[ian807]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Arthur75', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ian807', 'H')umans react poorly to unadorned truth.

[Arthur75]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ian807', '
')My reaction has been to debate from facts without the need for ad-hominem arguments.

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ian807', '
')The end of physics has been declared before. Then that pesky Einstein fellow came along. Quantum physics soon followed. Then came nuclear bombs and power. A 19th century man would have declared these "not within the realm of physics." I doubt we're done with physics yet, or even close.

[Arthur75]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')I certainly wouldn't either. I'm sure we'll develop truly artificial intelligence someday, but we'll probably first just develop ordinary intelligence that is just a copy of the human brain. So the first AI's will just be people with rather strange bodies, and as such will behave as well or poorly as people. Sure, they'll be able to be copied at whim, shut down and restarted, and be able to engineer their own nervous systems directly. But the notion that they won't act like people when they're based on people is a bit premature.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')For trans-plankian physics, we probably won't build galaxy sized circular accelerators, but we might discover more indirect ways of probing such scales and possibly more efficient methods of probing them than em pumped accelerators. Or maybe we won't.

[Carlhole]

NPR

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')rom NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Robert Siegel.

How do you think life, as we know it, will end? Nuclear war? Climate change? How about an out-of-control computer?

(Soundbite of movie, "2001: A Space Odyssey")

Mr. DOUGLAS RAIN (Actor): (as HAL 9000) I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal.

SIEGEL: That, of course, is HAL 9000 from Stanley Kubrick's science fiction masterpiece "2001: A Space Odyssey."

Well, in 2011, some people think we're getting closer to inventing an artificial intelligence that could figure out how to make itself smarter. If so, they say, it might be the last thing humans ever invent.

NPR's Martin Kaste has the story.

[SeaGypsy]

I haven't time now to dig up the references, but in 2007 I read about some super fast computer set up to look into investment stategies was telling it's customers to buy munitions and military field equipment since around the turn of the century. How wrong was it? If it was cleverer would it have brought about world peace and the solution to the problems leading to the truth of such investment strategy?

I believe the same generation of computers were given an input "Population control by non violent means has always proven futile" and "Only on reaching 1st world status do humans slow down their breeding". Both valid assertions. Is a cleverer computer going to solve the fundamental resource equations which are currently threatening to tip the world economy over? Will it give us clean energy and a stable state?

Personally I can't see this making a lick of difference.
I would have no trouble explaining all the above to an intelligent 12 year old; what difference does it make how cleverly the facts are looked at? They are still facts.

[Sixstrings]

I don't know about the whole "fear the Singularity" thing. I mean.. we can always UNPLUG the darn computers. It's a very long way into the future before AI and robots are controlling the entire chain of supply.. until that time humans will be able to shut it down if need be.

[SeaGypsy]

Ever read Meta Man by Gregory Stock?
He proposes that in the growing relationship between man and his machines there will come a time when man hands over the controls including the plug and the off switch; in the same way the group surrenders to the alpha male. My thought is that it may have already gotten that far and there is no intention or ability to pull the cord. The singularity computer has told it's owners (who are under no obligation to publish said computer's output) that the world is overpopulated and we are fast approaching ecological catastrophe. The owners will now cooperate with the machines to solve said problem. Through violent depopulation.
Expect more 9/11 style false flag attacks and a war coming to a venue near you.
Computer says NO!

[Novus]

I think someone has been watching too many Hollywood movies.


The closest thing to a computer causing Armageddon are the financial trading super computers that are currently being used to hold up derivative Ponsi schemes. Eventually 500 times the global GDP in make believe money will come crashing down at the speed of light.

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'E')ver read Meta Man by Gregory Stock?
He proposes that in the growing relationship between man and his machines there will come a time when man hands over the controls including the plug and the off switch; in the same way the group surrenders to the alpha male.

[SeaGypsy]

Clearly more of Gregory Stock is required:

(I don't have the exact quotes on hand so please forgive my interpretation).

In order for the superorganism created by this fusion of man and machine to perpetuate itself as far as possible into the future; only those humans non superfluous to this exact purpose are necessary. The rest are simply a burden to the ecology and resources of the planet, as well as a security risk to the continued running of the machine.

How hard do you think it would be to have a mega deep cave (or several) with submarine style nuclear power and fuel for thousands of years, and these communicating through satellites, with thousands of years worth of back up satellites and launch rockets? The mainstream production system and population can be reduced to a tiny fraction of what it is now without the slightest threat to well thought out and funded security systems.

BTW I am not saying this is what I believe has happened or will happen, but when the Singularity pops up I am instantly reminded of Stock's thinking on the subject.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', '
')How hard do you think it would be to have a mega deep cave (or several) with submarine style nuclear power and fuel for thousands of years, and these communicating through satellites, with thousands of years worth of back up satellites and launch rockets?

[Carlhole]

Doesn't it strike anyone else as remarkable that we have two groups forecasting the future and seeing doom - one through the collapse of human civilization, the other through the final blossoming/death of it? I reached the conclusion that our energy choices will allow for much further growth of SciTech, so the latter actually seems quite possible to me.

It doesn't require belief in Richard Duncan's Olduvai Gorge idea to take a serious look at its premises. Likewise, it doesn't require belief in The Singularity to have a hard look at what perils lurk there. The reality of the human future to be will take place between these two extremes.

Maybe a little philosophy will help us here:
The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis by David Chalmers

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n what follows, I address some of these philosophical and practical questions. I start with the argument for a singularity: is there good reason to believe that there will be an intelligence explosion? Next, I consider how to negotiate the singularity: if it is possible that there will be a singularity, how can we maximize the chances of a good outcome? Finally, I consider the place of humans in a post-singularity world, with special attention to questions about uploading: can an uploaded human be conscious, and will uploading preserve personal identity?

My discussion will necessarily be speculative, but I think it is possible to reason about speculative outcomes with at least a modicum of rigor. For example, by formalizing arguments for a speculative thesis with premises and conclusions, one can see just what opponents need to deny in order to deny the thesis, and one can then assess the costs of doing so. I will not try to give a knockdown arguments in this paper, and I will not try to give final and definitive answers to the questions above, but I hope to encourage others to think about these issues further.

[Carlhole]

IBM's Watson wins Jeopardy practice round: Can humans hang?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')BM’s Watson supercomputer won a practice round against Jeopardy champions Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter and raised a lot of questions about the capabilities of artificial intelligence.

Watson, a four-year effort by IBM, was quicker on the draw, didn’t fall prey to emotion and had a voice that could be confused for wayward computer Hal 9000 from the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. For IBM, Watson is about tackling verticals and bringing hardware and analytics to the fore.

As one of the dozens of humans watching this practice round, I can’t deny I was a bit squeamish about seeing a supercomputer wing it, adapt and show off its artificial intelligence. Is this thing going to be Skynet? That’s a bit farfetched—today IBM is thinking health care will make the most use of Watson—but a supercomputer that has self-awareness and can learn gives this human pause.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '[')url=http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/ibms-watson-wins-jeopardy-practice-round-can-humans-hang/43601]IBM's Watson wins Jeopardy practice round: Can humans hang?[/url]

[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '[')url=http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/ibms-watson-wins-jeopardy-practice-round-can-humans-hang/43601]IBM's Watson wins Jeopardy practice round: Can humans hang?[/url]

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', 'E')h. Call me unimpressed.

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'E')ver read Meta Man by Gregory Stock?
He proposes that in the growing relationship between man and his machines there will come a time when man hands over the controls including the plug and the off switch; in the same way the group surrenders to the alpha male.

[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', 'I')t's interesting that all this thought, money, and R&D is going into replacing more and more human labor but nobody's talking about what people will do for work. That's not an esoteric question, like would folks get bored without work