Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Techno-Future ramblings (psst Omnitir)

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Techno-Future ramblings (psst Omnitir)

Unread postby rsch20 » Wed 23 May 2007, 16:40:36

I didn't want to add another reply to the pessimism thread when this is branching into a different subject, so here's a new thread for talking about this stuff.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', ''')Bout the only optimist still hanging around seems to be Omnitir who just says that the march of technology will bail us out. Even he thinks tech may just as well sink us in the end.

Yes, I'm convinced that one way or another, human civilization is going to end with a BANG. None of this gradual die-off and decline into some extended menial existence bullshit. We are either going to advance to the point where we hit some singularity (BAM! Goodbye human civilization, hello post-human world), or alternatively, we are going to annihilate everything trying (BAM! Goodbye all life on Earth).

Consider this; resource wars are a given, right? I mean, is there anybody that thinks that peak oil is somehow going to result in peace? Oil peaks and we pull out of the ME?

And if there is one sector that can maintain a semblance of business as usual, it's the military.

So over the coming decades, we are looking at escalating conflict, coupled with the continued trend of accelerating technology. This will result in, at the very least, some hardcore weapons development. Today's WMD are nothing compared to what is around the corner, and it won't take much for something to go wrong. A nano-delivered super-virus designed to eliminate specific targets en-mass (for example), could easily result in the "grey goo" scenario (which simply means self-replicating nanobots going out of control). Or simply the development of a super virus on it's own could do it. Or several other scary scenarios.

Basically, the bulk of the doomer future scenarios, that envisions life eventually settling down to some sort of agrarian society, is not going to be possible. TPTB would rather do anything it takes to remain TPTB, and given the likely technology we can expect in the coming decades, if we lose, we all lose, permanently.

In this regard I'm probably the most doomer person on this site. Because the way I see it, the only single possible chance humanity has, is to reach an uber advanced state (in which case we will no longer be human anyway).

So I don't see how a potential economic collapse is anything to be pessimistic about. It's nothing to what's coming thanks to technology. Tech could easily pull us out of this mess we are getting into, but it can also end us just as easily.


We are in the same camp, so it probably doesn't mean much for me to say I think you probably have one of the clearest views of the future of anyone here, but I'm saying it anyway.

My two cent prediction of the near future, is that things will cough and sputter along until a little after the next election. When we have a new president, and we STILL can't/wont leave Iraq, well that's a recipe for trouble imo.

I agree with your basic premise that things are gonna go bang one way or the other, however I don't completely rule out the possibility of an agrarian style future, only because I don't rule out anything. Even the radical religious viewpoint has a chance of being right.

The preponderance of the evidence supports your view though, I would add to your point about high tech war and techno-disaster (of which there are more than just grey-goo to worry about, super-colliders destroying the universe is a possibility as well etc), Pollution and Global Warming also indicate to me that if we do not hit the singularity, the planet may well become a mars-like environment, meaning we already destroyed the planet with technology and just haven't realized it yet.

I would disagree with your contention that we would 'no longer be human' though, it's possible but not certain. Certainly comparing what we are now to what we would become does allow that case to be made. But, and here I'm just venturing a hunch, I think that we will be more human after the change, not less.

I don't have much to back that view up, mainly it comes from my recent thoughts about human-machines merging, telepathy on a grand scale, the internet of minds.

But it also comes from 'hints' that I've been picking up in popular culture. Here is where I start to sound like Raphael, but I've been noticing for years that I pick up on certain lines in movies and television as having a deeper or hidden meaning, more than just artist metaphors or social commentary.

American Beauty was a great example of this, that movie was chock full of them, one that I remember off the top of my head is when the blonde girl says (about her becoming a model) "...., Because everything that's meant to happen does, eventually".

from the last few days:

I watched the entire series of 'Heroes' at nbc.com because it was recommended to me by a friend. if you haven't seen it watch the first few at least to see what I mean. Almost everything that's going on in that series, can be taken as a metaphor for Omega Point, The narrator talks about evolution over and over, but also about connection. I'd have to go back and watch it again for specific quotes but there were very good ones.

Some of the themes in that show are very obvious, there's commentary on terrorism and corrupted government, but the singularity theme is so strong and I wonder if that was intentional or not.

Another example is V for Vendetta, at the end everyone rallies together and overwhlem the military (who stand down) just before parliment explodes.

I've seen comments about that being a weak ending, and taken literally I agree, it would never happen, things would play out more like Children of Men (resist us? boom!), but as a metaphor for the singularity, it works very well... everyone 'connecting' and doing away with the old order.

well my lunch is nearly over, I'll see if I can think of more examples later.
User avatar
rsch20
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Techno-Future ramblings (psst Omnitir)

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 23 May 2007, 16:50:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', ' ')at the end everyone rallies together and overwhlem the military (who stand down) just before parliment explodes.

I've seen comments about that being a weak ending, and taken literally I agree, it would never happen...



That is more or less how the totalitarian socialist states in eastern Europe collapsed at the end of the "Cold War"
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Techno-Future ramblings (psst Omnitir)

Unread postby rsch20 » Wed 23 May 2007, 18:42:09

as I said, taken literally it would never work. you are misunderstanding me it is a metaphor. or perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

If your point is 'it's happened before' that's fine, but pre-singularity revolutions are not an improvement however much those involved would like it to be, and aren't what I was alluding to, right now they are just a 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' situation.

Humans are too selfish and stuipid (currently) for any solution to work, let alone a utopian one. Post-Singularity all bets are off though.
User avatar
rsch20
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Techno-Future ramblings (psst Omnitir)

Unread postby Omnitir » Wed 23 May 2007, 21:55:57

Firstly, thanks for the kind words, it’s a fresh change from constantly being called an ignorant cornucopian. I’ve always been concerned about our collective future (hence the interest in PO), but as a technology person (trans-humanist even?), I have a very different take on PO then most people here. It tends to result in jarring confrontations. Considering the number of people expressing neo-luddite views, it’s difficult to express myself without starting a flame war, which is why I mostly lurk. Having someone on this site with a similar perspective as myself is terrific, even though you also mainly lurk. Technology is a huge part of the future, and ignoring this because of biased belief systems does an injustice to any predictions of the post peak oil future. The future of technology needs to be taken into the equation, but unfortunately most people dismiss it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')I agree with your basic premise that things are gonna go bang one way or the other, however I don't completely rule out the possibility of an agrarian style future, only because I don't rule out anything. Even the radical religious viewpoint has a chance of being right.

Yes, I do actually think that there is a chance that civilization could survive a decline into some low-tech agrarian lifestyle. However, I think this scenario really has the odds stacked up against it. Kind of like a business as usual, happy motoring, maintaining the status quo scenario is possible, but really has the odds stacked against it. For either to happen, we need a series of miracles to occur. I think it’s far more likely that we will either reach a technological singularity, or die on the way there.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')The preponderance of the evidence supports your view though, I would add to your point about high tech war and techno-disaster (of which there are more than just grey-goo to worry about, super-colliders destroying the universe is a possibility as well etc), Pollution and Global Warming also indicate to me that if we do not hit the singularity, the planet may well become a mars-like environment, meaning we already destroyed the planet with technology and just haven't realized it yet.


That really is an excellent point. Something that a lot of people don’t seem to be aware of is that much environmental damage is a gradual thing. In some cases pollutants take up to half a century to do their damage, which means that even if we were to completely powerdown the worlds industries 100% today, we would still have another 50 odd years of massive environmental damage as the industrialization of the second half of the twentieth century takes its toll. When you consider just how much environmental damage we can realistically expect this century (much of the twentieth century has yet to take its toll, and clearly industry is not about to completely shut down), it becomes obvious that we are in serious trouble. How are we going to deal with this? Many environmentalists, expressing anti-technology sentiments, would have us powerdown as much as possible. But merely reducing future damage is not nearly enough. The only possible solution to deal with the environmental issues we have created is to engineer active solutions ourselves. Passive solutions just won’t cut it.

We need to continue the advance of technology in order to solve previous problems caused with technology. But of course technology is always a double edged sword. As we develop bio-tech and come up with new ways to feed more people for less energy, we also have new abilities to engineer exotic viruses. Then, as we move into the molecular nanotech age and develop ways of manufacturing products without the massive energy requirements of today, we also have new threats that could consume all living mater on Earth. Then, as we move into the super intelligence age, either through artificial intelligence or enhanced human intelligence, we get the benefits that an enhanced intelligence could offer, perhaps solving all of our problems in a microsecond, but at the same time we have the new threat of a super intelligence that can easily outsmart everyone else, and is capable of doing whatever it pleases (which could be to help us, or to destroy us).

As technology advances the benefits increase, but so do the risks. We face an increasing number of existential risks in the future, but if we go into it with our eyes open, we may be able to prevent, or at least minimize these risks. Unfortunately governments are too slow to act, so it’s really up to individuals to be aware of these issues. This is the problem with neo-luddite positions.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')
I would disagree with your contention that we would 'no longer be human' though, it's possible but not certain. Certainly comparing what we are now to what we would become does allow that case to be made. But, and here I'm just venturing a hunch, I think that we will be more human after the change, not less.

I guess it depends how one defines human. From our perspective, a post singularity being is not going to be human. But from the perspective of one living post singularity, I suspect that they would consider anything with human or above level of intelligence to be human, even machines and uplifted animals. We will be the one species, not us and them, humans and machines. But I still argue that post singularity involves the species evolving through technology to a higher level. In this sense we will have evolved from humans into a new post human species. Hence the term trans-humanism.

If a group of people living in such times decided to remain “unenhanced” for whatever reason, there would certainly be a dramatic difference between these people and enhanced people. Most observers would have no trouble classifying these two groups as two different species. Though if every single human were to evolve, then I guess we could get away with calling ourselves human, even though, technically, we have evolved and are therefore a new species. Of course, the fact that we evolved through technology rather than biology should be of no importance.
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
User avatar
Omnitir
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Down Under
Top

Re: Techno-Future ramblings (psst Omnitir)

Unread postby rsch20 » Thu 24 May 2007, 00:56:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'F')irstly, thanks for the kind words, it’s a fresh change from constantly being called an ignorant cornucopian.


Having someone on this site with a similar perspective as myself is terrific, even though you also mainly lurk.


was happy to say so, and it was the main reason I started this thread. I mostly lurk because my initial attempts at discussing this were ignored/dismissed. It bothers me that one of the most 'aware' communities I've found is still overlooking such a huge piece of the puzzle.

Debating with another person instead of individually espousing the singularity viewpoint is a better way of strengthening the frame imo.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'M')any environmentalists, expressing anti-technology sentiments, would have us powerdown as much as possible. But merely reducing future damage is not nearly enough.


This is a good point, I would connect this with a passage I read from the "F.A.Q. about the Meaning of Life" (was one of my jumping off points for learning about the singularity, and I highly recommend reading it to well, everyone).

http://pobox.com/~sentience/tmol-faq/meaningoflife.html

well drat, the passage I was thinking of wasn't in there after researching it to quote, must have read it somewhere else, I'm leaving the link though as it's still a great read.

anyway, what I read, was to the effect that programs that try to be 'eco-friendly' are generally a waste of time.

It used the 'Energy-Star' technology as its example, everyone should be familiar with that logo that appears on most monitors when they turn on.

It gave details of how much time was spent on it (years), and how much money (lots), and then made the point that as soon as it was developed it was made obsolete by new screen technologies like plasma and LCD, and then said that if we had just spent that effort developing the next generation technology in the first place we would be years further along in that area.

That point was then expanded to encompass all environmental development as pointless, either we'll hit the singularity and fix it all, or not.

It's a 'full steam ahead' philosophy, and complete anathema to neo-luddite viewpoints (had to look neo-luddite up, thanks for expanding my vocab).

It's one of the factors that actually make me somewhat forgiving of TPTB, the longer they can keep this sputtering old thing we call civilization going the more likely we'll hit the singularity.

I've understood from the beginning that we are in Iraq for the oil etc, it's obviously horrible, but maintaining the status-quo is beneficial to technological development. The utterly corrupt system we have is preferable to anarchy (or another soon-to-be-corrupt system), I have no illusions that TPTB are fighting to keep the status-quo for this altruistic reason, it's obviously just their attempt to hold onto things as they are. That aligns with what needs to happen though so for now I see them as a necessary evil.

That viewpoint extends to powerdown efforts and alternative energy as well, steal the oil, burn the coal, screw the environment. Just keep things going a little longer and we might make it, if we don't we are royally fucked anyway and the sustainable crowd should realize that.

I understand what you mean about being both the most optimistic and most doomeristic person around.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'W')e need to continue the advance of technology in order to solve previous problems caused with technology. But of course technology is always a double edged sword...

...As technology advances the benefits increase, but so do the risks. We face an increasing number of existential risks in the future, but if we go into it with our eyes open, we may be able to prevent, or at least minimize these risks. Unfortunately governments are too slow to act, so it’s really up to individuals to be aware of these issues. This is the problem with neo-luddite positions.


This ties in with what I said above, additionally, an example of the risks that I read about was terrorism related.

If you assume that a society has a certain percentage of people that would like to destroy it (and this is clearly true), and then contrast it against increasing technology and population, you see the same exponential trend as in other worrisome fields like population growth and accelerating technology.

In the stone age, this person could kill maybe one or two people with a club. as technology has advanced, so has the number of people that can be killed by an individual.

Our most recent example is 60+ people getting shot by one person, using pistols. It's conceivable that as technology continues to increase, so will the amount of people one dissatisfied individual can kill, toward the upper limit of 'everyone'. Addtionally as population increases (and as conditions deterioriate) there are consequently more people of that mindset.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', 'I') would disagree with your contention that we would 'no longer be human' though, it's possible but not certain. Certainly comparing what we are now to what we would become does allow that case to be made. But, and here I'm just venturing a hunch, I think that we will be more human after the change, not less.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'I') guess it depends how one defines human. From our perspective, a post singularity being is not going to be human.


I'll agree with that, but would note that continued existence, even if drastically changed, is preferable to extinction, which is the other option. A post-human is more 'human' than us not existing at all.

In other words this in particular is probably a discussion best left for after it happens, we can decide then whether we are still human or not, if there are any of us left to decide anything :)


I love this quote from the F.A.Q.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('F.A.Q. for the Meaning of Life', 'I')magine a Neanderthal trying to predict the fate of the human race. Not much luck, right? Now imagine a hunter-gatherer from fifty thousand years ago. Still no luck. The eighteen-fifties? Again, no luck. The nineteen-fifties? Sorry, no practical experience with programming computers - not by modern standards, anyway. No wonder nobody invented the concept of a Singularity until the late twentieth century.

Is there some kind of reason why the late twentieth century was the first generation to be capable of fully understanding the problem? Or is it more likely that we, too, lack the background to ask the right questions?
User avatar
rsch20
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Techno-Future ramblings (psst Omnitir)

Unread postby rsch20 » Thu 24 May 2007, 01:58:43

Before I get started, I should say that this is mostly taken from the memory of a lecture I watched about the singularity, with my own random thoughts and misperceptions added in.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'T')hough if every single human were to evolve, then I guess we could get away with calling ourselves human, even though, technically, we have evolved and are therefore a new species. Of course, the fact that we evolved through technology rather than biology should be of no importance.


There is in fact no difference, most people think of evolution in terms of biology, but technology is merely another form of evolution, people think that because something was designed it's not a part of evolution, but design itself is the latest step in evolution.

the first step was random emergence (may be getting that term wrong), after that you have single cell organisms that only made copies of themselves and only evolved through random mutation, a very long process, sexual reproduction is a much faster form of evolution, allowing species to change in generations by swapping genetic material with each other. Intelligence is the next step in evolution, bringing even faster change.

Our heads are much larger than is needed for basic survival, no other mammal has as much trouble with childbirth as humans, and it's because of our massive noggins, full term human children are 'premature' compared with other mammals, and human mothers are much more likely to die from childbirth than other mammals.

why? because of Natural Selection, the other half of evolution that most people forget about, to most people when you ask them about evolution they will talk about Survival of the Fittest, this is half of the theory, the other half is Natural Selection, Natural Selection is responsible for the Peacock for example.

what is going on there is 'Displayed Weakness' (think i'm getting that term wrong), the Peacocks massive tail is a liability in survival terms, but it's a signal to the female that 'I'm such a badass I can haul this ridiculous thing around and still be alive'.

Stags operate on the same principle, hauling around massive head ornaments just to impress females.

Natural Selection for humans, is based on intelligence, we are a society driven species, completely reliant on others for the first several years of our lives (compare this to a foal that can stand within minutes of being born).

Our brains increased in size drastically for a couple hundred thousand years (ish), and levelled off about 50 thousand years ago, basically at the point where we are at the maximum amount of risk you can reasonably take as a species, if our heads were any bigger birth would be just too dangerous.

genetically, we haven't changed much in 50 thousand years, we have however gotten much smarter without genetic changes, because of intelligence and language. We have evolved far beyond what is necessary in survival terms, and the reason for that is Natural Selection, followed by Intelligence and Language.


So, after sexual reproduction, we have design (language and intelilgence) as the next step of evolution, which includes lamposts but also includes things like genetic engineering (creating the possilibity/reality of genetic 'adjustments' that would take thousands of years or never naturally), the Flynn Effect (increasing worldwide IQ's) etc.

To the universe there is not much difference between a tree, and a lampost, both are products of evolution. both are collections of atoms that are fantastically unlikely to happen spontaneously. The difference being that a lampost is even more unlikely than a tree, and a bunny-human is even more unlikely than a lampost!, it would never happen naturally.

The next step after intelligence, is machine-assisted intelligence, now you think I'm talking about the singularity again but haha! we have machine assisted intelligence right now, and you are using it!

It's estimated that being at a computer with an internet connection raises your IQ by at least 10 points, you have a much wider access to information than you by yourself have. which is what intelligence is all about.

Addtionally we of course have things like computer-aided design, without which we wouldn't have the computers we are using, or jets/battleships etc.

the possible next step, is either when the machines we design and create, start themselves designing their next versions, or when we merge with machines, giving a drastic intelligence increase and marrying the strengths of our pattern recognition and guessing with the strengths of machine intelligence.

Machines are already intelligent, not in the fuzzy 'self-aware' conception of it, but in the sense of practical measures such as math and recall, they perform on a much higher level than humans. the ability to do math is a standard measure of intelligence, and in that limited definition (and other areas) machines do well.
User avatar
rsch20
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Techno-Future ramblings (psst Omnitir)

Unread postby Omnitir » Thu 24 May 2007, 02:28:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'M')any environmentalists, expressing anti-technology sentiments, would have us powerdown as much as possible. But merely reducing future damage is not nearly enough.


Programs that try to be 'eco-friendly' are generally a waste of time.

It used the 'Energy-Star' technology as its example, everyone should be familiar with that logo that appears on most monitors when they turn on.

It gave details of how much time was spent on it (years), and how much money (lots), and then made the point that as soon as it was developed it was made obsolete by new screen technologies like plasma and LCD, and then said that if we had just spent that effort developing the next generation technology in the first place we would be years further along in that area.

I've actually used this exact example on these forums a few times, though it doesn't seem to sink in with most people.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')That point was then expanded to encompass all environmental development as pointless, either we'll hit the singularity and fix it all, or not.

It's a 'full steam ahead' philosophy, and complete anathema to neo-luddite viewpoints (had to look neo-luddite up, thanks for expanding my vocab).

I've understood from the beginning that we are in Iraq for the oil etc, it's obviously horrible, but maintaining the status-quo is beneficial to technological development. The utterly corrupt system we have is preferable to anarchy (or another soon-to-be-corrupt system), I have no illusions that TPTB are fighting to keep the status-quo for this altruistic reason, it's obviously just their attempt to hold onto things as they are. That aligns with what needs to happen though so for now I see them as a necessary evil.

Absolutely. As crazy as it first seems, powering on with industrialization, with all the damage that comes with it, really is our best shot. It's far too late to try and hit the breaks now.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')It's one of the factors that actually make me somewhat forgiving of TPTB, the longer they can keep this sputtering old thing we call civilization going the more likely we'll hit the singularity.

I know what you mean. It's instinctual to feel bad about certain aspects of the world we live in. But ultimately, the bigger picture is that the world is heading in the right direction, more or less. There's certainly huge room for improvements, but the fact is we live in a time when there is more peace, freedom, democracy, and less suffering, then at any other time. Most people will refute this, because they watch the news and see all sorts of horrors, but the fact remains that the world is getting better for homosapien, and if we can maintain this course for just a little longer, we could reach the perfect state.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')That viewpoint extends to powerdown efforts and alternative energy as well, steal the oil, burn the coal, screw the environment. Just keep things going a little longer and we might make it, if we don't we are royally fucked anyway and the sustainable crowd should realize that.
While I agree and this reiterates the bigger picture that I was talking about above, I do need to point out that while we are generally heading in the right direction, the world is not perfect. Achieving a greater level of sustainability will greatly enhance our prospects of reaching the singularity. Developing alternative energies will play a crucial role in keeping civilization going long enough to keep it going 'forever'. Again referring to Kurzweil, his book Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever makes for a great analogy to modern civilization. His argument is that the baby boomer generation need to take active measures to ensure a long and healthy life, in order to reach the point in the coming decades where science will overcome death. Likewise, I think that civilization also need to make some big changes in order to be fit and healthy enough to stay alive long enough for science to solve all of civilizations health issues.

So within reason, I think we do need to "powerdown" (which is a fuzzy term, but I simply mean to reduce consumption - taking the foot off the gas as it were, rather then hitting the breaks). We do need to try to adopt some more sustainable practices so that the show keeps on rolling. But the goal of achieving real sustainability, is not something that we can realistically achieve without the high level of technology that only time can afford us. We need to keep civilization alive and progressing to achieve true sustainability, but the best way to do that may involve a measure of sustainability.

For instance, if we invested mostly in mass transit instead of the auto industry during the twentieth century, we would probably not have to worry about peak oil until around the time of the singularity, by which time energy will not be a problem. So if we just achieved a higher level of sustainability, we would have a much smoother ride to the singularity. At the same time, our current path to the singularity could be a lot smoother if we adopt less wasteful ways of life.




$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'I') guess it depends how one defines human. From our perspective, a post singularity being is not going to be human.
I'll agree with that, but would note that continued existence, even if drastically changed, is preferable to extinction, which is the other option. A post-human is more 'human' than us not existing at all.

Oh yeah, the distinction between human and post-human is just a technical one. A person alive today could easily live to the singularity, evolve to what is technically a post-human level, and live for another few thousand years, but still recall with fondness their existence as both a human and a post-human. The only practical difference would really be that post singularity life would be so much better (I imagine).

Some/many people no doubt hate the idea of evolving to a new level through technology. But that's because it's such a strange concept to us at the moment. Once people would have hated the notion of travelling in a steel box at break-neck speeds, or travelling over oceans in the sky, or injecting substances into our blood to attack foreign entities, or the power to destroy with the press of a button etc., but they are all common parts of our lives today. One day, the idea of fabricating any desired object with minimal resource input (nanotech molecular manufacturing), or upgrading ones body to perform certain tasks better (robotics), to be perfectly normal parts of life.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')I love this quote from the F.A.Q.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('F.A.Q. for the Meaning of Life', 'I')magine a Neanderthal trying to predict the fate of the human race. Not much luck, right? Now imagine a hunter-gatherer from fifty thousand years ago. Still no luck. The eighteen-fifties? Again, no luck. The nineteen-fifties? Sorry, no practical experience with programming computers - not by modern standards, anyway. No wonder nobody invented the concept of a Singularity until the late twentieth century.

Is there some kind of reason why the late twentieth century was the first generation to be capable of fully understanding the problem? Or is it more likely that we, too, lack the background to ask the right questions?
That's interesting. Kurzweil described a similar concept in his last book The Singularity is Near, only his analogy of us imagining the singularity was of simple bacteria as trying to imagine life once it evolved into humanity. Looking at the accelerating level of intelligence, he points out that post singularity a moment of thought will be the equivalent to all of human thought throughout history put together. So even with today's unprecedented level of intelligence, we can't hope to truly understand what a post singularity intelligence will be like. This is one of the reasons for the possibility that AI being benevolent. It's too bold an assumption to assume that simply because it will be far smarter and superior than us it will naturally seek to eliminate us.

I think the singularity for most people is still a very crack-pot idea will little relation to the real world. However, this position can only change in time as it becomes ever more obvious that technology is accelerating towards something BIG.

Feels good being some of the few people that 'get it', huh? Kind of similar to how some people feel about being of the minority that understand peak oil.
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
User avatar
Omnitir
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Down Under
Top

Re: Techno-Future ramblings (psst Omnitir)

Unread postby rsch20 » Thu 24 May 2007, 03:28:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'I') know what you mean. It's instinctual to feel bad about certain aspects of the world we live in. But ultimately, the bigger picture is that the world is heading in the right direction, more or less...

...While I agree and this reiterates the bigger picture that I was talking about above, I do need to point out that while we are generally heading in the right direction, the world is not perfect. Achieving a greater level of sustainability will greatly enhance our prospects of reaching the singularity.


I agree with you on both points, we are still meagerly headed in the right direction, I would say many many things are going the wrong way right now, in fact nearly everything but technological development, if it weren't for the possibility of the singularity I would be a complete doomer.

There are many many things we could apparently be doing better, though at the same time we have to deal with the situation we are in and not with what we should have done 50 years ago. Any apparently easy change we might wish to make can be (and usually is) affected by the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Even something as simple as consuming less, could result in problems (it's the economy stupid!).

As a mental excersice, I tried to imagine the most ideal conditions for a species to reach the singularity, and my vote goes to 'Intelligent Ants'.

If Intelligent Ants were the dominant species of a planet, they would be brutally efficient, and naturally a working communist society, little excess would result in a higher chance of reaching the singularity before destroying themselves.

That is a metaphor, but I'm sure you get the point, that if we were much more naturally efficient, we might not be in this position. On the other hand all the excess we see is a product of our creativity and our search for increasing control of reality, so maybe the ants wouldn't get anywhere after all.

Any advancement is good I'm certainly not arguing against energy development etc, the main point of the Energy Star argument is that it was a government mandated restriction on technology, not advancement of it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'F')or instance, if we invested mostly in mass transit instead of the auto industry during the twentieth century, we would probably not have to worry about peak oil until around the time of the singularity, by which time energy will not be a problem. So if we just achieved a higher level of sustainability, we would have a much smoother ride to the singularity. At the same time, our current path to the singularity could be a lot smoother if we adopt less wasteful ways of life.



The problem here is that we don't have enough time left for conservation efforts to make much of an impact, we have anywhere between now and about 30 years out before the singularity comes, my own 'guess' is that we have 5-15 years before the singularity, and an even shorter timeframe before (more) problems like PO set in.

Certainly I would like for us to do things like spend a little less on 'defense' (51% of budget) and a little more on research (some pathetic % of budget). But I just don't see that (or much of anything) happening in our political framework.

As much as I would like a more responsible path to the singularity, I think it's a tough steer. However I think the awakening of the people on the internet (here, wikipedia, blogs, etc) is a symptom of the singularity and that as more people become informed positive change will become more likely.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'I') think the singularity for most people is still a very crack-pot idea will little relation to the real world. However, this position can only change in time as it becomes ever more obvious that technology is accelerating towards something BIG.

Feels good being some of the few people that 'get it', huh? Kind of similar to how some people feel about being of the minority that understand peak oil.


On one level it feels good, but mostly it scares me. The amount of people that are aware of the Singularity is vanishingly small compared to the population of the world. Similarly the fraction of people aware of PO, Taken a step further the people that aware of the full range of negative possibilities (folks like NEOPO) are an even smaller percentage, and the amount of people that are aware of all of it? apparently 2...

A lot of the stuff I've recently become aware of, like PO, 911truth movement etc etc are radical concepts, and effectively make me a (peaceful) dissenter, this is not a comfortable position to be in, and even less so to be discussing it on the internet. Just by writing this I may have exposed myself as someone that's 'too informed'.

Paranoid? sure, a little paranoia is perfectly healthy though, and this is the main reason I am usually a lurker rather than a poster. I'm concerned about the record I'm leaving.

911truthers are generally characterized as crazy, though they have valid questions, yet it is enough for me to not get involved because of the stigma, the stuff we are discussing here is equally 'crazy' (i.e. outside accepted norms), and I am hesitant about it because of that. Especially since my survival strategy right now is all about laying low and just making it another 10 years or so.


This quote is relevant:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schopenhauer', 'A')ll truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident


I'm a little concerned about the 'violently opposed' part you see :)
User avatar
rsch20
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Techno-Future ramblings (psst Omnitir)

Unread postby Omnitir » Thu 24 May 2007, 06:41:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', ' ')Even something as simple as consuming less, could result in problems (it's the economy stupid!).

Yes, I agree. The problem is there seems a reasonably good chance of economic trouble in the near future. It most likely won’t even slightly affect technological progress, just as the Great depression and WWII had zero affect on progress. However, if the economy gets too unhealthy I’m concerned that military efforts will increase, greatly increasing existential risk (the chance of annihilating ourselves).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', '
')As a mental excersice, I tried to imagine the most ideal conditions for a species to reach the singularity, and my vote goes to 'Intelligent Ants'.

If Intelligent Ants were the dominant species of a planet, they would be brutally efficient, and naturally a working communist society, little excess would result in a higher chance of reaching the singularity before destroying themselves.

That is a metaphor, but I'm sure you get the point, that if we were much more naturally efficient, we might not be in this position. On the other hand all the excess we see is a product of our creativity and our search for increasing control of reality, so maybe the ants wouldn't get anywhere after all.

Interesting. Many argue that creativity is a hugely important part of accelerating progress, (creativity is also growing exponentially) so maybe the ants wouldn’t get very far at all. It makes sense that they would strive for sustainability early on, resulting in a lifestyle that could last a very long time, but also stagnation (which is actually the kind of world many on these forums dream of). Maybe the greed instinct in mammals, or at least in humans, is an essential element in maintaining progress? Otherwise (if we were intelligent ants) we may never have progressed beyond the bare essentials to sustain a single queen?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', ' ')Certainly I would like for us to do things like spend a little less on 'defense' (51% of budget) and a little more on research (some pathetic % of budget). But I just don't see that (or much of anything) happening in our political framework.

I think most people can agree on that one. Though it’s worth noting that while the massive military budget is a bloated waste, a significant amount of the military budget does contribute towards research. Many advances have been made thanks to the military. Though if we were really intelligent, we would put all of that advancement into researching technologies for domestic use. Surely a huge development in local power generation would be more beneficial than developing the latest jet fighter and personnel amour? But of course those with the power want to maintain their power, and they do that by force of arms in hostile places.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', ' ')As much as I would like a more responsible path to the singularity, I think it's a tough steer. However I think the awakening of the people on the internet (here, wikipedia, blogs, etc) is a symptom of the singularity and that as more people become informed positive change will become more likely.

Agreed. The revolution it would take to put us on a smoother path to progress probably isn’t worth the delay in progress such a revolution would cost.

And yes, I think that the rise in online activity would have to be an early stage towards the singularity. The massive uptake in information that the average person enjoys today is truly incredible. What once took days of researching in a library can easily be achieved by anyone in seconds, and the communal aspect of information sharing online is something never before achieved. New ideas can grow and flourish readily today like never before. Who knows, future historians may even come to regard the early Internet as the first stages of the technological singularity. Kind of scary if that’s the case when you realize how many people are actively involved in it without realizing.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', 'S')imilarly the fraction of people aware of PO, Taken a step further the people that aware of the full range of negative possibilities (folks like NEOPO) are an even smaller percentage, and the amount of people that are aware of all of it? apparently 2...
LOL! Seems that way, doesn’t it?

Yeah, it’s hard to find people that are concerned about more than just a small range of issues, but I’m sure there are plenty out there, they just aren’t congregating here. I guess all the talk of Mad Max and Zombies makes most people who are aware of the singularity roll their eyes as they move on to a more widely informed community.

On a side note, I once came across a blog entry by a PO doomer regarding the singularity. His argument was basically that we aren’t in fact accelerating the amount of total knowledge because we are forgetting the most important things of all, like how to grow gardens, hunt food and raise animals. I think he may have missed the point, but hey, at least he acknowledged a concept foreign to him. Shame he didn’t bother to read up a bit more about it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', ' ')Just by writing this I may have exposed myself as someone that's 'too informed'.
I wouldn’t worry about it too much. I think it’s healthy to have members of society questioning things and making people think. I think we’ve got a long way to go before we have to start worrying about people knocking on the door because of general opinions expressed online (which is rather different to, say, posting about how to build WMD’s or plans to attack something!).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', ' ')
Paranoid? sure, a little paranoia is perfectly healthy though, and this is the main reason I am usually a lurker rather than a poster. I'm concerned about the record I'm leaving.
Don’t be overly concerned about the record you’re leaving. In fact, consider it from the singularity perspective. Post singularity, there will be super-intelligence interested in history. Just as we go to great lengths to understand life in historic times, consider that a future super-intelligence will likely also work extensively to uncover the past. I suspect that most of the writings from the dawn of the Internet will be recoverable by such intelligence, and these writings, everything from articles in peoples unknown little blogs to techno-future rambling in peak oil forums will be reviewed to gain an insight into the past.

A part of me feels humbled by the notion that everything everyone writes may one day be reviewed by some future super-intelligence: “Wow, these ones were contemplating the technological singularity – way back at the start of the twenty first century!”. :D
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
User avatar
Omnitir
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Down Under
Top

Re: Techno-Future ramblings (psst Omnitir)

Unread postby TheDude » Thu 24 May 2007, 12:59:05

Well, we'll leave you two alone. I'd like to "see" this OP/Singularity myself, "sounds" "fun." You can't stop people from trying, after all. Maybe they'll pull it off, or it will be seen in future centuries as our equivalent of the Philosopher's Stone. Thrice Great Kurzweil!

Trippy? You want trippy? I started to read this post and hit random play on my media player, and this came up!
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: Techno-Future ramblings (psst Omnitir)

Unread postby Atlantean_Relic » Thu 24 May 2007, 14:00:36

I Don't see how in 30 year we as a species are going to dump all the shit that makes us what we are. If We do become this God Singularity, We are going to make Yahweh look like the lovable old man the Fundies call him even with his Dickery and Assholeness fully admitted to.
Was a long and dark December
When the banks became cathedrals
And the fog
Became God
User avatar
Atlantean_Relic
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon 24 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: North of Id, west of Oz, and infront of the damned rabbit
Top

Re: Techno-Future ramblings (psst Omnitir)

Unread postby Omnitir » Fri 25 May 2007, 02:42:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', ' ')You can't stop people from trying, after all. Maybe they'll pull it off

It’s not so much about be actually trying to make it happen, rather that it’s a point that we will reach as long as technology keeps advancing.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Atlantean_Relic', ' ')I Don't see how in 30 year we as a species are going to dump all the shit that makes us what we are.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by that. What makes us what we are? All this shit, as in greed and other undesirable traits, is what makes us human?

The post-human aspect of the singularity isn’t necessarily about dumping what makes us human. It’s more about advancing forwards. Because the human being will be more advanced, more intelligent and more capable, it will technically be an evolution of the species. But I would guess that post-humans would still hold many traits similar to modern humans, just as modern humans still hold many traits similar to our ancestors.

The benefit of the singularity isn’t really about changing our nature, though that may be a result. The benefit is that due to the massively enhanced intelligence on the planet, we will be able to solve all our problems.


Imagine no need for fossil fuels...
Imagine no person left wanting...
Imagine no religion,
I wonder if you can?
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
User avatar
Omnitir
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Down Under
Top

Re: Techno-Future ramblings (psst Omnitir)

Unread postby Omnitir » Fri 25 May 2007, 02:53:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', ' ')You can't stop people from trying, after all. Maybe they'll pull it off

It’s not so much about be actually trying to make it happen, rather that it’s a point that we will reach as long as technology keeps advancing.

Honestly, what is the likelihood that there will be zero advancement post peak oil? Consider what zero advancement means. It means that even the rich elite can't afford to invest. It means that even the bloated military, with it's many billions of investment dollars to ensure the latest toys, will have shrivelled and all but died. Is the military going to die out with the die off?

How would such a world come about within the next few decades? Nuclear war maybe? Is there really any chance of progress completely stopping because of economic chaos? The great depression didn't affect progress, so will peak oil stop advancement right away? Can civilization withstand a few decades of hardship? Do these questions deserve their own thread?
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
User avatar
Omnitir
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Down Under
Top

Re: Techno-Future ramblings (psst Omnitir)

Unread postby rsch20 » Fri 25 May 2007, 04:04:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '
')TheDude wrote:
You can't stop people from trying, after all. Maybe they'll pull it off

It’s not so much about be actually trying to make it happen, rather that it’s a point that we will reach as long as technology keeps advancing.


This is both correct and incorrect imo, the singularity is just another exponential trend, but active trying could make a difference, as I've said I think it's going to be a human-machine merge, and will be more spontaneous and emergent like the internet is/was, but a singularity brought about by the creation of A.I. could be the result of just one person (or team) working on it.

The F.A.Q. for the meaning of life exhorts people to work in AI or technology related fields. I love the 'ratings' that he gives to different careers and think its spot on (though I don't lean towards AI anymore). So, in the same way that individual conservation efforts can add up, so can more effort towards this goal.

Your point is right though, the general trend is what we are discussing not a hypothetical single inventor or recruiting people into tech fields, and it's my opinion that most inventions/refinements would have been developed by someone else at around the same time if the person that did do it did something else. I.E. if Einstein (overblown but the most stereotypical example) had been killed as a child, we would still have an 'Einstein', it would just have been a different name. He fills a stereotype role that we 'need', the 'Greatest Inventor'

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Atlantean_Relic', 'A')tlantean_Relic wrote:
I Don't see how in 30 year we as a species are going to dump all the shit that makes us what we are.


I’m not sure exactly what you mean by that. What makes us what we are? All this shit, as in greed and other undesirable traits, is what makes us human?

The post-human aspect of the singularity isn’t necessarily about dumping what makes us human. It’s more about advancing forwards.


To respond to Atlantean first: your inability to conceptualize something is not a valid argument against it.

As for the rest, I think this is another part that we can't really wrap our minds around that well, and is best left till after it happens. I'm gonna offer my incomplete thoughts anyway,

The crux of the question seems to be, "will we still have "evil" in our makeup?"

I think that depends a lot on the definition, also on how things play out.

If a super-AI emerges, it would likely be 'benevolent', the 'Terminator' and 'Matrix' scenario's are more about our own inner demons than any actual threat posed by machine intelligence.

Humans 'evolved', building layer upon layer, and our 'core processor' is still a reptile brain, we also evolved in the 'survival of the fittest' environment and are wired accordingly. We still have the 'fight or flight' impulse and a lot of left over evolutionary baggage that isn't very relevant in our current reality.

Machine intelligence works on a completely different paradigm, that is at worst neutral. The worst situation I can imagine is a dispassionate decision to eliminate our race because we are too large a threat to the planet and therefore need to be eliminated for the AI to survive.

That is a 'Matrix/Terminator' situation, but the key difference is that we would be eliminated as a logical measure rather than out of hatred for us.

The end of the move 'I Robot' is an example of what I'm talking about, it's a bad movie, but at the end the AI decides to take over the world to protect us, it argues with Will Smith that the human race is destroying the planet and that it needs to control us to ensure our survival.

The irony is that the 'happy ending' is in fact a tragic ending, Will defeats the AI and everything is hunky dory, but nothing is said about what happens down the line, and most likely the humans will wipe themselves out like the AI predicts. He didn't actually fix anything, just defeated his 'enemy' that was earnestly trying to protect the human race.

Anyway, if an AI supercedes us, whether it's benelovent or not we will become 'obsolete' which is still a bummer even if we don't get smoked, I want to be part of the action.

Which is why I'm favoring the 'human-machine' merge scenario. Another reason that I favor it is because it's already possible and happening, AI is still debatable and skeptics can point at it as something that will never happen, a neo-luddite position but hard to counter other than with 'yah huh it will'

brain implants already exist, the latest technology doesn't even require an implant.

In this situation though, we run into the moral problems Atlantean refers to, in order to take the next step, we'll need to 'fix' ourselves, or probably change to the point that we wouldn't be 'human'.

I don't know whether we would still have 'evil' or not, I think suffering would be greatly reduced and that if we do decide to keep our 'baser' instincts, then they at least would likely be sublimated through simulations rather than having to inflict suffering on actual beings.

(note-> crazytalk ahead. now I venture into 'spiritual' ground)

I think, if we hit the singularity, we become 'God'.

I think that (most) religions have it essentially backwards, 'God' is the state we are striving towards. The purpose of the universe is to evolve into that state. The presence of 'evil' in the world makes it self-evident to me that it has not reached that state yet.

This view solves all the moral questions of the world, why does evil exist? why does 'God' allow it to happen? Well for one, it seems apparent that 'evil' is a necessary component of evolution. Perhaps it is possible to create a universe that has the potential of creating sentient beings, that doesn't have any strife. If so we didn't luck out with one of those plum gigs.

I think the universe was 'created' by 'something', that I would classify as 'God', but that it is likely a 'Great Experiment' intended to create new 'God'. The Hindu view of religion is close to what I'm referring to. Of course in any experiment, 'tainted' results are undesirable, which also offers a reason for 'God' non-intervention in affairs.

I place quotes around those words because I intentionally mean for their definitions to be fuzzy, when I say 'God', I am not referring to an old man in the clouds wearing white robes and watching you masturbate.
Last edited by rsch20 on Fri 25 May 2007, 04:41:03, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
rsch20
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Techno-Future ramblings (psst Omnitir)

Unread postby rsch20 » Fri 25 May 2007, 04:36:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '
')Honestly, what is the likelihood that there will be zero advancement post peak oil?...

... The great depression didn't affect progress, so will peak oil stop advancement right away? Can civilization withstand a few decades of hardship? Do these questions deserve their own thread?


Well, though it wouldn't stop it, it could slow it, and the real threat to it not happening, the best argument against it, is the possibility of the curve levelling off. If our technological growth at some point ceases to be exponential then the singularity would not be achieved, at least on the timescale we are talking about (the next 5-30 years).

It would still be possible for it to happen later, but as has been pointed out on this board many times, we are exhausting a one-time energy gift, and if our civilization collapses completely rebuilding will be much more difficult and would probably push the singularity at least well out of our lifetimes.

For your questions though, I do think we can withstand some hardship, and in fact already are, and that things will continue to progress, but the singularity is hardly assured.

Here it becomes relevant to mention the lack of other intelligent species in the universe, our star is very young still and many other stars in the universe are much much older.

The complete lack of results from SETI (which by the way is the most powerful 'computer' in the world, working at i think 1.5 petaflops all from idle desktops), indicate that at the minimum other intelligent races if they exist are not communicating.

It seems likely to me that any developing race will face the same situation we are now in, singularity or extinction. It's worth pointing out that any race capable of star travel will have hit a singularity state as a pre-requisite and that 'spaceships' are an unlikely method. An expanding field of 'intelligence' is more realistic (nanobots processing all matter to be a part of an expanding 'cloud' ).

The fact that we have not been enveloped by a post-singularity being 'God', indicates that it has not happened anywhere else in the universe yet. this implies either that other post-singularity species have some type of 'Prime Directive', or very strong odds against us.
User avatar
rsch20
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Techno-Future ramblings (psst Omnitir)

Unread postby TheDude » Fri 25 May 2007, 12:29:38

Can't believe I'm saying this but I think you need to read (not view) some more more SF. There have been innumerable stories and books written over the decades about the machine-human interface, delving into a multitude of situations and the ramifications they have, which aren't always obvious or what we expect as readers. No Woman Born by CL Moore is an excellent example, a woman has lost her body in a fire, and now her brain controls a sleek golden robot, very powerful and strong. Is such a construct still "human"?
By the same token will a Singular intelligence display human morals and ethics? I'd argue that the bulk of our current human leadership is a bit short on that score; the complexities involved in programming and designing a full-fledged AI could lead to consequences that we're incable of foreseeing; if it matters anyway, it's not certain we'll get to that point anyway.
Not sure about this Vingeian notion that a Singularity will be acheived simply by heaping on nodes and connections until bang! Sounds like it's got a serious philosophical flaw in its reasoning somewhere, a semantic flaw of some kind. The idea of Technology predicated on Faith is a juicy bit of irony, too.
In re: evil, I've always been attracted to Gnosticism's explanation for the flaws in the universe: that it was built by a Pseudo-God, the cranky Yaweh of the Old Testament who's always stamping his foot. Seems more plausible than Coyote vomiting up his lunch or whatever.
"Evil" may simply be our evolved way of dealing with the need in the universe for push and pull/positive and negative/yin and yang. Entropy seems evil to us - decay, bad. Would we be capable of any action without it?
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: Techno-Future ramblings (psst Omnitir)

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 25 May 2007, 14:58:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', ' ')the same situation we are now in, singularity or extinction....


It may well be singularity and THEN extinction of humanity by the AI, since it will then be the most intelligent and dominant "species" on earth. Why should it share resources with us?
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Techno-Future ramblings (psst Omnitir)

Unread postby rsch20 » Fri 25 May 2007, 15:13:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'C')an't believe I'm saying this but I think you need to read (not view) some more more SF. There have been innumerable stories and books written over the decades about the machine-human interface, delving into a multitude of situations and the ramifications they have, which aren't always obvious or what we expect as readers. No Woman Born by CL Moore is an excellent example, a woman has lost her body in a fire, and now her brain controls a sleek golden robot, very powerful and strong. Is such a construct still "human"?


could you clarify what you mean by 'read (not view)', if you are implying that I need to read more (or watch less tv) and 'expand my view' then you are barking up the wrong tree.

I am an avid reader, as a teenager I read hundreds of SF/Fantasy/Horror novels. In the last few years I have drifted away from fiction and now read mostly non-fiction. Political texts, world affecting theories (like PO) etc. Typically I go through a book every week or so, and would go much faster if I spent anything more than just a tiny fraction of my time reading (lunch breaks etc, when I have significant 'at home' free time it's spent more on the computer, also reading), the fiction I generally read now is Doomer Porn.

SF writers, have been having problems with material for a while now, because of the singularity. Writers in the first half of the 20th century had a much easier time envisioning the future and writing stories based on it. If you seriously look at today's trends, it is very very difficult to write a plausible future based story, SF writers describe a 'Wall' in the future that they cannot see beyond.

SF efforts as recent as Star Trek, are now obviously implausible, and most SF these days follows the 'genre' and depicts the standard Star Trek/Star Wars/Aliens/etc etc scenario of things being basically the same as they are now + spacefaring.

This was a reasonable guess half a century ago, now if you understand the implications of accelerating technology it is patently ridiculous.

The best recent effort imo was Children of Men, which of course depicts decaying technology and no singularity, failure we can pretty easily imagine what it would be like. But all current 'optimistic' Sci-Fi is laughably inaccurate.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'B')y the same token will a Singular intelligence display human morals and ethics? I'd argue that the bulk of our current human leadership is a bit short on that score; the complexities involved in programming and designing a full-fledged AI could lead to consequences that we're incable of foreseeing; if it matters anyway, it's not certain we'll get to that point anyway.


The answer to your first question is 'I don't know', though I gave my thoughts on that already.

I would agree that our leadership is short, and would in fact attribute it not to individual character flaws but rather inherent shortcomings in our current physiological/sociological makeup.

A full fledged AI will certainly lead to unintended consequences, nearly everything we do now does, and you are correct that it is not certain we will get to that point, however it is also not certain that we wont. There is no logical flaw (that I have found) in this theory.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'N')ot sure about this Vingeian notion that a Singularity will be acheived simply by heaping on nodes and connections until bang! Sounds like it's got a serious philosophical flaw in its reasoning somewhere, a semantic flaw of some kind. The idea of Technology predicated on Faith is a juicy bit of irony, too.


My guess about a human-machine merge is just that, a guess. The concept of the singularity is about the trend of accelerating technology, which specific technology is used is not relevant and I was just offering my opinion on what I think is most likely.

I would counter though that you also wouldn't think of the internet developing the way it did, simply by heaping on nodes and connections until bang!

I predicated my faith bit with the note that it was 'crazytalk', I agree about the irony though.

There are almost certainly flaws in our reasoning and something we are missing, part of the nature of the singularity is that it's nearly impossible to predict what would be the outcome of it, any talk on that score is merely conjecture.
User avatar
rsch20
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Techno-Future ramblings (psst Omnitir)

Unread postby rsch20 » Fri 25 May 2007, 15:17:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', ' ')the same situation we are now in, singularity or extinction....


It may well be singularity and THEN extinction of humanity by the AI, since it will then be the most intelligent and dominant "species" on earth. Why should it share resources with us?


It may well decide not to. this is assuming the AI scenario as I have said it may be 'us' that reaches the singularity through a merge which renders this question moot.

Even if we were exterminated, I would argue that that it is preferable for us to be exterminated by a new and superior life form/intelligence, than for us to just exterminate ourselves and leave a sterile planet.

We exterminated the Neanderthal's, if that is the outcome for us well that's just a part of evolution.
User avatar
rsch20
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top
Next
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests