I think this is word for word my first reaction when I opened this thread.
This. To be honest I don't envision human run government at all post singularity.
Humanity Is On The Brink Of Something Amazing...
- Thread starter scottspfd82
- Start date
I think this is word for word my first reaction when I opened this thread.
You guys seem to thing the singularity will be when we all share a common mind or something... Stop being so silly... It's just about hardware becoming ubiquitous, and minds will still have to be trained... That takes time.
No, singularity means something very specific (and not at all what you said). It represents the point in time where a single computer is more intelligent than a human.
From Wikipedia:
I was not aware that a theoretical version of "the singularity" was made more popular than the factual one proposed by Ray Kurzweil... Which is all based on the very scientific and factual Moore's law.
We cannot, likely ever, say that a single computer is more intelligent than a human. We can say that a computer has become so powerful that it can make more calculations per second or whatever than a human does.
When we have such a concentration of transistors, surely in a few short years from now following Moore's law, then we'll have a singularity of sorts... But what will it mean to us really?
We won't all need a computer that fast... Lately the trend has actually been for consumers to get LESS powerful hardware like carrying a smartphone or using an ipad... We fill needs with the proper-sized brains now, although we'd like that hardware to be as small as possible.
The singularity will pack so many transistors into such a small space that the thin-framed prescription glasses on my face right now will be able to store an ipad's brain easily. Perhaps my whole i7-2600 computer's CPU and ram as well, all without a bulge...
Making computers ubiquitous to us, which is my description. That's clearly how the singularity will manifest itself to us.
-It will not require nor enable shared knowledge... But watching web video without anyone standing near you even knowing that you're doing so, is one of the most effective tools for educating the masses about taboo concepts like anarchy that we could ever hope for.
The singularity will surely deliver us from governments, but it'll still take time for people to absorb the truth.
-And then only if uncle sam hasn't completely tightened down the net by then. :censure:
Human intelligence is simply software running on hardware.
When a computer has comparable (or better) software than the human brain and can perform more calculations per second than the human brain, you can make the conclusion that a computer is as smart or smarter than a human.
This is about as incorrect of a statement as you could have possibly made.
You think there is something magical in your brain that controls creativity? Neurons control creativity, and neurons work in very well defined ways that a computer can simulate.
In general it is not that hard for artificial intelligence to simulate creativity. Have an algorithm that tests whether an equation works, and then keep on trying random things until the algorithm figures out something that works. I guarantee you that it'll find some very creative answers. Look into genetic algorithms for very practical ways that this already works.
I stand behind it for the same reason ipods and ipads sell today; different form factors and niche products only need to do certain things, not everything.
Sure we might all have a computer "on our desktop" (or whatever that will be) that can make more computations than us in 2025, but these days we're starting to actually use our small devices more than our desktops, everywhere except for work environments.
So I (and Kurzweil) say that your ipad isn't going to be a supercomputer, it's going to get smaller and only a little smarter in time... Factors like the size of a screen on it you are most comfortable viewing will be the largest controlling criteria of its' eventual shape... But there's no reason to make that your desktop machine replacement... Especially if you own dozens of them. Too wasteful.
Not magical, just human. I don't know if apples are smarter than oranges but historically it's been kinda hard to compare the two.
I can't argue with that, but it won't be human thought, which is what we measure "smartness" in. There is a difference in our stratum here, (circuits vs neurons) and it's just not a fair comparison.
But who knows, maybe one day they'll use biological components to make AI out of too, like in Blade Runner. I can't see why we wouldn't be able to create a truly smart person one day that way. Certainly not in the 21st century though.
Is like saying the imperial system is superior to the metric system because you are more used to it.
There are supercomputers that can simulate hundreds of possible weather scenarios to tell you which ones the most likely by the time the 5 oclock news come around.
There are 8legged roboters with decentralized computation that can figure out the most efficient way to move when you remove up to three legs on the fly.
Theres a roboter running a chemistry lab that spent its first couple months understanding what was already known and performs new science now by making up hypotheses and validating them by performing the necessary experiments.
Those are just two more or less famous examples of whats happening in the robotics labs. You can call that non-creative or not smart because its not human. Care to explain what smartness is? That computer performs science at a level inaccessible to most humans. Computers are only not plumbers because a plumber is less expensive than building a robot who would finish the job in half the time.
The problem guys like you draw is because you hold computers/algorithms to standards that a single human being never achieved. When talking about computer intelligence, youre never satisfied with them being good at just one topic. you want the whole deal. you want them to be better artists, better doctors, better lawyers and better calculators at the same time, which is just not realistic. but theyre still getting there.
you do, btw, not seem to have a basic understanding of how brains work. its really just small amounts of currents flowing, just like in circuits. the only difference is that the brain has orders of magnitude more bits than computers of the present.
with the arrival of the quantum computer, there will be machines featuring processing power of such intellect that all of humanity will appear like mindless work drones confined to their very one-dimensional way of looking at things.
Alright you two; I'm stepping out of my field here a bit and I'm going to throw in the towel on that argument. I admit that we can't even imagine what's going to happen when AI starts designing its' own replacements... Could be impossible for any human to ever predict. So clearly I can't box in the superior smartness like I was trying to do. You win.
Congrats on your victory.
Now, back to the discussion of this thread; Anarchy.
It will still take us humans time to adjust to the onslaught of knowledge once we have more access to it. I often look for shortcuts to that very learning curve, (Like Ron Paul in fact) but I haven't seen a sure thing yet. There's still too many people sucking socialisms' tit to appreciate anything smarter.
Congrats on your victory.
Now, back to the discussion of this thread; Anarchy.
It will still take us humans time to adjust to the onslaught of knowledge once we have more access to it. I often look for shortcuts to that very learning curve, (Like Ron Paul in fact) but I haven't seen a sure thing yet. There's still too many people sucking socialisms' tit to appreciate anything smarter.
If you tell me humanity is on the verge of something great, a massive war that will wipe 90% of us out some how sparing all the brightest and just enough of the work horse type to do our bidding, I'll get on board.
This is just stupid. And not at all about anarchy.
We have access to so much knowledge, it's true, but 99% of people make NO USE of it, and that's why people are stupid, useless beasts. You can add in all the knowledge at fingertips you want, but at the end of the day, the masses will choose hamburgers.
This is just stupid. And not at all about anarchy.
We have access to so much knowledge, it's true, but 99% of people make NO USE of it, and that's why people are stupid, useless beasts. You can add in all the knowledge at fingertips you want, but at the end of the day, the masses will choose hamburgers.
You have not the slightest clue on what the fuck you are talking about.
Stop trying to pretend you know shit about how the human brain works, because no one really does.
After decades of research, neurologists are still trying to figure out exactly how neurons communicate, more specifically how information is being coded, among other complexities that remain mysteries to this day. Our brains consist of neural networks in the billions. The reason our 'artificial intelligence' in robots of today doesn't even come close to human intelligence is because we still (after all of this time) do not know enough about how the brain works to simulate an actual neural network using circuitry. Which opens the possibility that we may never be able to imitate the function of neurons with circuitry.
If we cannot successfully imitate a neural network, like one found in the human brain. Then, robots will be intelligent, but will always require human intervention.
TLDR: Luke is pretty dead on when separating biology from circuitry.
Serious AI is unlikely (impossible?) within the context of traditional computing. Perhaps within quantum computing (unlikely?), but more likely with synthesized organic matter systems.
Agreed, the idea of quantum computing is exciting, but, while it's a drastic improvement, it has already been hypothesized that it will still be a far stretch from the capabilities of neural networks. Millions of years of biological evolution can't be duplicated in a few decades, it's just not going to happen.
On the other hand, systems that incorporate synthesized neural networks, that's a game-changer. The problem is, we can't even research stem cells in this country without people throwing a fit, so if it were to happen, I think it's a few lifetimes out still.
You have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up this point.
I find it funny that you talk about "artificial neural networks" being impossible when they are commonly being used right now.
I understand they are not exactly the same, but the way you worded that gives me the idea that you really don't know much about AI and are just blindly conjecturing.
If you truly understand that, why even bring it up. Not only is it 'not exactly the same thing'... it's not even close.
