Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

GPT4 Artificial Intelligence Online

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

Re: The Singularity Summit 2008

Unread postby Carlhole » Wed 03 Sep 2008, 18:41:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'G')rowing population, climate change, soil depletion, pollution of environment, fresh water depletion, depletion of elements essential to high tech (gallium, indium, platinides, lanthanides, hafnium, rhenium, and few others) are just few looming issues related to limits on progress.


Time will tell.

In the meantime, there are all sorts of AI projects going on, computer technology continues to race ahead, there are more and more efforts to reverse engineer biological brains... and there is absolutely no sign at all that the momentum of technology is slowing down. Rather, people will apply technology to all the problems you listed above.

Usually, in science, if you have a theory, you use it to make a prediction. So make a prediction: When will it become obvious to everyone that the pace of technology and the progression of Science has slowed or come to a dead-stop? 20 years? 30 years?

And then, as we move forward, we'll see how correct you are. Those are the rules that the people speaking at The Singularity Summit 2008 play by. They have made their predictions.

You can't prove things that can only occur in the future. You can only look at the current trend. right now, the technology curve has been graphically shown to be sloping exponentially upwards to the eventual creation of machine intelligence.

If human society runs into an energy/resource crunch, population will radically decline way before human problem-solving (technology) will because problem-solving and technology is innately human. Studies like IBM's Blue Brain Project are not particularly expensive or resource-intensive to do and hold fabulous promise.

Wikipedia - Singularity
[align=center]Image[/align]

If you are saying that this strong trend is going to suddenly come to end. Then, you should provide a prediction as to when it will occur. It sure looks like you're stepping in front of a freight train at present.

If you are talking about big problems ahead for human being, that simply means that human beings will apply the best of their problem-solving talents toward solving them. That means more science and technology.

If part of that solution entails a population decline, then human beings will find a way to achieve that end. But we will never see an end to accumulating knowledge and an end to question-asking and truth-seeking.
Last edited by Carlhole on Wed 03 Sep 2008, 20:45:04, edited 2 times in total.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: The Singularity Summit 2008

Unread postby outcast » Wed 03 Sep 2008, 20:35:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')depletion of elements essential to high tech (gallium, indium, platinides, lanthanides, hafnium, rhenium, and few others)



As has been stated in previous threads, that just isn't happening. Even if that article wasn't debunked we can always find alternatives. It happened before with the Tantalum depletion scare (which not surprisingly turned out to be bunk as well)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')rowing population,


Only in the 3rd world, and even then it is expected to peak in a couple of decades.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'c')limate change,


Ok, this one actually is a problem.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 's')oil depletion,


http://en.allexperts.com/q/Agriculture- ... h-Fact.htm

Apparently not happening as much as you think.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'p')ollution of environment,


To be fair in the developed world there have been major strides to fix that problem. PCB's were banned decades ago and now there are regulations preventing the dumping of untreated industrial waste into the rivers, as well as air pollution. When the developing world is ready, they will follow suit.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'f')resh water depletion,


Yeah, this is a big problem. On promising solution is more large scale desalinization plants to provide extra fresh water. It isn't enough of course, but it will help.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o do you think that after WW III (which is a very likely outcome of developing turmoil) you will have much technology left to fiddle with?


Do you seriously believe world war 3 is just around the corner? Wow.
User avatar
outcast
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 885
Joined: Mon 21 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Singularity Summit 2008

Unread postby mos6507 » Wed 03 Sep 2008, 21:25:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('outcast', '
')Only in the 3rd world, and even then it is expected to peak in a couple of decades.


That's your idea of optimism? It's still too many for a world with dwindling fossil fuels, and could very well doom us to a die-off as many (if not the majority) here believe.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('outcast', '
')Yeah, this is a big problem. On promising solution is more large scale desalinization plants to provide extra fresh water. It isn't enough of course, but it will help.


Desalinization requires energy. See the vicious cycle here? You're trying to treat the symptoms, thinking that the root cause will just resolve itself on its own. I don't think it will, or if it could, it would happen fast enough to avoid a major catastrophe.
mos6507
 
Top

Re: The Singularity Summit 2008

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Thu 04 Sep 2008, 08:13:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') am arguing with a complete idiot if you insist on comparing flat-earthers to the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), or to IBM's Blue Brain Project, or to the Chief Technology Officer at Intel Corporation or to any of all the top scientists featured in the IEEE's recent issue of The Spectrum:

No amount of computing can alter physical reality of surrounding world.
Regardless of that simple fact there are still imbeciles, who believe so. :)

The motor cortex of the human brain seems the most obvious counterexample of that. I know you like one liners, but you really should be more verbose about what you're trying to argue, because I cant tell what you're trying to say besides being contrary.

Intelligent being, would that be a human, human aided with computer or a post human singularity must have a mechanical means to influence surrounding physical world.
Without that any amount of intelligence is of no practical use.

Those mechanical means are very conventional and I do not see much scope for substantial progress there (albeit some progress is possible).

So such a "superintelligent singularity" located in the set of boxes in some IBM lab would be truly frightened realizing that some monkey (for example IT researcher from the lab) is fiddling around power supply or waving a glass of coffee above critical circuitry.
And yet despite of its intelligence it could do nothing to prevent such events and their possible catastrophic (from perspective of AI) consequences.

OK. It could display a message on the screen "please stop doing it, I am scared" or more assertive "if you don't take that bloody glass of coffee away I will send some virus which will cripple Internet for good and you will never manage to bring it back to work unless you make one entirely new", but ultimately it would be powerless to stop the monkey doing whatever.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Singularity Summit 2008

Unread postby Carlhole » Fri 05 Sep 2008, 00:04:27

[url=http://www.geoffolson.com/page71/files/8b46515d37aa0b9f27f1aa7a397de344-6.html]Sun may soon shine on solar-powered revolution
Oil, coal and nuclear can't compete with big star in sky [/url]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Geoff Olson', 'A')ccording to futurist and inventor Ray Kurzweil, solar power will be the dominant form of energy source within the next 20 years. With the use of solar power doubling every two years, it is following the exponential growth of previous technologies, Kurzweil says. The futurist has seen similar kinds of patterns in the past and has correctly predicted the outcomes. He foresaw the explosive growth of the Internet and wireless systems and also predicted the downfall of the Soviet Union.

With wind factored in, the possibilities are even sunnier. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Washington – one of the U.S. Department of Energy’s 10 national laboratories – estimates that, as wind power drops to competitive levels, it could quickly supply 20 percent of the US’ electrical needs. With the proper infrastructure implemented, some researchers put the figure at 30 percent.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')onetheless, there have been two persistent bugaboos of solar power: it doesn’t work when the sun goes down and storing power is expensive. This is why solar still supplies only a small percentage of the world’s electricity. Off-the-shelf batteries are still too big and expensive to compete with other options. In comparison, fossil or renewable fuels act as their own storage, making for ease of use and transport.

That nut may finally have been cracked, however. In August, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) claimed to have found a radically inexpensive way to store solar power. Eoin O’Carroll described the feat in an article published in the Christian Science Monitor: “Daniel Nocera, a chemistry professor at MIT, and Matthew Kanan, a postdoctoral fellow in Mr. Nocera’s lab, have developed a catalyst made from cobalt and phosphate that can split water into oxygen and hydrogen gas. When used in conjunction with a photovoltaic solar panel, their system can use water to store the sun’s energy.”

Cobalt replaces electrodes made of platinum, which is more expensive than gold, thereby reducing costs by a huge margin. Nocera describes his catalyst discovery as a solar power “Nirvana,” with the inference that we can now “seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon.”

In a Forbes magazine interview, Nocera enthuses about his battery’s replication of photosynthesis. “Once you put a photovoltaic on it, you’ve got an inorganic leaf,” he says. The chem prof figures he’s managed to match wits with Gaia. “For six months now, I’ve been looking at the leaves and saying, ‘I own you guys!’”


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')oel Bellenson is convinced solar will introduce massive changes into society, on a global scale. A typical conversation with the 43-year-old polymath ranges from the genetics of human scent to Big Bang cosmology to the politics of sub-Saharan Africa. It’s like talking to a bipedal Library of Congress or a jovial Wikipedia. The Vancouver resident describes himself as a “serial entrepreneur at the intersection of life sciences and information technology.”

Bellenson co-founded Pangea Systems/DoubleTwist, which in 1999 was the first to annotate the human genome and make it available to academics for free to prevent it from being patented by Celera. He is currently the CEO of Upstream Biosciences, which investigates new drugs for Global South infectious diseases, such as Malaria, Black Fever, Sleeping Sickness, Chagas and TB, utilizing artificial intelligence and chemical data.

The Stanford graduate relates the current thinking among solar power researchers: “Based on a mid range of 25 percent efficiency, solar panels generating 90 Terawatts of power – ~6X the planet’s current energy consumption of all types: electricity, heat, transportation – would require no more than 360,000 square kilometers.”

The whole planet, including the projected population growth by 2050, could be powered at North American levels for electricity, heat and transportation by sunny land smaller than the state of Montana, he says. “One hectare of sunlit land surface area, covered with a 15 level, LED-lit, hydroponic greenhouse with solar panels on top, will produce the equivalent of 150 outdoor, arable hectares of food, assuming LED and solar panel efficiencies expected within the next five to 10 years.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: The Singularity Summit 2008

Unread postby outcast » Fri 05 Sep 2008, 00:57:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat's your idea of optimism? It's still too many for a world with dwindling fossil fuels, and could very well doom us to a die-off as many (if not the majority) here believe.



The only reason we still depend on fossil fuels is because with very few exceptions (namely electricity in France) no one has invested in it seriously until now. But in any case where is most of the population growth going to be? South East Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. All these areas are already seriously underdeveloped and fucked up anyway. If doom will come, it will be to them, not the rest of us.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')esalinization requires energy. See the vicious cycle here? You're trying to treat the symptoms, thinking that the root cause will just resolve itself on its own. I don't think it will, or if it could, it would happen fast enough to avoid a major catastrophe.


Energy comes in many forms, not just fossil fuels. The trends show that the population is slowing down, in fact it is slowing so much that the projected trends have been consistently revised DOWN.

People were saying doom is imminent in the 60's and nothing happened. One day the doomers will be right, but I'm not convinced it will be this time.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hose mechanical means are very conventional and I do not see much scope for substantial progress there (albeit some progress is possible).


A large part of the manufacturing process of our technological products (for example your computer) is already done with machines and/or robots. For a super-intelligent AI, writing algorithms to automate everything else would not be too troublesome.
User avatar
outcast
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 885
Joined: Mon 21 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Singularity Summit 2008

Unread postby Carlhole » Fri 05 Sep 2008, 01:58:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('outcast', 'A') large part of the manufacturing process of our technological products (for example your computer) is already done with machines and/or robots. For a super-intelligent AI, writing algorithms to automate everything else would not be too troublesome.


The electrical circuits in a modern microchip are about a million times faster than the electrochemical basis of neurons in the human brain.

The reason that the brain is so much more powerful than logic chips, is that it is massively parallel. And the brain is not digital either. In fact, the means by which the brain models it's environment with memories, concepts, abstract ideas, language and meta-language is nearly a total mystery.

At the heart of the matter lies the question: Are we smart enough to figure out how our own thinking apparatus works?

If we are, then there will definitely be a "Singularity" event in our near future. If we are NOT smart enough to figure it out, then the brain's functioning will remain impervious to our most sensitive probings - and scientists are now probing on a molecular level; I wouldn't bet on the mystery remaining for more than a couple of decades.

It appears that the "magic" of the brain relies quite a lot upon repetitive design. So what are the simplest neural paradigms? This is what experiments, such as the Blue Brain Project, have sought to begin discovering.

Once mystery yields to discovery, principles can be adopted for use in computer technology. This doesn't mean that people will want to perfectly reproduce the very organic and animalistic human brain (which is evolved for bragging about itself, squabbling over shiny things and fighting over pussy) in silicon. No, no...

Rather, computer scientists will seek to combine the massively parallel, self-programming features of the brain with the speed-of-light logic capabilities of super-computers.

Can you imagine what it would be like if you were to have your own accustomed sense of self just as you do now but yet you did not have any limits on your ability to learn - either from a subject being too complex or from a subject having too massive an amount of data to digest? And that you could absorb that information in electronic or digital form? Investigate multiple subjects simultaneously and make thousands of decisions effortlessly every single second?

Suppose you were idly thinking about some problem in one part of your mind. This one part, just like in a daydream, could instantly design a program for another part of your mind to run at a quadrillion calculations per second. You would be capable of all sorts of exceedingly complex thoughts simultaneously, all sorts of thought experiments about the nature of reality. Your mind could split itself into as many different minds as it cared to and re-form into one single one again if it wanted to. You would become a wholly different creature than you are now. If this ultra-intelligent consciousness of yours were housed in a standard human body, it would be a horrible prison.

It is because of such reasonably certain expectations -- that scientists will NOT find insurmountable barriers to understanding the neurological basis of thought and intelligence -- that people have predicted that the singularity is indeed near.

[web]http://singularity.com/themovie/[/web]
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: The Singularity Summit 2008

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Fri 05 Sep 2008, 03:15:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')Usually, in science, if you have a theory, you use it to make a prediction. So make a prediction: When will it become obvious to everyone that the pace of technology and the progression of Science has slowed or come to a dead-stop? 20 years? 30 years?

It may never come to dead stop, but it may and ultimately have to face asymptote parallel to OX axis where time is presented on OX and total knowledge on OY, even assuming perfect world.
In actual (real) world, it must begin to collapse, sufficient time given, due to irresistible environmental changes etc.

It may also collapse either due to some sequence of catastrophic events on military or environmental front or due to a mere collapse of consumerist civilization.

So here you have my testable prediction:

collapse of consumerist civilization for whatever reason will precipitate a dawn of scientific progress. It will either cause such progress to stall or in more severe circumstances loss of part of already accrued knowledge will occur.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou can't prove things that can only occur in the future. You can only look at the current trend. right now, the technology curve has been graphically shown to be sloping exponentially upwards to the eventual creation of machine intelligence.

I already pointed out that running exponential curves ab infinitum or even beyond certain reasonable time in physical world leads to absurd long term predictions.
That is why I am comparing Singularitarians to Flat Earthers.
They are failing to realize that their models are breaking down at some point, similarly to a breakdown of flat Earth model on the line of horizon.

My predictions for improvement of IT hardware are as follows:

1. The ultimate limit for progress of chip component miniaturization is around a year 2019, when size of electronic components will be as small as size of atoms. In fact it will be rather before 2019 and that is because single component (transistor gate or whatever) have to consist of at least few atoms and also because system will become increasingly unreliable (prone to damage) with drop of component size beyond certain borderline.

NB. this is well below limits dictated by physics and cosmology, where Planckian distance (10 E-35m) is considered as a size of smallest possible component and amount of matter and space available in expanding Universe is taken into account.
That ultimate limit gives you 600 years of exponential progress of IT as per Moore Law.

2. Digital systems will never replicate working of human brain because human brain is not digital and it is not made of small transistors and because IMO all the creativity and so called intelligence is steaming from slightly erratic work of neurons, a feature which cannot be replicated by digital systems. So those who want to mimic workings of brain will have to abandon digital approach
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')tudies like IBM's Blue Brain Project are not particularly expensive or resource-intensive to do and hold fabulous promise.

Nevertheless they *do* require huge supporting infrastructure to function.
This infrastructure have a very wide uses and supporting of IT projects is only an incredibly small proportion of its total applications, but nevertheless once it falls to disrepair adventures like IT development will certainly be gone.
Existance of consumerist society is a prerequisite for such infrastructure to be worth maintaining.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f you are saying that this strong trend is going to suddenly come to end. Then, you should provide a prediction as to when it will occur. It sure looks like you're stepping in front of a freight train at present.

As I have already explained, running exponential estimations ab infinitum in limited, physical world leads to absurd predictions.
You have few of my predictions above.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f you are talking about big problems ahead for human being, that simply means that human beings will apply the best of their problem-solving talents toward solving them. That means more science and technology.
There are limits for scope of problems, which science and technology is capable to solve in surrounding physical world.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f part of that solution entails a population decline, then human beings will find a way to achieve that end.
Famine, disease, fertility loss or combination of above.
Human design is not needed here.
If attempted, it will result in global war.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut we will never see an end to accumulating knowledge...
...and Earth is flat.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.')..and an end to question-asking and truth-seeking.
...so religions will help.

Actually science is becoming one of them.

Ever heard about variety of string/brane theories?
Any testable predictions there?
...if we only had a particle accelerator size of Galaxy... or preferably a bit bigger one... :-D :-D :-D
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Singularity Summit 2008

Unread postby Carlhole » Thu 06 Nov 2008, 11:34:36

C-Realm Podcast, Episode 127: The Cube Remains the Cube

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'K')MO explores the middle ground between techno-utopianism and Peak Oil collapse fetishism with Digital Crusader, Eric Boyd, who attended the recent Singularity Summit. Then Michael Tsarion provides his perspective on the mechanisms of political power and the significance of the Obama electoral victory.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: The Singularity Summit 2008

Unread postby rsch20 » Sun 09 Nov 2008, 21:33:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')
Another consideration for leapfrogging human intelligence is whether such a God-like being would merely go insane. Why didn't the neocortex evolve to these higher levels in the first place, after all? Biological limitations?

No. Natural selection simply doesnt have a 'goal.' One might as well ask why the neocortex didnt evolve millions of years earlier and select for the smartest dinosaur.


You miss my point - why did evolution stop at MENSA levels? Possibly intelligence simply has a ceiling, or, if it's going to go through the roof, needs tempering or a strong organizational framework, as well depicted in Walter Jon Williams' novel Aristoi.


to address this specific point, it's true that natural selection doesn't have a 'goal' or at least it doesn't specifically select for higher intelligence, humans pay a large cost for our intelligence, several years of complete dependence, we are ALL born 'premature' and even at that state our heads are so big that they pose an actual threat to the life of the mother, human women suffer a more painful and dangerous childbirthing process than most mammals. THAT is the natural limitation on our intelligence and why we aren't 'more' intelligent.

Additionally studies on fruitflies have shown that you can make them more intelligent but that they suffer an evolutionary cost for it, having shorter lifespans and performing less well than 'regular' fruit flies when put into a population with them.

Natural selection indeed doesn't have a goal and doesn't always select for more intelligence, however natural selection is NOT the force at work here, it's completely immaterial. technology is DESIGNED, so it (technological progress) does have a goal, and does select for intelligence.

I tried passing this message (singularity/omega point) around a few years ago and encountered the same wall of ignorance. Carlhole is correct and the naysayers have their heads in the sand.

A point I think gets overlooked a lot, is that the singularity is ITSELF a global catastrophic threat (at least possibly), people who discuss this subject are as concerned about it as you are about peak oil. we are not (not all of us anyway) techno-utopians who are calling for virtual jesus to come save us, we are people that see a disturbing trend and are pointing at it in the hopes that with enough awareness humanity as a whole might be able to guide the process a little instead of stumbling blindly into the future.

Which brings me to my next point, both theories, Peak Oil, and The Singularity, are based on the same methodology, both look at a trend and say 'hey, this might be a problem in the future'. Peak Oil looks at the trends of oil discovery and depletion and applies it to the future, The Singularity looks at the trends of technology and applies that to the future. To argue against it is to argue against your own methodology.

On the topic of global catastrophic risks, Carl you may find this interesting (actually I'm assuming you've already read it but if not it made me think)

Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks
http://www.singinst.org/upload/cognitive-biases.pdf

And on the lighter side:

The Friendly AI Critical Failure Table
http://www.sl4.org/wiki/FriendlyAICriticalFailureTable
User avatar
rsch20
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Singularity Summit 2008

Unread postby rsch20 » Sun 09 Nov 2008, 21:52:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '
')Intelligent being, would that be a human, human aided with computer or a post human singularity must have a mechanical means to influence surrounding physical world.
Without that any amount of intelligence is of no practical use.


your point is not valid, go tell google they have no practical use.
User avatar
rsch20
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

We're not smart enough, we need AI

Unread postby Narz » Sat 22 Nov 2008, 21:41:17

Lets face it. Humanity has gotten in over our heads. We need to create "life" smarter than us to figure out how to solve our messes. That's just all there is to it. As a species, we're selfish, emotional & short-sighted. Silicon is the answer. Luddites should step aside. Without technology we're doomed, with it we're maybe doomed, maybe not. Either way, going Ted Kaczynski now is too little, too late.

Even if runaway climate change is unsolvable, even by the finest robot brain & millions of nano-bot swarms, perhaps we can at least develop artificial life that can live on for/as posterity. :)

Thoughts?
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
Top

Re: We're not smart enough, we need AI

Unread postby lowem » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 04:05:03

SkyNet.

:lol:
Live quotes - oil/gold/silver
User avatar
lowem
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1901
Joined: Mon 19 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Singapore
Top

Re: We're not smart enough, we need AI

Unread postby perdition79 » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 05:44:42

The planet will take care of itself; robotic caretakers would only speed up the process slightly. Considering the couple hundred years that robots would continue to function after we're gone, their contribution on a geologic time frame of billions of years wouldn't even be statistically significant.

Still, it's cool to think about the next creature with opposable thumbs a couple hundred million years from now, happening upon a cyborg fossil embedded in a canyon wall. It would certainly screw with any theories they have on evolution.
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/

"We are building a religion; we are building it bigger. We are widening the corridors and adding more lanes."
Cake - Comfort Eagle
User avatar
perdition79
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Fri 21 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Babylon
Top

Re: We're not smart enough, we need AI

Unread postby mos6507 » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 09:44:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', 'L')ets face it. Humanity has gotten in over our heads. We need to create "life" smarter than us to figure out how to solve our messes. That's just all there is to it. As a species, we're selfish, emotional & short-sighted. Silicon is the answer.


Not a unique sentiment.

The Savior Machine

President Joe once had a dream
The world held his hand, gave their pledge
So he told them his scheme for a Saviour Machine

They called it the Prayer, its answer was law
Its logic stopped war, gave them food
How they adored till it cried in its boredom

'Please don't believe in me, please disagree with me
Life is too easy, a plague seems quite feasible now
or maybe a war, or I may kill you all

Don't let me stay, don't let me stay
My logic says burn so send me away
Your minds are too green, I despise all I've seen
You can't stake your lives on a Saviour Machine

I need you flying, and I'll show that dying
Is living beyond reason, sacred dimension of time
I perceive every sign, I can steal every mind

Don't let me stay, don't let me stay
My logic says burn so send me away
Your minds are too green, I despise all I've seen
You can't stake your lives on a Saviour Machine
mos6507
 
Top

Re: We're not smart enough, we need AI

Unread postby Dezakin » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 11:24:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('perdition79', 'T')he planet will take care of itself; robotic caretakers would only speed up the process slightly. Considering the couple hundred years that robots would continue to function after we're gone, their contribution on a geologic time frame of billions of years wouldn't even be statistically significant.

Still, it's cool to think about the next creature with opposable thumbs a couple hundred million years from now, happening upon a cyborg fossil embedded in a canyon wall. It would certainly screw with any theories they have on evolution.

What makes you think it wouldn't burn through the stars especially since it wouldn't have any of the biological bottlenecks human civilization has? When a machine is capable enough to replicate itself, what makes you think it would stop?
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: We're not smart enough, we need AI

Unread postby kakkerlak » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 11:32:58

Greed, jealousy, fear, anger, envy, lust, pride, hate, vanity, etc. are our real problems. These things are the cause. If you want a solution then you have to do something about this.

Entire forests are burned to the ground because some poor farmer wants to make a few dollars. On the north pole baby seals are beaten to dead for a few dollars. Near the south pole whales are killed in order to give some idiots in Japan something special to eat. Wastelands are created because we want this stupid oil to fuel our cars. Etc.

This has nothing to do with intelligence! Even a child can see that it is wrong. Even a child knows that burning down an entire forest for a few dollars is a bad investment. You don't need A.I. to figure this out.

You know what? I'm going to say that a child is smarter then anyone trying to justify these things. Whatever you say or do, a child will never ever accept the killing of those poor baby seals. You don't need A.I. to tell you that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', 'A')s a species, we're selfish, emotional & short-sighted

You want a solution? Here it is...
Stop being selfish!
Stop being short-sighted!
Control your emotions!

You don't need A.I. to do that.

The reason it's going bad with the world is because everybody is trying to find weak excuses to justify bad behaviour. Nobody is taking responsibility for themselves. Nobody is saying: "I am the problem." and that's why its going bad with the world. And that's also the solution.

It's actually very simple. Even a child understand it. Apparently children are smarter then adults.

Have fun!
Roach
As an obsessive perfectionist it is not unusual for me to spend an hour writing and re-writing a single sentence. When abandoning perfection i ask you to judge me on my ideas, not on my words.
User avatar
kakkerlak
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri 18 Jan 2008, 04:00:00
Location: The Netherlands
Top

Re: We're not smart enough, we need AI

Unread postby Zardoz » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 12:44:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kakkerlak', 'G')reed, jealousy, fear, anger, envy, lust, pride, hate, vanity, etc. are our real problems. These things are the cause. If you want a solution then you have to do something about this...

...Stop being selfish!
Stop being short-sighted!
Control your emotions!...

You might as well demand that the sun starts rising in the west.
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia
Top

Re: We're not smart enough, we need AI

Unread postby Kylon » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 12:54:11

I totally agree, we need an AI to take control. Then we can live in the matrix and be completely regenerated artificially.


Imagine, living in a virtual world, while machines take care of our bodies and our brains.

Never dying, never aging, just existing, constant stimulation, so while the biosphere is destroyed, we go on, living forever in The Matrix.

Population controls are implemented as all reproduction is artificial, so the population never grows past the carrying capacity of our world.

Machines could power everything with nuclear power.


Ahh the Joy of living, in the Matrix.
User avatar
Kylon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 836
Joined: Fri 12 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: We're not smart enough, we need AI

Unread postby kakkerlak » Mon 24 Nov 2008, 01:34:26

Thoughts about A.I - Understanding and Creativity
Written by someone without relevant knowledge :razz:

Connecting information

Trees get most of their energy and building materials from the air. Trees don't have to eat and don't have a digestive system like humans have. Now, imagine some tree like aliens visiting our world. You happen to be nearby, eating a fresh sandwich and the "tree alien" asks you; "What's that?" pointing at the bread in your hand.
[smilie=XXsmoker.gif]

Explaining this is going to take some time. Before you're able to explain bread you have to explain the concept of eating. And to explain the concept of eating you have to explain our digestive system first. After you're done explaining all of these complicated matters you can finally talk about bread and all its flavors and shapes. Pfttt.

For a tree alien to be able to understand bread in the same way as a human does it needs to learn many things and new concepts associated with bread. To give a few keywords; baking, bakery, flour, salt, grain, farmer, eating, flavor, poop, recipe, oven, butter, etc.

This is (in a certain way) what the brain does; connecting information, making associations and categorizing information. And some of these connections or associations are more relevant then others, depending on the situation. For A.I. to be as intelligent as a human it needs to be able to do this; correctly make associations between different pieces of information.
[smilie=profe.gif]

Google intelligence

The Google search engine is a wonderful tool. By just typing a few keywords you're able to know everything you want to know. I use Google almost literally as an extension of my brain.
[smilie=user.gif]

Google connects information, makes associations and categorizes it. Take for example the word "television". It can be associated with many different things depending on the situation; entertainment, CNN, cable, movies, light, electricity, sex, energy, fun, eyes, chair, fun, etc.

To unleash all these connections between information only a few keywords have to be used in Google. To know what a television is, what it does and how it works you can start your search by simply typing "television" inside a little box. This word alone gives 282 million hits! That's a lot of information, connections and associations. And all this informations is all categorized according to relevance depending on the situation. *cough*

Creativity and information

When i wrote this text i made many different associations between information. Some of these connections are more relevant then others and some do not make much sense at all. For some weird reason my brain managed to connect and associate artificial intelligence with "tree aliens", bread, watching television and Google. THAT is creativity!
[smilie=new_silly.gif]

Logical conclusion

A.I. needs the ability to go beyond and transcend logic and numbers. It needs to make illogical, irrelevant and senseless associations. It has to be able to tell a story about a "tree alien" visiting our planet in order to eat bread in front of a television.

Have fun!
Roach :-D
As an obsessive perfectionist it is not unusual for me to spend an hour writing and re-writing a single sentence. When abandoning perfection i ask you to judge me on my ideas, not on my words.
User avatar
kakkerlak
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri 18 Jan 2008, 04:00:00
Location: The Netherlands
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron