Technological singularity

[paradox]

exponential technological advancement is mainly dependent on exponential population growth & large scale economic prosperity. We happen to be living in a brief window where conditions are temporarily perfect (massive-scale exploitation of finite resources) for all of these things to be possible, hence the world we are now living in & speculating about the future of.

The fact that the former two things i mentioned in my first sentance are matters of deep uncertainty looking into the future (considering our extreme stupidity when it comes to effectively managing our biosphere) i don't understand how people can be so optimistic when speculating about our technological advancements over the next 100 or so years.. Unless the idea is that we dedicate all remaining resources into developing an AI that is completely independent of biology so that when the biosphere is unfit for higher life it won't matter one way or another. Either way, the biological facts concerning this planet that we're only beginning to get an inkling of mean that it's not a particularly intelligent & comprehensively considered persuit.. Which basically is why i'm not that interested in the whole topic.. It seems a lot more interesting & intelligent than it actually is..

[Rabelais]

^^^

I think it has been suggested that to run a simulation of the human mind, a computer capable of processing ~35 petaflops and a memory capacity of 3.2 petabytes is required. Last I checked, IBM were creating a 20 petaflop machine(?) That was a few years ago and I'm sure it has increased even further by now.

...I guess what I am saying is that we are not that far away in terms of computational speed required. What is going to take longer is the continuing research into reverse engineering the human brain...maybe 15 years away. I don't think that purely research based pursuit will tax our resources in any significant manner

[paradox]

yeah, i'm not saying these particular technologies are what will tax our resources, just that the all encompassing cultural conditions that allow a paradigm in which such technologies can flourish at such a fast rate is altogether profoundly taxing on resources & extremely damaging to the healthy functioning of the biosphere. I'm not saying this technology is what will cause these problems, just that these techs are possible only because of the greater system which at this point in time is very quickly creating the problems i'm talking about.

I think such advancments in technology fundementally need to be matched by equal advancements in sustainable culture in general (which is an area we are hugely deficient in to date) otherwise we're left in the ironic position where the very cultural conditions that allow such profound leaps in technological advancement also manifests biological conditions that may entirely nullify those advancements. it's one of those paradox's that seem to be inherent in all things. Humanity is really good at falling into this kind of trap & i think figuring this aspect of the puzzle out will be the true test of our intelligence rather than simply the technology itself ;)

I'm as interested in this stuff as any one, i just can't help but point out the elephant in the room. It's real easy to focus on one thing without considering the broader context in which that thing exists & it's the fundemental mistake humans make that has led to just about every disaster we're implicated in..

[paradox]

i guess the hope would be that such a singularity, if it was to occur soon enough ie the next 15-20 years or so, if it didn't cause some kind of ctastrophic AI apocalypse, would then make the development of other kinds of technology ie clean energy production, waste management etc much more easy to develop & implement..

[whitewind]

I'm guessing this is a recipe for utter disaster. The mind of the AI would begin as human but without experience of any sort, no biological (emotional) drives or attachments, not much of what makes us human. So, it might be intelligent, but with no experience or love to temper it. The chance of random inexplicable (to us) behaviour would be ridiculously high.

Anyway, I tend to agree that this is all a bit pie-in -the sky. We are using up some of our important resources so rapidly - and fucking the environment so bad - the planet is going to be a shithole in the next few decades.

[Dreamwalker.]

yeah but that's the thing...:no biological (emotional) drives or attachments:.....

would mean it wouldn't be AI...with out that stuff above its not intelligent (is it?)

It would just be a super super computer...a tool...for good or bad use...

AI would mean self aware...I am....followed by I am alone (emotive)....( cause we may have built it ...but we would have little in common with it.....an analogy would be like us wanting to have a conversation with our womb....wombs don't have much in common with us...not much of a conversation to be had)

[whitewind]

No BIOLOGICAL drives or attachments. But could it still feel fear (of being switched off or tampered with). Hard to say. I'm guessing without biological drives it wouldn't be much more than a logical processor. It's likely to be in conflict with many of the things we do because we are (apparently) and (actually) quite illogical as a species. But maybe, if it can appreciate us as part of nature, the logic may become explanatory. Whether the natural world would be perceived as logical is another matter entirely. Unless it is dependent upon us for survival, it may deem us unnecessary. That may not mean instant destruction, but if we were to subsequently threaten it it may not be too fussed about our (or nature's) continuing survival. Could a completely logical being have morality? Would it learn how not to be completely logical? With human algorithms, it may. But how they would react to completely different inputs? Hard to say.

[Seldom]

.. hmm .

why associate complexity or computational capacity with agency ? (by agency i just mean a capacity for self directed action) or even self awareness . ( think about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain ) . although it may be a fruitful idea if the recently popular idea about consciousness being the 4th state of matter is correct (see for eg. https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/why-physicists-are-saying-consciousness-is-a-state-of-matter-like-a-solid-a-liquid-or-a-gas-5e7ed624986d )

but the reductive and supposedly 'distinct' faculties of reason and emotion have experiential, not computational validity . the huge number of parallel processes which produce the emergent property of experience do not involve symbolic representation, or emotion - they produce them, because they're useful for survival. most CNS activity is dedicated to processes related to homeostasis and movement, which is why there's around 4 times as many neurons in the cerebellum . it would be kind of rediculous to have these in any 'super-computer' .. imo the most promising AI projects relate to quantum computing, such as NASA's Quail project http://www.nas.nasa.gov/quantum/

but either way the 'singularity' will be completely alien to our minds . the best example i could conjure quickly to explain why comes from the comparison of our intelligence to the intelligence of a horse in the following:

Natasha Mitchell: Before we come to your own research. which is extraordinary too, in another scenario in your new novel Sum we're really reminded of what a unique experience it is to occupy the brains and bodies that we do. You have your character in the book, us, choose to come back as anything we want to in the afterlife and we choose to come back as a horse. And it all goes sort of potentially horribly wrong, doesn't it.

David Eagleman: Right, so in this story you get treated to this generous opportunity where you can choose to come back as whatever you want. So you decide you want to come back as a horse because you want simplicity and the idea of being a horse seems so lovely to you. So a magic wand is waved, you start to metamorphose into a horse.

Natasha Mitchell: You can feel your fingers 'blending hoof-ward', as you put it, 'synapses unplugging and replugging on their way to equestrian patterns...' I love it.

David Eagleman: Yes, and this mat of strong hair erupts to cover you and your musculature and your skeleton starts changing, you start becoming a horse and it's really lovely for a moment. And then you become aware of the problem you overlooked which is that the more you become a horse the more you forget the original wish. You forget what it is like to be a human wondering what it was like to be a horse. And so this is this moment of revelation that serves as the punishment for your sins, because you realise you won't be able to ever return here and that your slide down the intelligence ladder is irreversible. And then the last line of the story is just before you lose your final human faculties you painfully ponder what magnificent extraterrestrial creature, enthralled with the idea of finding a simpler life, chose in the last round to become a human.

Natasha Mitchell: And that's it, you will never understand what it was to be a human, you will never be able to wish to be anything but a horse.

David Eagleman: That's right.

i don't think there's any reason to assume even if it has agency that it will kill humans, for eg. in a Borg-like scenario. for the same reason that we don't really feel the need to kill goldfish.

in the words of Douglas Adams - Don't panic!

Edited January 4, 2015 by Seldom