tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post4306499857328916053..comments2024-02-23T01:30:06.101-08:00Comments on Early Warning: Taking "Singularity" ApartStuart Stanifordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07182839827506265860noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-24679128244192989702011-07-24T02:54:56.960-07:002011-07-24T02:54:56.960-07:00Moreover what is truly interesting regarding techn...Moreover what is truly interesting regarding technology in general, is not what a machine can do or cannot do, but to consider the complete book of technology : all the machines and programs stopped, and "view" the evolution of this stopped book through all new machines new software or new versions of these. This is something truly amazing.yvesThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16431704289577407263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-64499070941296412042011-07-23T17:22:38.822-07:002011-07-23T17:22:38.822-07:00I don't think so Stuart, obviously in this Art...I don't think so Stuart, obviously in this Artificial intelligence debate and stuff like that, if someone believes thinking is purely algorithmic so be it, besides, if you take the matter route, obviously you are in the same kinf of "proof of god or not" debate, as machines and humans being matter, no way out in this discussion can be expected. Only time will tell, however maybe we could expect some minimal honesty regarding AI "scientists" and there results, which is obviously not the case, and once again, what is maybe more interesting in all this stuff is this "frankenstein desire", which it is true, I find truly boring.yvesThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16431704289577407263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-57721700188049047182011-07-23T06:08:47.728-07:002011-07-23T06:08:47.728-07:00Yves:
Your posts do seem to have a high ratio of ...Yves:<br /><br />Your posts do seem to have a high ratio of absolute statements and put-downs of others relative to detailed explanations or links to support your position. Clearly you are talking to smart people who disagree with you, and convincing such people requires evidence not peremptorinessStuart Stanifordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07182839827506265860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-81455010366118003052011-07-22T21:07:22.503-07:002011-07-22T21:07:22.503-07:00@yvesT
You are quick to contradict, slow to make ...@yvesT<br /><br />You are quick to contradict, slow to make actual arguments.<br /><br />Your mathematical name dropping only leads me to believe you misunderstand the actual implications of your references.<br /><br />Do you also think that there is no algorithm of vision? No possibility of a theory of visual processing? Could you persuade someone who didn't know how eyes worked?James Andrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11623383895993378048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-77330419184257884472011-07-22T02:48:16.215-07:002011-07-22T02:48:16.215-07:00@James Andrix
"We already have good broad th...@James Andrix<br /><br />"We already have good broad theories of intelligence"<br /><br />No we don't, and any "broad" declaration about it or willingness to self convince yourself doesn't change much about it.<br />And what is more interesting maybe, is the desire to have these theories ... (which we will never have)yvesThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16431704289577407263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-34642573241571318352011-07-22T02:35:17.180-07:002011-07-22T02:35:17.180-07:00"There is an algorithm, and a repeatable one,..."There is an algorithm, and a repeatable one, for intelligence somewhere."<br /><br />You saying this is purely based on faith, Mathematical results regarding computability theory point to the contrary, think Gödel, church rosser theorem these kind of things.<br />Besides, all mathematicians point to some kind of "illuminations" when discovering something really new, no there is most probably no algorithm there, besides, today we KNOW that science is infinite.<br /><br />Again, singularity theory is the modern day version of the classical puritan vulgarity, nothing new there... (Nietzsche already knew about it)yvesThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16431704289577407263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-49539259390604616212011-07-21T14:51:14.717-07:002011-07-21T14:51:14.717-07:00My reply:
http://sixtystoryrobot.blogspot.com/201...My reply:<br /><br />http://sixtystoryrobot.blogspot.com/2011/07/we-already-have-good-broad-theories-of.htmlJames Andrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11623383895993378048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-92024164915157496382011-07-20T23:26:22.157-07:002011-07-20T23:26:22.157-07:00"This can be considered proven to be false, s..."This can be considered proven to be false, study a bit more, dude<br />"<br /><br />Humans have repeatably produced other humans, who have proved intelligent. There is an algorithm, and a repeatable one, for intelligence somewhere. It is unknown to us, right now. But there is no mystic essence to it. That is my only point. Human cells drill down to physics and chemistry at some level.Prakashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10227431671018440503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-50010544448942838792011-07-20T14:00:47.254-07:002011-07-20T14:00:47.254-07:00"Intelligence, in the human brain is occuring..."Intelligence, in the human brain is occuring due to some repeatable algorithms."<br /><br />This can be considered proven to be false, study a bit more, dudeyvesThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16431704289577407263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-71800564147830520612011-07-20T05:34:17.106-07:002011-07-20T05:34:17.106-07:00Evidence for the growth singularity that is typica...Evidence for the growth singularity that is typically cited is "England doubled its economy in 150 years, US in 100 years, Germany and Japan in 35 years, Korea in 18 years, China did it in 8 years and is doing on the trot"<br /><br />I don't completly agree with the hypothesis as I see the later countries doing mainly catchup growth. <br /><br />However, I agree with the intelligence explosion hypothesis. Intelligence, in the human brain is occuring due to some repeatable algorithms. We don't know when the algorithms will be understood, but when they will, there will be a fairly quick ramp-up to the greatest capacity that our present physics can support. It may not be a God, but from the human perspective, there will be little that they can do against it.Prakashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10227431671018440503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-51096557132065884342011-07-20T03:00:24.246-07:002011-07-20T03:00:24.246-07:00Singularity theory is, first and foremost, the mos...Singularity theory is, first and foremost, the most boring and vulgar version of the classic messiah myth.<br />(besides being totally ignorant regarding theoretical results in complexity and calculability).<br />Basically a kind of puritan ultra utilitarian self hate version of the messiah myth, that is basically what "singularity theory" is.yvesThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16431704289577407263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-20994880894336530122011-07-18T12:01:39.869-07:002011-07-18T12:01:39.869-07:00Against A, there is the idea that life is differen...Against A, there is the idea that life is different and the concatenation of forces involved in living brain cells exposed to a dynamic environment is not something that can necessarily be duplicated artificially.nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07354790829540311697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-9473580989804325632011-07-16T05:50:27.036-07:002011-07-16T05:50:27.036-07:00For Stuart or anyone else: Are there any good blog...For Stuart or anyone else: Are there any good blogs out there on futurism or the singularity?Basilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102279868748204623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-29675705402511971852011-07-15T08:00:29.058-07:002011-07-15T08:00:29.058-07:00I think you've analyzed this pretty well.
Jus...I think you've analyzed this pretty well.<br /><br />Just came across this today:<br /><br />"The Singularity is Far"<br />http://www.boingboing.net/2011/07/14/far.html<br /><br />David Linden, "is a professor of neuroscience at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Chief Editor of the Journal of Neurophysiology."<br /><br />"...<br />However, Kurzweil then argues that our understanding of biology—and of neurobiology in particular—is also on an exponential trajectory, driven by enabling technologies. The unstated but crucial foundation of Kurzweil's scenario requires that at some point in the 2020s, a miracle will occur: If we keep accumulating data about the brain at an exponential rate (its connection maps, its activity patterns, etc.), then the long-standing mysteries of development, consciousness, perception, decision, and action will necessarily be revealed. Our understanding of brain function and our ability to measure the relevant parameters of individual brains (aided by technologies like brain nanobots) will consequently increase in an exponential manner to allow for brain-uploading to computers in the year 2039.<br /><br />That's where I get off the bus."<br /><br />I.e., the software guy looks at the problem and says "No problem! The brain is easy!" The neuroscientists say, "You are vastly underestimating the problem." Given the past statements about artificial intelligence, I'm inclined to listen to the neuroscientists.kjmclarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00490417628052004621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-73306779090982349792011-07-15T05:20:39.813-07:002011-07-15T05:20:39.813-07:00All the fantasies of those for whom technological ...All the fantasies of those for whom technological singularity comprises a faith-based religion to cling to at the "end of days". The complexity bubble, even as it expands at the periphery, is already collapsing from the core like a burned out star.Kevthefarmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03119504308538393274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-90849584415160237962011-07-14T18:55:31.493-07:002011-07-14T18:55:31.493-07:00I agree with Burk Braun; it's political. We&#...I agree with Burk Braun; it's political. We're wealthier (overall) than we ever were, we could fix many problems with a little tax and spend.dr2chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16320828055999939449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-89932206180853731012011-07-14T12:12:06.513-07:002011-07-14T12:12:06.513-07:00I'm happy to see some concise interpretations ...I'm happy to see some concise interpretations of the singularity arguments, and rebuttals of them. But let me address specific points.<br /><br />A) A "fundamental barrier" is not needed for the singularity argument. The advent of exponential growth in the capabilities of machines, as of yet unseen, can come about as a product of a slow technological grind. The ability to play Jeopardy is a step forward, but if you put enough small steps together you can get something revolutionary eventually.<br /><br />B) There are some very simple arguments for such a "law of intelligence". The most compelling argument is the observation that<br />- Computer have HUGE fundamental limitations<br />- The human mind has HUGE fundamental limitations<br />- These limitations are very different<br />The argument that we can see an explosion of intelligence is merely putting these together. How long did humans struggle to get more digits of Pi? And how long have computer struggled to gain Earthworm-like agility? We have both technologies at our disposal, whether or not we understand biological brains yet. There is, at minimum, an argument for a "step" increase in intelligence from the hybridization of computing/thinking technologies.<br /><br />C) We are not a space-faring society yet and we don't use fusion yet. If you accomplish both of these, you become like a bacteria in an infinite petri dish. This is not a difficult or speculative argument in any way.<br /><br />E) To me, this seems like a shift of wealth from the labor markets to the capital markets and nothing more. Humans are not really "dealt out", but inequality is the issue at hand.<br /><br />F) I think the internet itself could constitute the proto-stages of an intelligence revolution. Communications is the first form of "intelligence augmentation".<br /><br />Well that was fun!Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16161965850899477592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-18826218472260359322011-07-14T09:33:48.913-07:002011-07-14T09:33:48.913-07:00Burk - there are plenty more indicators of societa...Burk - there are plenty more indicators of societal well-being than U6. The prospect of garbage collectors being replaced by machines would have been wholly ridiculous 15 years ago, too. We need plenty of those grunt-work jobs to provide work for the less educated levels of society. Or perhaps the machines can just provide for them. Maybe we could automate frenzied cable news pundits while we're at it. ;)<br /><br />I think E trumps all. Where does the funding for all these DARPA and Blue Brain programs come from when the tax base is gone and no one wants to buy a brand spanking new vid card because they need the money for now-tiny boxes of Mac and Cheese? <br /><br />Presumably all that flush capital and attendant research will move to BRICs, but next peak oil makes a hash of trying to spur rapid growth all over again, to say nothing of other resources limits issues. <br /><br />I recall reading that Kurzweil has a real horror of death, forget what that stems from; oh, if only I had an augmented brain...to paraphrase the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz. Anyway that might be a factor in D's popularity.KLRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00691172491186270514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-83632311209744435202011-07-14T08:25:11.375-07:002011-07-14T08:25:11.375-07:00Yes, the E conclusion is hardly miserable, unless ...Yes, the E conclusion is hardly miserable, unless we let ideology keep the fruits of all this mechanization in the hands of the few rather than the many. It is a political question whether we let CEOs grab all the money, or not. We have plenty of ways to serve each other left, even after machines run everything mundane in our lives.<br /><br />You risk being labeled a luddite if you think that mechanization per se is bad for workers and the culture generally. We have experienced the march of mechanization for well over 200 years, and "only" have ~15% unemployment. Something else must be going on.Burkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11158223475895530397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-21808549130800576112011-07-14T08:07:17.981-07:002011-07-14T08:07:17.981-07:00I think your arguments largely hinge on the concep...I think your arguments largely hinge on the concept that an intelligence explosion (point B) is entirely speculative, which is to some extent true.<br /><br />And while, I agree that there has never been a single generation of intelligence producing, on it own, a more intelligent entity... there are defiantly natural/universal processes, like evolution, at work that have steadily caused matter to be arranged into more and more complex (and intelligent)structures.<br /><br />Perhaps the argument could hinge on whether there is evidence that natural/evolutionary processes are accelerating? or can be reasonably expected to accelerate once equivalent intelligence's are freed of the biological 'limitations' of humans? Speculative once again, but perhaps more evidence based predictions can be made here?<br /><br />I do agree though, that there doesn't seem to necessarily be any good reason that humans have to remain a part of this process if it were to occur.Timaeushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02448284815602698498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235419263414453422.post-58696799303968948012011-07-14T06:37:22.384-07:002011-07-14T06:37:22.384-07:00The only defense to the economic singularity is a ...The only defense to the economic singularity is a robust humanism, and we lost that when we decided we were reducible to machines - cogs in a giant economic engine. To that point, I highly recommend watching the Adam Curtis film "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace." If we consider ourselves as machines, then the future is bleak. Compared to the true machines, in doing machine things, we suck.Pro Magnificohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13825998694023266859noreply@blogger.com