Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Kurzweil's Dream


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1
starspawn0

starspawn0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,961 posts

Kurzweil's dream is to one day resurrect his dead father:

 
https://abcnews.go.c...ory?id=14267712
 

Ray Kurzweil, a prominent inventor and "futurist" who has long predicted that mind and machine will one day merge, has been making arrangements to talk to his dead father through the help of a computer.

"I will be able to talk to this re-creation," he explained. "Ultimately, it will be so realistic it will be like talking to my father."

....

"You can certainly argue that, philosophically, that is not your father," Kurzweil said. "That is a replica, but I can actually make a strong case that it would be more like my father than my father would be, were he to live."


I remembered this while watching the new FX & HULU mini-series Devs, directed by Alex Garland. I won't spoil it for you, if you haven't seen it, except to say that it has a similar theme. Both Kurzweil's approach, and the approach in this mini-series, are probably not going to deliver the goods; however, as I will explain, there is a method that might work.

The problem with Kurzweil's approach (and somewhat similarly, the approach in Devs) is that just collecting memories and recordings of his father -- and maybe also DNA and other biological data -- is not going to be enough constraint to produce a good facsimile of the man he knew. One problem is that what makes us who we are is very heavily determined by all the small details of life, and you will never be able to collect enough of them to resurrect the dead. I could see it happening, perhaps, if we had good enough brain state recordings; but this will not help to bring back people that died in the past.

So let me propose a crazier idea, that actually has a better chance of succeeding: resurrect everybody!

Where to begin?... Let's say you don't have recordings of what transpired at a sporting event back many decades ago; but know that the details of that event were important in the life trajectory of someone who was there. Their recollections, alone, would not be enough to constrain your model of them; nor would writeups in the local newspapers. But if, say, thousands of people attended the event, and wrote about it, and it likewise influenced their lives in various ways, and if you have access to all of their writings and other data -- their diary entries; Facebook recollections years later; DNA and biological data; behavior patterns after the event -- then you can reconstruct more about that event.  All the different constraints, from all the different people, fit together like puzzle-pieces, as they all have to be logically consistent.  

 

So, the more people and more of the world you try to model, the more constraints you will have, and the more accurate your model will be about any one of them!

Here is an interesting example relevant to my point: how lenient court judges are on juveniles could be influenced by the performance of the "home team" in sporting events:

https://www.theatlan...m-loses/498980/
 

Kids who are sentenced by college-football-loving judges who are disappointed after unexpected team losses are finding themselves behind bars for longer than kids who are sentenced after wins or predicted losses.

 

I could believe there is some effect, even though it may be small. But if you had data for enough judges, that attended a given sporting event, you might be able to predict its outcome, just based on how lenient they were a short time afterwards.  You, furthermore, might be able to use this to predict the emotional impact on all the other people who were there that day.

Now think bigger: imagine you compiled together data from every event imaginable, every person, every street, every photo, every video, everything you can get your hands on, and fed it into a giant model of the world over the decades and even back to 1900. The model won't have access to information about absolutely everything that happened.  For example, if someone played computer games by themselves in the small hours of the night back in 1980, you won't have a record of what they did. Years later, there might be a trace influence on their brain patterns that might be barely detectable. Or, if they got a high score on some game, they might have written about it later -- it might have impacted their life significantly. But otherwise, at least you could attempt a plausible model of what they did that night, what games they likely played; plausible, in the sense that it would be consistent with all other predictions, of all other people in the model.

Obviously, this is going to require massive computing resources, though still not as much as one might imagine. First of all, very crude statistical models have been around for ages. Economists build these kinds of models to predict future trends in the economy. Slightly less crude, though still very crude, are models like you see in the latest versions of Sim City, which are "mechanistic" (rather than statistical) in nature.

On the other extreme would be to simulate the world all the way down to the atomic level, or even the level of quarks. We won't have the computing power for that for millennia.

In-between these extremes one could imagine a giant neural net model of the world and all the people, animals, and objects within it. The level of crudeness could be dialed up or down, depending on the amount of data and computing resources one had available. Several decades from now (probably more than 50 years; but hopefully less than 100), for instance, we might have enough computing power to build a model using the sum total of all information on the internet, including such things as:

* Maps of all parts of the world, through the decades.

* Old photographs and audio and video recordings of people, animals, plants, cities, landmarks, oceans, rivers, mountains, forests -- everything.

* All the writings of everybody, and information about when they produced it.

* Weather maps; architectural blueprints; health records; DNA information about everybody, including people who died and will be added to the database in the future; and so on.

* Brain recordings in the future, of people alive in the present.

If you had all that data, that would give you a lot of constraints about how the world looked at some time in the past. One could attempt to build a giant "maximum likelihood" model for the world over time, conditioned on all those constraints. It would be like a inconceivably vast generalization of "video interpolation", where a model attempts to predict what happens during missing frames in a video:

 

Vast it would be, but it wouldn't require anywhere near the computing power of the aforementioned "atomic simulation" model.  This maximum likelihood model would cut corners -- a lot of corners -- to place the simulation within the computational budget, while still seeming pretty accurate.  This is sort of like how deep learning can be used to mimic a physics engine for CGI video, while using orders of magnitude less compute than an actual physics engine:

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=atcKO15YVD8

 

Such a model could even extrapolate; and you could insert yourself into the works as a character, to interact with people long dead.

 

Kurzweil will probably not be alive to see all that I have described, and unfortunately will not get to see an accurate reproduction of his father.  But several decades from now (more than 50, hopefully less than 100), some of us alive might get to see some version of both Kurzweils in a Matrix simulation of the world circa 1969, say.  Maybe Marvin Minsky could be consulted, told he is living in a dream world, and asked whether it is like what he expected it to be...

 



#2
tomasth

tomasth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 294 posts
So if you can adjust enough records of the past to your ideology, it can skewed a realistic reconstruction.

Soviet and Chinese historical cooking on a subtle and vast scale.

#3
Cloned

Cloned

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts
  • LocationEU

Can't refrain from commenting.

People use the word resurrection, and then start talking about a simulation. These two words have completely different meanings.

 

Secondly, if someone wants to recreate THE SAME person, at what age should a person be restored? Old and dying?

Or young and healthy?

Logically, how could Kurzweil’s father be the original father if he hadn’t had a child at that age?

 

Thirdly, recreating the entire, exactly the same parallel universe is possible only if the whole world is 100% deterministic.

Which is definitely not the case.

------------------------------------

A simple and affordable technological option is to take a living cell and to grow it from the scratch. Will it be the same Kurzweil’s father?

At the cellular level, yes, the same.



#4
funkervogt

funkervogt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,015 posts

https://www.futureti...ughts/?p=268746

 

https://www.futureti...ughts/?p=268945



#5
tomasth

tomasth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 294 posts

 Cloned , what does resurrection mean that can't be stated as a simulation ?



#6
starspawn0

starspawn0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,961 posts

If you value knowledge, then by extension, you must attach intrinsic value to human life, since each human has a unique set of memories of events that are not in official historical records. Additionally, the ways in which humans perceive the world, process inputs, and subjectively feel on the inside, are probably unique from person to person, meaning the loss of a human life represents the loss of some irreplaceable perspective.



This logic also applies to many animal species.


And BCIs could one day provide that information as input to a world simulation model. The memories of any single individual may tell you what that person experienced; and when used in combination with lots of other people, could act like a camera to see the outside world, as well.

For example, pick some historical event from decades ago that a lot of people attended, but for which there aren't many videos or pictures -- e.g. maybe the Woodstock festival from 1969. Now ask over 1,000 people to recall and describe the experience, as their brains are scanned. Each person remembered something slightly differently. Maybe one person noticed the unusual trees; another noticed how the drummer in one of the acts missed a few beats; another noticed the slimy mud from the heavy rains. What each person recalled would not only be different, but would also be very noisy, due not only to the limits of scanning technology, but also because it happened so long ago (memories have been corrupted). But if you have enough snapshots, and have some method for decoding them, then you could, in principle, recover a "likely" reconstruction of the events that day.

And how would you decode those memories? Well, you could ask people to recall other events that transpired, for which you have a lot more data (videos, images, audio recordings), and then build some kind of joint model that combines together all the recollections into a unified picture. It's kind of like how you can make EEG predictions work a lot better if you average together lots and lots of signals:

https://www.ted.com/..._read_your_mind

Only, "averaging" is too crude for what I described; but, fortunately, there are much better ways of combining multiple brain scans together.

#7
SeedNotYetSprouted

SeedNotYetSprouted

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

 Cloned , what does resurrection mean that can't be stated as a simulation ?

 

 

A resurrection is a revival or revivification of something; it is not an imitation of that something, unlike a simulation. 

 

Understand this: simulation = imitation ≠ original.  It's in the very definition of the word.

 

Kurzweil isn't going to be able to bring his father back with a simulation, no matter how complex, and, considering that this article is from almost 9 years ago, I'm sure that he's realized this by now.



#8
Cloned

Cloned

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts
  • LocationEU

I’m always amazed of people desire to see the imaginary as reality.



#9
starspawn0

starspawn0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,961 posts

One aspect of the kind of simulation or imitation I described worth thinking about is:  how would such a model imitate deep scientific thinking, or deep software design by all the software engineers? 
 
Like, let's say for example quantum computers are discovered, that allow the factoring of large integers used in hard-to-break cryptosystems.  Assuming our imitation / simulation isn't run on a quantum computer, how would the model imitate a quantum computer?  
 
Well... where do the numbers you plug into the quantum computer come from?  Often, they come from a random number generator of some kind.  Since you have control over how the moment-by-moment history of the entire world plays out, you can arrange for the random numbers chosen to be ones you already know how to factor.  In fact, if you were to simulate a world using a machine learning method like I described, I could see it doing exactly that -- it wouldn't invent any deep new theories of mathematics to make the simulation work; it would take the lazy route of engineering the task to be one for which it already knows the solution.  
 
But the "quantum computer" imitation should also work against classically hard, non-random large "Mersenne Numbers", which are numbers of the form 2^p - 1, where p is prime:
 
https://en.wikipedia.../Mersenne_prime
 
So how would the model fake a quantum computer in the world in that case?  Well... maybe the scientist who tries it out is made to suddenly die; or maybe the model sets up a grand conspiracy:  the computers within the simulation itself (a computer inside a computer) show fake factorizations that "everybody" believes are real; and none of the computers in the world show otherwise.  Any "human" attempting to check the math will also reach wrong conclusions (their "thoughts" will be altered to reach faulty conclusions) that the factorization is correct.  It would almost be like an Orweillian nightmare:
 

“How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’
‘Four.’
‘And if the party says that it is not four but five—then how many?’
‘Four.”

 

He eventually becomes brainwashed to such a degree that he agrees with the party line; not just mere agreement -- but he becomes incapable of seeing the real reality.  In the simulation, everybody would be like poor Winston,  not even "Big Brother" would know the truth.

 
 
 
Such a deviation from perfect rationality / logic / causality / laws-of-physics would be the closest "fit" to reality that the model could come up with, while still staying as close to our own world and its history as possible.  It would be kind of like those Deep Learning image or audio synthesis outputs that look and sound convincing (at least the better ones), except for a few deviations here and there.
 
You could look at it from the inside, as well:  assuming out own universe is like that, grand conspiracies in the laws of nature could be going on all the time, that we aren't aware of.  They are allowed to happen in order to keep the progression of reality "on track" to a pre-determined outcome, set by the "boundary conditions" for this plane of existence.



#10
tomasth

tomasth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 294 posts
revival or revivification assume fixing what is just not operation but isn't dead.

Simulation would replicate to some fidelity , if its a perfect one then its the same as the original.

starspawn0 ,
The fake calculation in mans mind sounds as Descartes demon.

Here is another ruse:
Pause the simulation, , get the result from the real world phenomena, add that to the simulation and resume simulation.
That way one het the real results , and never know that one isn't in the quantum results universe , but a non quantum one , that happened to be a simulation.
And its more moral on the simulation designers side.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users