We have no science forum, so I figured I’d make a thread where we can discuss technology, speculate about the future, and plan the resistance for the day the machines take over.
The Singularity. Ray Kurzweil has popularized it and, by now, some of our readers no doubt drop it frequently into casual conversation and await it like salvation. (The second “helping?”) but many more are still unfamiliar with the concept. The contemporary notion of the Singularity got started with legendary SF writer Vernor Vinge, whose 1981 novella True Names pictured a society on the verge of this “event.” In a 1993 essay, “The Coming Technological Singularity,” Vinge made his vision clear, writing that “within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.” We caught up with Vinge at the 2008 Singularity Summit in San Jose, California, where he opened the proceedings in conversation with bob Pisani of CNBC. Vinge’s most recent novel is Rainbow’s End. h+: Let’s start with the basics. What is the Singularity? VERNOR VINGE: Lots of people have definitions for the Singularity that may differ in various ways. My personal definition for the Singularity — I think that in the relatively near historical future, humans, using technology, will be able to create, or become, creatures of superhuman intelligence. I think the term Singularity is appropriate, because unlike other technological changes, it seems to me pretty evident that this change would be unintelligible to us afterwards in the same way that our present civilization is unintelligible to a goldfish. h+: Haven’t there been other Singularities throughout history? VV: Some folks will say there have been singularities before — for instance, the printing press. but before Gutenberg, you could have explained to somebody what a printing press would be and you could have explained the consequences. Even though those consequences might not have been believed, the listener would have understood what you were saying. But you could not explain a printing press to a goldfish or a flat worm. And having the post-Singularity explained to us now is qualitatively different from explaining past breakthroughs in the same way. So all these extreme events like the invention of fire, the invention of the printing press, and the evolution of cities and agriculture are not the right analogy. The technological Singularity is more akin to the rise of humankind within the animal kingdom, or perhaps to the rise of multicellular life. h+: Is the Singularity near? VV: I ‘d personally be surprised if it hadn’t happened by 2030. That doesn’t mean that terrible things won’t happen instead, but I think it is the most likely non-catastrophic event in the near future.
This article paints Kurzweill as a brilliant guy, but it seems like a lot of his ideas stem from a pathological fear of death.
Quote:
At 61, Kurzweil pops 150 of his own pills every day, determined to live long enough to see the day when, thanks to machines, he will never age.
Quote:
Kurzweil’s most ambitious plan for life after the Singularity, however, is also his most personal: Using technology, he plans to bring his dead father back to life. Kurzweil reveals this to me near the end of our conversation. It’s a bright, clear afternoon, and we can see the river that runs behind the trees outside his wide office windows. The portrait of his father looks down over him. In a soft voice, he explains how the resurrection will work. “We can find some of his DNA around his grave site — that’s a lot of information right there,” he says. “The AI will send down some nanobots and get some bone or teeth and extract some DNA and put it all together. Then they’ll get some information from my brain and anyone else who still remembers him.”
And one rebuttal to the idea:
Quote:
Thomas Ray, a renowned biologist who has developed some of the most compelling simulations of artificial life, insists that computers will never be advanced enough to reach the Singularity. “I don’t see engineers sitting at their desks at Microsoft programming software that’s intelligent,” he notes. “They’re struggling just to keep the operating system from collapsing.” Lanier, the virtual-reality pioneer, boils the problem down to seven words: “The Singularity won’t happen because software sucks.”
I kind of wonder how far this extends to other adherents of the singularity (at least, Kurzweill’s version of it with nanobots extending our lives indefinitely).
Thomas Ray, a renowned biologist who has developed some of the most compelling simulations of artificial life, insists that computers will never be advanced enough to reach the Singularity. “I don’t see engineers sitting at their desks at Microsoft programming software that’s intelligent,” he notes. “They’re struggling just to keep the operating system from collapsing.” Lanier, the virtual-reality pioneer, boils the problem down to seven words: “The Singularity won’t happen because software sucks.”
Kurzweil’s most ambitious plan for life after the Singularity, however, is also his most personal: Using technology, he plans to bring his dead father back to life. Kurzweil reveals this to me near the end of our conversation. It’s a bright, clear afternoon, and we can see the river that runs behind the trees outside his wide office windows. The portrait of his father looks down over him. In a soft voice, he explains how the resurrection will work. “We can find some of his DNA around his grave site — that’s a lot of information right there,” he says. “The AI will send down some nanobots and get some bone or teeth and extract some DNA and put it all together. Then they’ll get some information from my brain and anyone else who still remembers him.”
That’s a really bizarre quote. Is he so lost in the idea that he can’t see the flaws? He wouldn’t be resurrecting his father but rather a clone implanted with the idea of his father as remembered imperfectly by others. It’s not just flawed but really, really creepy.
I’m not as skeptical about the idea of nanobots extending our lives as I am about the idea that they could go into our brains and somehow collect our memories.
Not to mention that he also seems to be ignoring the fact that the law is 10 steps behind science at all times.
I see no reason why memories couldn’t be read just like anything else. I mean, we read our own memories all the time - we just don’t know how.
However, they’re not exact, and they keep getting revised, and that’s obviously a problem if you want to use memories to replicate something from the past.
Originally Posted by James KimbellView Post I see no reason why memories couldn’t be read just like anything else. I mean, we read our own memories all the time - we just don’t know how. However, they’re not exact, and they keep getting revised, and that’s obviously a problem if you want to use memories to replicate something from the past.
Never mind that memories don’t become part of our DNA so how a nanobot can retrieve memories from a non-existent hard drive (for lack of a better term) is anyone’s guess.
Well, sure, they’re gone when you’re gone. But Kurzweil’s (admittedly goofy) idea of taking memories of his father from his own extant brain seems possible, though probably too far off in the future for it to be of any use to him.
edit: The main point is that brains and other living parts aren’t magic. We know brains can be built because cells and genes build them all the time. They’re complex, but not infinitely so. Eventually there’ll be a computer that can simulate a brain, or circuits that can perform the actions of one, or bio-whatever technology that can grow one. Probably.
Originally Posted by James KimbellView Post I see no reason why memories couldn’t be read just like anything else. I mean, we read our own memories all the time - we just don’t know how. However, they’re not exact, and they keep getting revised, and that’s obviously a problem if you want to use memories to replicate something from the past.
Especially if you’re hoping to use your memories to replicate someone else’s persona. There are some very obvious problems with subjectivity there.
This all sounds very simple when you approach memory as something akin to a film. It’s not at all. The memory of something is not just a collection of external stimuli, but the internalization and interpretation of it, as well. Since that stuff is subject to constant internal revision (as James said), I’d think this would make taking a “snapshot” of someone’s memories at a specific point in time rather difficult and not particularly representative of someone’s totality as a person.
Originally Posted by DaveBView Post Especially if you’re hoping to use your memories to replicate someone else’s persona. There are some very obvious problems with subjectivity there. This all sounds very simple when you approach memory as something akin to a film. It’s not at all. The memory of something is not just a collection of external stimuli, but the internalization and interpretation of it, as well. Since that stuff is subject to constant internal revision (as James said), I’d think this would make taking a “snapshot” of someone’s memories at a specific point in time rather difficult and not particularly representative of someone’s totality as a person.
True. Also, how I remember my grandfather is very much different then how my father remembers him to the point that our ideas of him contradict one another.
In fact, it could be argued that often times the parts of a person that we DON’T see are the things that shape him the most. Anyway, by the time this happens, exactly how many people will be alive to remember Kurzwell’s dad?
Originally Posted by Renn BrownView Post Kurzweill may be kinda nuts, but this… …is a very silly thing to say.
Not if you only think of computers are chips. The big problem with there ideal of Singularity is that Moore’s Law will end for silicon chips in about 7 years maybe less. The only real replacement we have working at all is diamond, which might be able to extend Moore’s Law 7 or 10 years after that. All the other computer ideals at this point are more theoretical then practical. After diamond the best hope we have of greater computer power right now is probably DNA computing, but even a DNA system will still be limited by Thermodynamics, in more then one way.
On the complexity of the human brain you are talking of a neural network of something like 150 billion neurons, each network to 50 thousand other neurons simultaneously working on 6 different levels. We are not even remotely close to making something even a fraction of that complexity.
“Never” is always a silly thing to say when speaking about technology, especially computer technology.
Whose to say that singularity will take the pure form of AI dependent on badass chips? Perhaps first, we’ll figure out organic neural connections, hook the human race up together in a wireless Matrix, and skynet into some sort of Ultimate-Human-Consciousness-Twitter-God…!
I don’t deny that replicating human cognitive function (though not necessarily computational power) involves the sort of scale that may make it too difficult to happen quickly. However, we make too many breakthroughs and this stuff involves too much tech operating on exponential timelines to write off the possibilities. Diamond, holographics, layered storage… who knows which one will break tomorrow. Or today.
For the record, we all agree that the “Monkey’s Paw” bring-back-Papa-Kurzweil plan is dumb. But that’s because you can’t get a person from what other people think of him, not because of anything having to do with the technology.
Originally Posted by Renn BrownView Post “Never” is always a silly thing to say when speaking about technology, especially computer technology. Whose to say that singularity will take the pure form of AI dependent on badass chips? Perhaps first, we’ll figure out organic neural connections, hook the human race up together in a wireless Matrix, and skynet into some sort of Ultimate-Human-Consciousness-Twitter-God…! I don’t deny that replicating human cognitive function (though not necessarily computational power) involves the sort of scale that may make it too difficult to happen quickly. However, we make too many breakthroughs and this stuff involves too much tech operating on exponential timelines to write off the possibilities. Diamond, holographics, layered storage… who knows which one will break tomorrow. Or today. http://java.sys-con.com/node/557154
The original author said never because he was thinking the ideal of a computer was a chip. Diamond computing are still a chip as we have today. Although I did bring up the ideal of DNA computing which is not a chip in any way shape or form. Holographic storage is not the same as holographic processing, which has problems as of now no one know how to over come. Layered structures are only a stop gap measure, and does not address the problems of electron leakage fully. That is not even addressing the problems on liner programing which was brought up in one of those articles.
I would never say never, but there are a lot of problem to over come. Right now with everything I know I would say we will have a solar hydrogen fuel economy before we have the Singularity they are talking about, and a solar hydrogen fuel economy would take at least 50 years to bring about, and that if it ever come about. 50 years is a long time in science, something different, might supersede both ideals before they ever could come about.
Originally Posted by James KimbellView Post For the record, we all agree that the “Monkey’s Paw” bring-back-Papa-Kurzweil plan is dumb. But that’s because you can’t get a person from what other people think of him, not because of anything having to do with the technology.
The technology stuff sounds dubious to me, too, at least in the context of it happening within Kurzweill’s (or my) lifetime.
I’m certainly nothing of a tech geek, but it seems to me that our greatest technological advances have generally been in the interest of efficiency. Humans, however, are not necessarily the most efficient creatures. It seems to me that we’re a different sort of complexity entirely than the leaders of technology are used to dealing with.
We haven’t even gotten to all-around convincing AI yet, and that would just be the surface illusion of humanity. For Kurzeill’s ideas about nanotechnology and transferring consciousnesses, we’d have to achieve a very profound understanding of the brain and somehow figure out how to replicate it technologically. That’s more than just memory, which is hard enough. It’s also emotion, perception, intuition, all the connections necessary to create a thought; it’s also the hardware, which we still don’t entirely have a handle on. We can observe brain phenomena when it comes to fear, love, anger, etc., but we’re a ways from nailing down exactly how and why they happen.
Like I said above, this is absolutely nothing like saving a file or recording a film.
Originally Posted by Renn BrownView Post Kurzweil is 60? Yeah, he’s never going to see anything like that happen. He’s kind of got a digital-rather-medical version of the The Fountain thing going on…
A medical version is more probable then a digital version.