The Singularity is Near

[jokerthief]

Interesting Article (http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1)

A view of the upcoming revolutions in Genetics, Nanotech, and Robotics. Well worth the read.

[jokerthief]

Here is some video about the Singularity for those who don't like to read. (http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0235.html?)

[Phil153]

Entertaining, but utter nonsense.

[DrunkHamster]

Fascinating article

[madnak]

This is the new cult of the apocalypse. Same thing, different costume. 1000 years from now, people will still be saying the apo-er, the singularity is near.

[CityFan]

Even if chip speeds and processing capacity get faster and faster, the claim that we'll develop non-biological "intelligence" is very suspect. Where is the scientific progress in this direction?

As for exponential progress; the reality is that technological progress is controlled by corporations, driven by the search for profits. The only technology that gets created is that which the corporations think they can sell. This reality has held back innovation for the last hundred years, and will continue to do so for the next hundred.

IMHO

[r3vbr]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if chip speeds and processing capacity get faster and faster, the claim that we'll develop non-biological "intelligence" is very suspect. Where is the scientific progress in this direction?

As for exponential progress; the reality is that technological progress is controlled by corporations, driven by the search for profits. The only technology that gets created is that which the corporations think they can sell. This reality has held back innovation for the last hundred years, and will continue to do so for the next hundred.

IMHO

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think there's enough inovation?

I think the scientists are doing a good job.
What are you (bum) doing to help inovation? play poker all day? at least dont complain.

[flatline]

There are really only two possibilities:

1. Some natural or man-made event destroys human civilization.

2. We develop AI and something like the Singularity occurs.

A lot of people seem to think it is possible that humans will stay around in approximately the same technological state as we are in now. This is nonsense. You can debate when AI will be developed; maybe it will be 50 years, maybe 500. But to say it will not happen at all is to suffer from a complete inability to see beyond your present perspective.

[madnak]

That's absurd. You haven't even presented an argument for why AI is possible, much less inevitable.

To believe that just because technology will go beyond what you can imagine it must reach the point of a "singularity" is to suffer from a complete inability to see beyond your present perspective.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
There are really only two possibilities:

1. Some natural or man-made event destroys human civilization.

2. We develop AI and something like the Singularity occurs.

A lot of people seem to think it is possible that humans will stay around in approximately the same technological state as we are in now. This is nonsense. You can debate when AI will be developed; maybe it will be 50 years, maybe 500. But to say it will not happen at all is to suffer from a complete inability to see beyond your present perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]
A third possibility is that artificial intelligence is impossible in principle. I certainly dont think technical innovation has stopped, nor do I think the world is heading for an apocalyptic end but I am yet to see any evidence that a computer will one day be able to think.

[soko]

The singularity is a reality anyone who denies it has not considered the nature of technology.

Although the singularity will occur the most fascinating thing about it is that we will never know that it has occurred as we will all be adjusting to the increasing technology. In a sense we will always be a part of it and will never be able to observe it from a 3rd party perspective.

If you read that article in its entirety and still deny the eventuality that will be the singularity I would love to have a debate with you.

[flatline]

[ QUOTE ]
That's absurd. You haven't even presented an argument for why AI is possible, much less inevitable.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm, that's what the article does. I can't make a better argument.

[ QUOTE ]
To believe that just because technology will go beyond what you can imagine it must reach the point of a "singularity" is to suffer from a complete inability to see beyond your present perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess you think this is witty or something, but this statement makes no sense.

[ QUOTE ]
A third possibility is that artificial intelligence is impossible in principle.

[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose this could be possible. It could also be possible that technology is pretty much maxed out right now, but current trends say this isn't true.

As for evidence that it is possible, its in your skull. A physical mechinism that thinks and reasons is obviously possible (your brain). Again, you can debate how long it will take us to reach this level of complexity, but arguing that it will NEVER be achieved is simply ignorant.

[madnak]

I read the whole article. Debate away.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Ummm, that's what the article does. I can't make a better argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poor guy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To believe that just because technology will go beyond what you can imagine it must reach the point of a "singularity" is to suffer from a complete inability to see beyond your present perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess you think this is witty or something, but this statement makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

How doesn't it make sense?

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose this could be possible. It could also be possible that technology is pretty much maxed out right now, but current trends say this isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not analogous. Current trends toward sentient AI are basically dead in the water.

[ QUOTE ]
As for evidence that it is possible, its in your skull. A physical mechinism that thinks and reasons is obviously possible (your brain). Again, you can debate how long it will take us to reach this level of complexity, but arguing that it will NEVER be achieved is simply ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The brain isn't a computer. And you're talking about a singularity in the next 100 years, so you clearly don't think the time scale is debatable.

[jokerthief]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the new cult of the apocalypse. Same thing, different costume. 1000 years from now, people will still be saying the apo-er, the singularity is near.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absurd. No one is waiting around for the singularity to occur like some are waiting for the return of Christ. The two are not comparable. Ray Kurzweil just happens to be one of the greatest inventors of our generation in a generation where one needs to be able to see where technology is headed or one risks his inventions being rendered useless and obsolete. He advised the council on foreign relations and the US Army Technology advisory board. To compare him to cult leader is ignorant at best and malicious at worse. When you have people like Dean Kamen, Marvin Minsky, Raj Reddy, Bill Joy, and Bill Gates taking you seriously, like Kurzweil does, then you have to give the ideas presented at least the respect that they are based on logical and scientific reasoning.

[madnak]

Yes, he does "happen" to be an inventor. I don't think he realizes the harm his idea does to innovation. And the ultimate idea found throughout Kurzweil's work is that the singularity will solve all problems. Why bother worrying about them? Let the magical singularity take care of them.

The greatest geniuses in history based their ideas on egregious logical fallacies. From Plato on up.

[jokerthief]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, he does "happen" to be an inventor. I don't think he realizes the harm his idea does to innovation. And the ultimate idea found throughout Kurzweil's work is that the singularity will solve all problems. Why bother worrying about them? Let the magical singularity take care of them.

The greatest geniuses in history based their ideas on egregious logical fallacies. From Plato on up.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not at all what Kurweil is saying. How you got that, I don't know but it's plain wrong. You are exrapolating your own erroneous conclusions from his hypothesis.

[madnak]

I'm saying that even if a singularity were to occur, it would be contingent. Hell, certain relatively plausible events such as nuclear war would stamp out technological progress in an instant. He completely ignores everything that progress is contingent on, and it's a very destructive position.

[jokerthief]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that even if a singularity were to occur, it would be contingent. Hell, certain relatively plausible events such as nuclear war would stamp out technological progress in an instant. He completely ignores everything that progress is contingent on, and it's a very destructive position.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong again, he devotes a whole chapter to this in his book.

[madnak]

He doesn't in his article; in fact he desperately avoids the subject. He also repeats over and over that the increase of technology is inevitable.

[jokerthief]

[ QUOTE ]
He doesn't in his article; in fact he desperately avoids the subject. He also repeats over and over that the increase of technology is inevitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reality is that we have never seen war or any other catastophic event in human history derail technological growth. I don't know why exactly you think that assuming that technology will continue to increase is a destructive postition. I think that assuming something will happen is the destructive postition. I am moving ahead with my life assuming that much of what Kurzweil is predicting will happen. Because of this I am teaching myself programming right now. I also want to study Mathematics and Physics to a greater degree. If Kurzweil's models turn out to be correct those with education in these fields will be the ones who will have power. You are erroneously making the conclusion that one can just sit and wait for the singularity to occur and everything will be fine. He has the singularity happening sometime in the middle of this century. I sure as hell am not going to wait around till I am in my seventies for a singularity to occur. Especially since the next 40 years will require a great amount of adaptation to be able to cope with the rate of technological change. The point one should take away from Kurzweil's artical or his full work in his book is that intellegence and education in math, science, and technology is going to be crucial attributes to be able to adjust to and take full advantage of what the world is going to become in the next 40 years. I am only looking 20 years into the future myself and according to Kurzweil, the singulariy will still be twenty years off.

[madnak]

Yes we have. Ever hear of the Dark Ages? From the pinnacle of growth in Greece to at least 800 AD technology decreased in many ways, and during the Dark Ages it apparently decreased across the board. At any rate the progress of technology was retarded to a remarkable degree during this period.

Throughout the last 6000 years, in fact, technology has followed more a series of "S-curves" than the exponential model described by Kurzweil. Note that most of his charts start at around the Renaissance, where there was a clear "push" in the direction of technology.

Good luck with programming - I can tell you exactly where that's going, toward assembly-line labor. Or, if you go the full computer science route, you can bang your head against the wall like everyone else who's tried and failed to make advances toward AI sentience.

[jokerthief]

The Dark Ages didn't derail technological growth. We are talking together today on the internet aren't we?

As far as your prediction to the state of programmers, who says I plan on working for someone else? I haven't had an employer since I was 20 years old. There are people out there who are capable of creating wealth for themself and do not need to rely on the economy or on an employer to do so. Knowledge has an intrinsic value to it. That is where the real power is.

[madnak]

They represented a downturn in technological growth. Which isn't supposed to happen based on this article.

I agree knowledge of programming is useful.

[jokerthief]

[ QUOTE ]
They represented a downturn in technological growth. Which isn't supposed to happen based on this article.

[/ QUOTE ]

Data points on exponential curves can go down for a time and still have an upward trend. But really I think we are arguing about something that is irrevelant. Don't you agree that we are more likely to grow technologically than regress in the next 20 years? At a bare minimum it would be best to assume that we are and prepare to be able to deal with this.

[madnak]

I think we'll grow enough technologically that 100 years from now the world will hardly be recognizable.

However, the idea of a singularity is orders of magnitude more extreme than this. I don't think human beings will be obsolete by 2100. Nor do I think we'll have sentient AIs. And I think biologists and biochemists are probably going to be more influential 20 years from now than programmers and computer engineers.

[jokerthief]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we'll grow enough technologically that 100 years from now the world will hardly be recognizable.

However, the idea of a singularity is orders of magnitude more extreme than this. I don't think human beings will be obsolete by 2100. Nor do I think we'll have sentient AIs. And I think biologists and biochemists are probably going to be more influential 20 years from now than programmers and computer engineers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I respectfully disagree with your first point and respectfully agree with your second. I am studying programming right now because I have a specific application I want to use it in developoing a business idea I have. I see a new industry opening up and want to get in on the ground floor and I think I only have about ten years to do this before competition will become too intense.

[Exsubmariner]

Ok, I read it. I got it. I want my $40 Trillion.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
If you read that article in its entirety and still deny the eventuality that will be the singularity I would love to have a debate with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if a super-virus wipes out our species? What if the climate spirals out of control and earth becomes unihabitable? What if we misunderstand a new technology and turn our planet into a fusion reactor? What if a comet hits the earth? What if something unexpectedly causes the sun to explode? What if predatory aliens exterminate or subjugate humanity? What if the world's governments are taken over by fundamentalist technophobes who halt scientific progress by use of force? What if we accidentally create homocidal nano-robots that exterminate us? The list of doomsday scenarios is limited only by the bounds of our imaginations. In my mind, the "singularity" is potential, but far from inevitable.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He doesn't in his article; in fact he desperately avoids the subject. He also repeats over and over that the increase of technology is inevitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reality is that we have never seen war or any other catastophic event in human history derail technological growth.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false. Many technologies have been "lost" when ancient civilizations were destroyed. That we have reinvented those technologies does not negate the fact that technological progress has been derailed a number of times.

[jgorham]

The only valid question for discussion is:

Would you put your brain inside a robot's body?

[flatline]

[ QUOTE ]
The only valid question for discussion is:

Would you put your brain inside a robot's body?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's just an incredibly stupid question. Try again.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The only valid question for discussion is:

Would you put your brain inside a robot's body?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect it already is. At least "I" contribute very little to the goings on of my body. "I" don't pump my blood, fight off infection, convert sugar into pimples... endless list. I do give it general directions like "RUN !!" but even then it seems to take over from there.

Some days I do feel that I'm just along to find it more effort efficient sources of energy.

[gdsdiscgolfer]

joker and mad:
Are you guys sure you read beyond the first 10 or so pages?

[boo5000]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He doesn't in his article; in fact he desperately avoids the subject. He also repeats over and over that the increase of technology is inevitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reality is that we have never seen war or any other catastophic event in human history derail technological growth.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false. Many technologies have been "lost" when ancient civilizations were destroyed. That we have reinvented those technologies does not negate the fact that technological progress has been derailed a number of times.

[/ QUOTE ]

As quickly as progress has been halted, it has regained footing and made subsequent gains - usualy in the form of large scale ideas that spawn other such innovations. I would give examples but I'm not looking to address this point, at least right now.

What I would like to comment on is the "inevitability" of the singularity. I am not one to say that a given event will "definitely" happen. In poker we deal with proabilites, just like we do in every day life, and it is how the world operates on a micrcosmic scale. I am willing to say, however, that the progress of human technology appears to be increaing at a relatively large rate, and that there are definitely technologies (concepts) that extend beyond our current theories and ideas that will most likely be realized. I am also willing to propose that a technology might have such a large impact on our lives that is causes a paradigm shift that is unprecedented, and leaves us to confront our humanity - we have seen this prediction before, and every time a shift has occured we have adapted our lives and reality to fit the technology and to use the technology. The so-called "singularity" is just another shift.

I know that it isn't so clear what I have written there, so I would like to extend a type of syllogism. Look at the computer phenomenon. It has spawned access to a plethora of information that is availale in milliseconds. It is not long befoe the information found on this interconnected web is available rapidly, at our convenience, anywhere. Such an idea seperates the professor from the student, the professional from the ameteur - access to this technology causes us to rethink our current ideas of information, jobs, economics - you name it it goes here.

With the advent of distriuted computing systems that can run at speeds faster than the processing speed of our own minds, and with access to all data we have ever created, why is it unlikely at all that a singularity might occur. If our own processing speed is matched, and our own intellect surpassed, will we be capable of orignal thought? Will the networks we have created already thought of it, and thought beyond it? What is to say these networks will not create smarter networks? Can they map our synapses, can they incorprate our thought patterns into their own - and if so, do we become part of something else? There are further moral, ethical, and religous implications - as you can very well see.

An argument over the inevitability of such an event is moot. We can debate all we want over technicalities - is it GOING to happen or just going to happen. I can not predict the future. But given what I know about biology, computers and the human initiative, I would start giving the idea some thought.

[jokerthief]

[ QUOTE ]
joker and mad:
Are you guys sure you read beyond the first 10 or so pages?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read his entire book.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
joker and mad:
Are you guys sure you read beyond the first 10 or so pages?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[madnak]

I think there's a big difference. The possibility of a singularity is intriguing and exciting. The inevitability of a singularity is just insulting.

[jokerthief]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there's a big difference. The possibility of a singularity is intriguing and exciting. The inevitability of a singularity is just insulting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe we were arguing all this time and this is your position. I don't think it's inevitable either but think that it's possiblility that ought to be contemplated.

[madnak]

Well, I agree. But I am deeply opposed to Kurzweil as he seems to lack a healthy level of skepticism and critical thinking.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
The only valid question for discussion is:

Would you put your brain inside a robot's body?

[/ QUOTE ]

A robot gorilla?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only valid question for discussion is:

Would you put your brain inside a robot's body?

[/ QUOTE ]

A robot gorilla?

[/ QUOTE ]

Robodog, reporting for duty.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
The only valid question for discussion is:

Would you put your brain inside a robot's body?

[/ QUOTE ]

But then wouldn't you have to go to a robot camp?

[Iq75]

Wow,

the article was very interesting. Ty for the link. Now i'll have to order the book.

[jgorham]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only valid question for discussion is:

Would you put your brain inside a robot's body?

[/ QUOTE ]

But then wouldn't you have to go to a robot camp?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean a robot reservation?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only valid question for discussion is:

Would you put your brain inside a robot's body?

[/ QUOTE ]

But then wouldn't you have to go to a robot camp?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean a robot reservation?

[/ QUOTE ]

We'd better not have to live on a reservation. That would really chap my caboose.

[oneeye13]

is this one of those find 100 things wrong with this posts?

maybe... http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html ?

[DMACM]

I wholeheartedly recommend this book as well as Kurzweil's other books. Hans Moveac, Bill Joy, Vernor Vinge and others have also written good books on this subject.
Nobody can predict the future but lets look at whats already happened.


two billion years ago life evolved

six million years ago the homind evolved

100,000 years ago man evolved

10,0000 years ago humans developed agriculture

400 years ago humans went through the scientific revolution

150 years ago humans went through industrial revolution



For the last 50 years computers have shown expotential growth based on the number of instructions per second they can do for 1000$. At least in the short term (~20 yrs or so) Dell scientists fully expect to be able to continure this trend. We have all seen the computer revolution before our very eyes. This is not a new phenomenon but the tip of an iceberg it takes a historical perspective to appreciate. Kurzweil's books are fantastic and no post could do them justice.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]

The brain isn't a computer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the brain made up of the same kind of atoms and molecules as everything else?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the brain made up of the same kind of atoms and molecules as everything else?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The elemental composition of the human brain is very different from that of a computer. At a molecular level the similarity becomes very small. And at greater structural levels it's close to nil.