing to imply that it might actually benefit all of humanity.
Jeez, I was afraid you had a genuine counter-argument. So, the bankers are the people who decide that the growth of RAM is exponential, and that there will be no Singularity?
No, but the people with the fiscal means control what research gets funding and what research to introduce to the public.
No, they do not. That's like saying "The Muslims control which building get's bombed and which building doesn't get bombed." The "1%" are not an evil monolithic corporation that are all united in one big mega-conspiracy.
Gethsemani: Just look at what happened to the, superior, electric cars arund the turn of the 20th century. The petroleum companies managed to prevent them from ever reaching the larger production.
As far as I know, I can buy a electric car if I want to. I've seen a lot of them in Oslo. And... do you know how much our batteries currently suck? Our batteries are just way more inefficient than oil.
Gethsemani: Even when things are introduced they can be inhibited by harsh legislation, prohibtively high pricing and many other ways to make them hard to access for the public. Just because we might have the ability to get past the singularity, there's nothing to imply that it might actually benefit all of humanity.
The Singularity means 20,000 years of progress. That's gonna affect your life quite radically. And if it seems impossible to you, try to figure out how many years of progress we had in the 20th century, expressed in terms of 1899-growth.
Jeez, I was afraid you had a genuine counter-argument. So, the bankers are the people who decide that the growth of RAM is exponential, and that there will be no Singularity?
No, but the people with the fiscal means control what research gets funding and what research to introduce to the public.
No, they do not. That's like saying "The Muslims control which building get's bombed and which building doesn't get bombed." The "1%" are not an evil monolithic corporation that are all united in one big mega-conspiracy.
No, it is not and please don't be inane. Modern research, no matter if it is medical or technical, is extremly expensive. Who funds the reseach into RAM-memory? The companies that makes RAM obviously and if they start feeling the investment ain't worth the pay-off they'll stop researching ways to improve their RAM. When it comes to human biology and medicine, most funding comes from pharmaceutical corporations in various forms (and to a lesser extent, NGOs and government organizations) and they fund the research because they think it will pay off for them later.
Danyal: [ As far as I know, I can buy a electric car if I want to. I've seen a lot of them in Oslo. And... do you know how much our batteries currently suck? Our batteries are just way more inefficient than oil.
No, really? I see a few around Sweden too, but it is only a century or so after the first working concepts, concepts that were superior to the combustion engine equivalents of the time. So let's be blunt: The oil companies held off an invention from public release and further research for almost a hundred years. Simply because that invention was contrary to their interests.
Danyal: [The Singularity means 20,000 years of progress. That's gonna affect your life quite radically. And if it seems impossible to you, try to figure out how many years of progress we had in the 20th century, expressed in terms of 1899-growth.
And you know this how? Because Kurzweil thinks so? Once again, let's be blunt here: The singularity represents the space in time when we can no longer predict how science and technology will advance. It might lead to a burst of scientific research, but just how much or even in what direction, we can't predict. That's the entire point of the singularity and any attempts to extrapolate or guess what will happen is simply hyperbole. And, as we both know, hyperbole is pointless in a serious discussion.
For Esotera; the epic music I was listening (randomly, had been listening to my iTunes playlist for a while) while reading the news.
Have you just hidden these round the forum like Easter Eggs? I love treasure hunts :P
Anyway, remaining on-topic I'd say the biggest problem the singularity faces is if computers get insanely cheap so that no-one bothers with making them any cheaper. Unlikely, but it could slow things down a bit. Strong AI is a very long way off. It's very easy to write artificial intelligence to solve trivial problems like Tic-Tac-Toe perfectly (I actually did this the other afternoon) but certain tasks are just computationally hard for Turing machines, and we're very unlikely to get there. The discovery of memristors might help, but we're a long way off from them being used in general-purpose computers.
Gethsemani: No, it is not and please don't be inane. Modern research, no matter if it is medical or technical, is extremly expensive. Who funds the reseach into RAM-memory? The companies that makes RAM obviously and if they start feeling the investment ain't worth the pay-off they'll stop researching ways to improve their RAM. When it comes to human biology and medicine, most funding comes from pharmaceutical corporations in various forms (and to a lesser extent, NGOs and government organizations) and they fund the research because they think it will pay off for them later.
I don't see how this disproves Kurzweil's ideas.
Gethsemani: No, really? I see a few around Sweden too, but it is only a century or so after the first working concepts, concepts that were superior to the combustion engine equivalents of the time. So let's be blunt: The oil companies held off an invention from public release and further research for almost a hundred years. Simply because that invention was contrary to their interests.
It's true that electrical engines are superior in energy efficiency; a lot less energy is lost in transferring the energy to the wheels (a combustion engine gets hot; this is lost energy, for example). But our way of storing energy is just way more inefficient than oil. Our batteries just contain way less energy than oil.
Gethsemani: And you know this how? Because Kurzweil thinks so? Once again, let's be blunt here: The singularity represents the space in time when we can no longer predict how science and technology will advance. It might lead to a burst of scientific research, but just how much or even in what direction, we can't predict. That's the entire point of the singularity and any attempts to extrapolate or guess what will happen is simply hyperbole. And, as we both know, hyperbole is pointless in a serious discussion.
It's true that we can't predict what happens after the Singularity, but the Singularity=a lot of research and inventions in a short amount of time. This will drastically effect your life, and it's our task to figure out when it will happen, if it will happen, and whether or not we should strive to accomplish it.
Esotera: Strong AI is a very long way off. It's very easy to write artificial intelligence to solve trivial problems like Tic-Tac-Toe perfectly (I actually did this the other afternoon) but certain tasks are just computationally hard for Turing machines, and we're very unlikely to get there. The discovery of memristors might help, but we're a long way off from them being used in general-purpose computers.
There are two ways to create Strong AI. 1. Top Down Teach AIs a certain task. Learn them to navigate through a building. Teach them the rules of human language. Write a script that causes them to teach themselves new stuff. 2. Bottom Up Simulate a human brain. Look how the human brain works, and simulate every neuron.
I personally think the Bottom-Up method will create the first 'proper' Strong AI.
There are a lot of different ways to look at the idea of the singularity. It's not just about improvement in computers, it's about improvements to science and technology and the economy and industry in general, and how they all feed into each other and increase efficency, speeding up the improvements in all the fields. Exponential growth, if continued, starts off slow but keeps getting faster. Technological advancement of all kinds is moving much faster then it was 50 years ago, and the rate of increase is also increasing.
Everything in our society at this point takes that exponential growth for granted. Whenever you hear an economist say "the economy increases at an average 3% growth rate a year", that is exponential growth. Compound interest is exponential growth, and that's only possible because the investments the banks make pay off with exponential growth.
It's possible that at some point the growth curve slows down, sure, but there hasn't been any sign of that happening in the past 300 years or so, and I don't see it happening now. If it does, we're going to totally have to re-think our entire economy. If it doesn't, then there will come a point where our society transforms completely transforms itself in months instead of years, then again in weeks. There's really no way to predict what happens after that, but it's going to be big.
There are two ways to create Strong AI. 1. Top Down Teach AIs a certain task. Learn them to navigate through a building. Teach them the rules of human language. Write a script that causes them to teach themselves new stuff. 2. Bottom Up Simulate a human brain. Look how the human brain works, and simulate every neuron.
I personally think the Bottom-Up method will create the first 'proper' Strong AI.
You can't possibly say that with any certainty as we need to make a strong AI first to be sure. The bottom-up approach is probably even harder than the top down approach, and that's the way a true strong AI would need to go.
There are two ways to create Strong AI. 1. Top Down Teach AIs a certain task. Learn them to navigate through a building. Teach them the rules of human language. Write a script that causes them to teach themselves new stuff. 2. Bottom Up Simulate a human brain. Look how the human brain works, and simulate every neuron.
I personally think the Bottom-Up method will create the first 'proper' Strong AI.
You can't possibly say that with any certainty as we need to make a strong AI first to be sure. The bottom-up approach is probably even harder than the top down approach, and that's the way a true strong AI would need to go.
The problem with "bottom up" is that we aren't sure exactly how the human brain works and even if we did, we'd be programming an AI with lots of pointless functions (such as controlling a limbic system, regulating hormones and body temperature etc.) for something that would probably be a "brain in a jar". While the idea of the human brain being the basis for an AI is tempting, I think it is not how we'll develop true AI. Keep in mind that thereäs a huge difference between our biological brain and its' strange fleshy ways and the cold, hard science of mathematics, which is what we base all of our AI research on.
Gethsemani: The problem with "bottom up" is that we aren't sure exactly how the human brain works and even if we did, we'd be programming an AI with lots of pointless functions (such as controlling a limbic system, regulating hormones and body temperature etc.)
I'm quite sure the people of the Blue Brain Project know this and are not simulating 'unnecessary' functions. I read it somewhere but I can't find it anymore..
Gethsemani: for something that would probably be a "brain in a jar". While the idea of the human brain being the basis for an AI is tempting, I think it is not how we'll develop true AI.
I do think that we will have simulated the human brain before we've created true Strong AI, and the project that is working on building Strong AI will find the simulated brain to be quite useful.
Gethsemani: Keep in mind that thereäs a huge difference between our biological brain and its' strange fleshy ways and the cold, hard science of mathematics, which is what we base all of our AI research on.
That's why I posted the news about the brain simulation;
Danyal: PRESS RELEASE: Researchers from Chalmers and the University of Gothenburg have shown that nanocellulose stimulates the formation of neural networks. This is the first step toward creating a three-dimensional model of the brain.
When the nerve cells finally attached to the scaffold they began to develop and generate contacts with one another, so-called synapses. A neural network of hundreds of cells was produced. The researchers can now use electrical impulses and chemical signal substances to generate nerve impulses, that spread through the network in much the same way as they do in the brain. They can also study how nerve cells react with other molecules, such as pharmaceuticals.
Esotera: You can't possibly say that with any certainty as we need to make a strong AI first to be sure. The bottom-up approach is probably even harder than the top down approach, and that's the way a true strong AI would need to go.
As I said to Gethsemani; I do think that we will have simulated the human brain before we've created true Strong AI, and the project that is working on building Strong AI will find the simulated brain to be quite useful.
Yosarian2: Everything in our society at this point takes that exponential growth for granted. Whenever you hear an economist say "the economy increases at an average 3% growth rate a year", that is exponential growth. Compound interest is exponential growth, and that's only possible because the investments the banks make pay off with exponential growth.
That's something people really need to generalize.
Goddamnit, I'll be 48 when the singularity happens! And according to every male relative in my father's side of the family, I'll go insta-fat when I'm 35.
Well, there is a lot that having quantum computer-levels of memory would achieve, like more than you would think. There is a lot of scientific breakthroughs that could happen through just pure speed.
Where's Snake Plissken when you need him? Need to punch in the world code and shut it all down. It's funny because my girlfriend and I were just talking about this other day and where the technology is going. I was thinking about the book Player Piano, where you're either smart and an engineer, or you live in government sponsored housing and once and a while you do "work." Where 40-50 people are assigned to patch one pot hole in the road.
Well first we'd have to sterilize everyone to keep more people from being born to counteract overpopulation, on top of that we'd have to find a way to make sure that they can live forever and stay in a job as to keep up an income for the government and particularly the SSA.
Forget jobs. If we ever were to become immortal, world economies would collapse, starting with healthcare, then anything food related. Class systems would either freeze or cease to exist, and without any sense of purpose, anything to aim for, suicide rates would skyrocket. Eventually the novelty would wear off and we'd slowly push our way to extinction.
algalon: Class systems would either freeze or cease to exist, and without any sense of purpose, anything to aim for, suicide rates would skyrocket. Eventually the novelty would wear off and we'd slowly push our way to extinction.
Meh. I'll refrain from predicting the worries and fears of an upgraded brain.
Warforger: on top of that we'd have to find a way to make sure that they can live forever and stay in a job as to keep up an income for the government and particularly the SSA.
You mean the Social Security Administration? I do think our mentality towards 'work' and 'jobs' will significantly change when proper robots become available.
Hyper-space: Goddamnit, I'll be 48 when the singularity happens! And according to every male relative in my father's side of the family, I'll go insta-fat when I'm 35.
Well, there is a lot that having quantum computer-levels of memory would achieve, like more than you would think. There is a lot of scientific breakthroughs that could happen through just pure speed.
I'm sure there will be, and i think it would be more revolutionary than the invention of the microchip and just maybe comparable to the invention of the steam-engine.
I'm just sceptical of this idea that with the invention of super-powerful AI's everything's going to be fixed and we'll be living in a sci-fi utopia. To quote Steven Pinker
"There is not the slightest reason to believe in a coming singularity. The fact that you can visualize a future in your imagination is not evidence that it is likely or even possible. Look at domed cities, jet-pack commuting, underwater cities, mile-high buildings, and nuclear-powered automobiles - all staples of futuristic fantasies when I was a child that have never arrived. Sheer processing power is not a pixie dust that magically solves all your problems."
However what sets my mental alarm bells ringing is the claim that we'll be immortal within our lifetimes and living in a sci-fi utopia. It's sounds like what has been described as "a rapture for atheists". It's the same kind of wishful thinking that has led numerous Christians over the centuries to happily predict the end of the world- utilising evidence from the Bible, to prove that soon we'll be living in their own immortal utopia in heaven. It all sounds to good to be true because it is.
Gethsemani: Keep in mind that thereäs a huge difference between our biological brain and its' strange fleshy ways and the cold, hard science of mathematics, which is what we base all of our AI research on.
In a step toward computers that mimic the parallel processing of complex biological brains, researchers from HRL Laboratories, LLC, and the University of Michigan have built a type of artificial synapse.
They have demonstrated the first functioning "memristor" array stacked on a conventional complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) circuit. Memristors combine the functions of memory and logic, like the synapses of biological brains.
Since 2008, the HRL-led SyNAPSE team has been developing a new paradigm for "neuromorphic computing" modeled after biology.
"This hybrid circuit is a critical advance in developing intelligent machines," said HRL SyNAPSE program manager and principal investigator Narayan Srinivasa. "We have created a multi-bit fully addressable memory storage capability with a density of up to 30 Gbits/cm2, which is unprecedented in microelectronics."
Ultimately, the team plans to scale the neuromorphic chip to support millions of (simulated) neurons and billions of (simulated) synapses, thereby enabling the development of intelligent machines that can learn from their environments and exhibit complex behaviors. The technology has numerous real-world applications in complex computing, including visual perception, planning, decision making, and navigation.
I don't remember the exact names so I can't find the story, but I heard once that a famous phycisist was told when he decided to study physics (end of 19th century), that he shouldn't do it, because nearly everything in phsysics is already known. And then came quantum mechanics and the universe and dark matter and neutrinos going faster than light et cetera et cetera.
2045, or sooner. Assuming we're not getting pwned by a catastrophic solar megastorm.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/1-in-8-chance-of-catastrophic-solar-megastorm-by-2020