192 replies to this topic

[Roh234]

I don't think it is inevitable since there could be a change in human though about computers and ethical reasons for givng robots self-awareness. Later down the years we may reconsider the dangers of hyper-intelligent robots.

[Chronomaster]

I don't think it is inevitable since there could be a change in human though about computers and ethical reasons for givng robots self-awareness. Later down the years we may reconsider the dangers of hyper-intelligent robots.

But can we really stop it, even if governments ban further research and development because of such existential fears? Nothing can be absolutely and truly controlled, can it? Ultimately, someone will develop it, legally or otherwise. There's no way that this is a matter of IF it is most definitely WHEN...

[Prolite]

We're already going through a technological singularity. It started in the mid 1990's with the proliferation of the internet and the desktop computer. All of this of course is just my humble opinion, but take a look at all the current advancements happening today, it's incredible:
http://www.physorg.c...s/bio-medicine/

[wjfox]

We're already going through a technological singularity. It started in the mid 1990's with the proliferation of the internet and the desktop computer. All of this of course is just my humble opinion, but take a look at all the current advancements happening today, it's incredible:
http://www.physorg.c...s/bio-medicine/

That's just exponential growth. A "Singularity" is defined as better-than-human AI, which grows so rapidly that the world changes substantially on a day-to-day basis, and future events become impossible to predict.

[Caiman]

Indeed, a singularity as defined in the opening post has definitely not occurred and is not underway just yet, as we debated earlier in the thread! I understand where you are coming from and your belief in the different paradigms we have already gone through, prolite, but we're still a way off the popularly accepted definition at the minute.

[Unrequited Lust]

I believe that the technological implications of the singularity will inevitably happen in the coming decades, meaning nanotechnology and AI, but I do not believe there will be any "rapture in the fabric of human history." I don't think there will be any sweeping metaphysical change or post-scarcity and I think we will be able to predict the future as accurately if not more accurately than we can now. I think it will be business as usual, just with a much larger playground.

[wjfox]

I believe that the technological implications of the singularity will inevitably happen in the coming decades, meaning nanotechnology and AI, but I do not believe there will be any "rapture in the fabric of human history." I don't think there will be any sweeping metaphysical change or post-scarcity and I think we will be able to predict the future as accurately if not more accurately than we can now. I think it will be business as usual, just with a much larger playground.

Depends what you mean by "we". Non-upgraded humans certainly won't be able to predict the future with any degree of accuracy once the Singularity is reached. The whole point of the Singularity, by definition, is that the future becomes unpredictable after that point (except for transhuman cyborgs/upgraded people who've merged with intelligent technology).

[Prolite]

We're already going through a technological singularity. It started in the mid 1990's with the proliferation of the internet and the desktop computer. All of this of course is just my humble opinion, but take a look at all the current advancements happening today, it's incredible:
http://www.physorg.c...s/bio-medicine/

That's just exponential growth. A "Singularity" is defined as better-than-human AI, which grows so rapidly that the world changes substantially on a day-to-day basis, and future events become impossible to predict.

Than sir, if you are so confident about the Singularity, why do you not put in on the timeline?

[wjfox]

Than sir, if you are so confident about the Singularity, why do you not put in on the timeline?

I'm going to. I'm re-writing the entire timeline.

Well, sort of. I'm currently going through everything in chronological order, adding/editing stuff... I'll be making some fairly big changes to the 22nd-23rd centuries.

[Prolite]

First off, if there's ever a technological singularity during this century, WE'RE IN BIG TROUBLE. I can't see us surviving it. Imagine leaders of Iran and terrorists organizations getting a hold of technology that works side-by-side with the human brain making people into instant geniuses? We'd have a stupid terrorist get enhanced and figure out how to create a anti-matter bomb -- which by the way, would annihilate all of life on this planet. But on a more serious note, even a rather primitive brain amplification device that's integrated into a brain of a physicist, somebody who's already a genius and works for Iran, we're going to have major problems!

By the way, I still think the technological singularity is for the 22nd century.

[Logically Irrational]

I think that a singularity will eventually occur (just not as soon as Ray Kurzweil predicts), but a good chunk of the population will go into it kicking and screaming. It's already been mentioned a lot, but the common ideas of a malevolent AI program or a robot apocalypse will make a lot of people fear the things a singularity would entail. On top of that, a lot of people may not be willing to allow control of the planet to be passed on to anything other than humans. I'm just worried that the years leading up to the event will see a lot more violence from protest groups or anarcho-primitivists. Things will (by definition) be happening way too fast.

[wjfox]

Indeed. It's going to scare a lot of people...

[GNR Rvolution]

I suspect the singularity will be much more subtle than many think it might be. As mentioned we have already gone through one technological singularity with the home computer, 30 years ago people simply wouldn't have believed you if you said there would be a computer in every home and it would all be linked together into one giant 'internet'. And I'm not even getting into the smartphone / tablet revolution and how that has put computers in our pockets!

People are now embracing technology, although as Logically Irrational pointed out at this rate of Moore-like evolution of technology, people might be scared of the idea of an artificial intelligence. But the second they figure out how useful they can be, people will be all over them like the current smartphone trend. It will be the next item you have to own, but people won't think that these are actual entities, they will simply be another tool, a kind of robotic slave or servant. But I do think that actual sentience from a machine, and the ability for a machine to improve or evolve itself, is going to cause some moral and religious upheaval, particularly for the reasons outlined by Prolite, although maybe not the Iran example. People will likely be concerned, rightly or wrongly, that the machines are going to take over the world. Of course most people will just envisage scenes from the Terminator, but the takeover will be more in the form of work. People will suddenly find that all their work is being done for them. At home, great. When you need a job to make money, not so great.

So, in summary, I think the implications and challenges of a technological singularity will not be actually technological, but cultural and economical, certainly to begin with. Once we have adapted to the new order (hehe, welcome new overlords, etc.) then we can finally begin to emerge as a Type I / II civilisation.

[Zachemc2]

Yes, the singularity is inevitable, as we're following Moore's Law. If we start out with one in year 2000, after 60 years we end up with 526,870,912. So, yeah, there might be a point when things become unpredictable and seem even scary for some.

[Logically Irrational]

If inteligence augmentation becomes widespread, or if humans and machines do start to merge, not being able to predict the future may not be an issue. By the time a computer become ultra-intelligent, it may be too hard to distinguish between man and machine to say that machines have trully taken over. This is why I think, though the idea will still scare people, that a hostile take-over won't happen. The line will be too blurred.

[Unrequited Lust]

Yes, the singularity is inevitable, as we're following Moore's Law. If we start out with one in year 2000, after 60 years we end up with 526,870,912. So, yeah, there might be a point when things become unpredictable and seem even scary for some.

Moore's law runs out in 2019, as I have already pointed out to you.

[Zachemc2]

Yes, the singularity is inevitable, as we're following Moore's Law. If we start out with one in year 2000, after 60 years we end up with 526,870,912. So, yeah, there might be a point when things become unpredictable and seem even scary for some.

Moore's law runs out in 2019, as I have already pointed out to you.

Okay, let's say it doubles every three years instead of two. 1 to 526,870,912 in 90 years. Still a large increase.

[Logically Irrational]

Yes, the singularity is inevitable, as we're following Moore's Law. If we start out with one in year 2000, after 60 years we end up with 526,870,912. So, yeah, there might be a point when things become unpredictable and seem even scary for some.

Moore's law runs out in 2019, as I have already pointed out to you.

How does Moore's Law run out in 2019? (Not challenging you, just hoping you could explain)

[Zachemc2]

Yes, the singularity is inevitable, as we're following Moore's Law. If we start out with one in year 2000, after 60 years we end up with 526,870,912. So, yeah, there might be a point when things become unpredictable and seem even scary for some.

Moore's law runs out in 2019, as I have already pointed out to you.

How does Moore's Law run out in 2019? (Not challenging you, just hoping you could explain)

Yeah. I googled that and nothing came up.

[Caiman]

http://en.wikipedia....mits_of_the_law

^This might help to understand why it cannot continue for much longer.