varbusiness.com— In just 15 years, we'll begin to see the merger of human and computer intelligence that ultimately will enable people to live forever. At least that's the prediction of author and futurist Ray Kurzweil.
Nov 22, 2006View in Crawl 4
Those AIs will still be limited by the energetic costs of computation, and you have to reach human capable intelligence before you can expect any advancement that our brightest couldn't pull off themselves in the same amount of time.So yes, eventually things will take off. But we need human-equivalent AIs before we can expect to be able to upload people.
"Many scientists agree conciousness is exclusive to a biological brain."many scientists agree that they have no f**king idea what consciousness isif it can come to exist through biological means (our cells) then it should be possible to create it in a virtualized version of those biological means
But the difference is they can make a rational argument about stem cells and/or abortions (as flawed as this argument may be) and relate them to murder. As such, they can claim to have the moral highground and claim a greater following. On the other hand, extending one's life span is much harder to morally argue against, because the only solid concequence people have is overpopulation. While one might think that the overpopulation argument might work, honestly I'd think that the counter-arguments that letting someone die that you have the tools to easily save, without hurting anything would counteract this. Now a few of his other predictions (brain-computer-interfaces for example) wouldn't fair so well with society, nor would in my eyes his predictions for voice controlled computer interfaces and a few other things, which seem to exist directly because of his biases (I can't do it so well when I'm drunk, I disturb other people a whole lot more when I'm doing it, and I could correct my mistakes a whole lot less conveniently with speech than with a keyboard, not to mention the fact that the progression of thoughts as they exist in the written form would feel awkward, with pauses at strange moments, from a lifetime of verbal interaction with people.)
To paraphrase what you just said: "If there's too many people alive, bad things could happen, so we should make sure people die." Is it just me, or does that sound an awful lot like promoting genocide (making sure all the old people die off when we have the means to keep it from happening).
@urielis: When the law has been going for the entire life of the universe, it's not too likely that it's going to up and stop one day. That's what the Law of Accelerating Returns and The Singularity is Near discusses. But you knew that already because you've read both. Right? Or are you just talking about things without knowing about them?And regarding physical laws acting as constraints: You're right, there are physical limits. You know what they are? Enough computation power in a sugar cube sized nanotechnology processor to run a million Earth's worth of people. So really, let's not pretend like the human brain is the end all be all of computing.Think about it for a second here. The human brain is composed of a hundred billion rather slow, rather large neurons. A hundred billion transistors is nowhere near as large as the brain. It's not a perfect comparison, but with current technology alone you could probably build an entire brain's worth of circuitry and still get a smaller device. So let's not even act like the brain is so mechanically complex that technology will never be able to compare, because the brain isn't mechanically complex, it's complex in the details of its arrangement and "settings" of its neurons, not in physical scale and connective properties.
From Surreptitious: " Wow, you honestly would want to do that? Thats just plain pointless and nerdy if you ask me. Also, Im not going to read the article because ive heard the man speak before, I agree with somethings... but I seriously doubt you could suck our soul out of are body and put it into a computer."Surreptitious has just proved that there are some brains not worth backing up. (grin)Seriously though, you spend your lifetime building up memories, education, experiences and adventures...And you'd call the ability to back it up "nerdy" and "pointless"?I bet you wouldn't give a second thought to the importance of backing up your porn collection though. (grin)Let me put it to you this way...If you got into a serious accident and suffered brain damage and memory loss, you bet you'd want the doctors to pump your veins full of medical nanobots with instructions to re-encode newly grown brain neurons and cells with your most recently saved cerebral back-up. That's basically the point of the "pointless" technology he's speculating on.
Groan. Every generation since the beginning of the industrial revolution has said it would conquer death. Guess what, we're still dying, and if the US obesity epidemic (i.e. people eating way to much animal protein/refined carbs/refined sugar and saturated fat) continues we are all going to start dying a whole lot younger.I'll save the suspense, you are going to die, whether you like it or not!
Ray is a smart man, and optimism is smart too ... but his crystal has a little too much ruby color in it. 50 years ago, the experts predicted we'd be riding moving sidewalks everywhere, when we weren't flying our cars.Fifteen years? In 1970 nuclear fusion was 20 years off. AI was going to change the world.Hope away, but don't hold your breath.
Afreyt - I tend to agree that the optimism needs to be tempered. I don't agree with Ray's "singularity" nonsense as even human level AI is still...human level. I disagree though that working in a lab is required to understand the complexity . Pick up a few advanced bio books and it hits you square between the eyes. The magnitude of the complexity for something like aging is such that there's really only one way to tackle it. Head on! Go through the process of modeling what we know and build simulations where we can. Continue to devise better mathematical models that represent the biochemical machinery. There will be many gaps but just taking this approach will help predict what those gaps are. Biology IS computation and the complexity is finite. Applying machine learning, genetic algorithms, information science and high performance computing from a computational perspective and the "issues" we have will become tractable.
But then again there will always be advances and new frontiers in places never expected (ie. the internet)Trying to predict when and how inventions/advancements will happen with any degree of accuracy is futile.
Hey, dicroce! Some weeks ago saw an article about kurzweil. Very interested in motivation of those who are likely to move themselves into computers (upload mind), should such technology appears. Are you really going to move yourself into soulless (no religion), sterile, binary world, where everything is forecast (even random numbers) due to the nature of any algorithm, where there is no joy of irrationality? Do you suffer in your today's body? Or mind? No offense, just trying to understand the reasoning, psychology, and outook of guys who would gladly trade real for the simulation! If you can't answer, would please to show some web-resource, where such discussions are held? Thanks.
afreytNov 23, 2006
Those AIs will still be limited by the energetic costs of computation, and you have to reach human capable intelligence before you can expect any advancement that our brightest couldn't pull off themselves in the same amount of time.So yes, eventually things will take off. But we need human-equivalent AIs before we can expect to be able to upload people.
tylerjamesNov 23, 2006
"Many scientists agree conciousness is exclusive to a biological brain."many scientists agree that they have no f**king idea what consciousness isif it can come to exist through biological means (our cells) then it should be possible to create it in a virtualized version of those biological means
tiakNov 23, 2006
But the difference is they can make a rational argument about stem cells and/or abortions (as flawed as this argument may be) and relate them to murder. As such, they can claim to have the moral highground and claim a greater following. On the other hand, extending one's life span is much harder to morally argue against, because the only solid concequence people have is overpopulation. While one might think that the overpopulation argument might work, honestly I'd think that the counter-arguments that letting someone die that you have the tools to easily save, without hurting anything would counteract this. Now a few of his other predictions (brain-computer-interfaces for example) wouldn't fair so well with society, nor would in my eyes his predictions for voice controlled computer interfaces and a few other things, which seem to exist directly because of his biases (I can't do it so well when I'm drunk, I disturb other people a whole lot more when I'm doing it, and I could correct my mistakes a whole lot less conveniently with speech than with a keyboard, not to mention the fact that the progression of thoughts as they exist in the written form would feel awkward, with pauses at strange moments, from a lifetime of verbal interaction with people.)
tiakNov 23, 2006
To paraphrase what you just said: "If there's too many people alive, bad things could happen, so we should make sure people die." Is it just me, or does that sound an awful lot like promoting genocide (making sure all the old people die off when we have the means to keep it from happening).
psygnisfiveNov 23, 2006
@urielis: When the law has been going for the entire life of the universe, it's not too likely that it's going to up and stop one day. That's what the Law of Accelerating Returns and The Singularity is Near discusses. But you knew that already because you've read both. Right? Or are you just talking about things without knowing about them?And regarding physical laws acting as constraints: You're right, there are physical limits. You know what they are? Enough computation power in a sugar cube sized nanotechnology processor to run a million Earth's worth of people. So really, let's not pretend like the human brain is the end all be all of computing.Think about it for a second here. The human brain is composed of a hundred billion rather slow, rather large neurons. A hundred billion transistors is nowhere near as large as the brain. It's not a perfect comparison, but with current technology alone you could probably build an entire brain's worth of circuitry and still get a smaller device. So let's not even act like the brain is so mechanically complex that technology will never be able to compare, because the brain isn't mechanically complex, it's complex in the details of its arrangement and "settings" of its neurons, not in physical scale and connective properties.
tomzer1Nov 23, 2006
From Surreptitious: " Wow, you honestly would want to do that? Thats just plain pointless and nerdy if you ask me. Also, Im not going to read the article because ive heard the man speak before, I agree with somethings... but I seriously doubt you could suck our soul out of are body and put it into a computer."Surreptitious has just proved that there are some brains not worth backing up. (grin)Seriously though, you spend your lifetime building up memories, education, experiences and adventures...And you'd call the ability to back it up "nerdy" and "pointless"?I bet you wouldn't give a second thought to the importance of backing up your porn collection though. (grin)Let me put it to you this way...If you got into a serious accident and suffered brain damage and memory loss, you bet you'd want the doctors to pump your veins full of medical nanobots with instructions to re-encode newly grown brain neurons and cells with your most recently saved cerebral back-up. That's basically the point of the "pointless" technology he's speculating on.
jumanousNov 23, 2006
Groan. Every generation since the beginning of the industrial revolution has said it would conquer death. Guess what, we're still dying, and if the US obesity epidemic (i.e. people eating way to much animal protein/refined carbs/refined sugar and saturated fat) continues we are all going to start dying a whole lot younger.I'll save the suspense, you are going to die, whether you like it or not!
twangoNov 23, 2006
Ray is a smart man, and optimism is smart too ... but his crystal has a little too much ruby color in it. 50 years ago, the experts predicted we'd be riding moving sidewalks everywhere, when we weren't flying our cars.Fifteen years? In 1970 nuclear fusion was 20 years off. AI was going to change the world.Hope away, but don't hold your breath.
jcraig949Nov 23, 2006
Afreyt - I tend to agree that the optimism needs to be tempered. I don't agree with Ray's "singularity" nonsense as even human level AI is still...human level. I disagree though that working in a lab is required to understand the complexity . Pick up a few advanced bio books and it hits you square between the eyes. The magnitude of the complexity for something like aging is such that there's really only one way to tackle it. Head on! Go through the process of modeling what we know and build simulations where we can. Continue to devise better mathematical models that represent the biochemical machinery. There will be many gaps but just taking this approach will help predict what those gaps are. Biology IS computation and the complexity is finite. Applying machine learning, genetic algorithms, information science and high performance computing from a computational perspective and the "issues" we have will become tractable.
heatmiserNov 26, 2006
But then again there will always be advances and new frontiers in places never expected (ie. the internet)Trying to predict when and how inventions/advancements will happen with any degree of accuracy is futile.
oleglyaminMar 11, 2008
Hey, dicroce! Some weeks ago saw an article about kurzweil. Very interested in motivation of those who are likely to move themselves into computers (upload mind), should such technology appears. Are you really going to move yourself into soulless (no religion), sterile, binary world, where everything is forecast (even random numbers) due to the nature of any algorithm, where there is no joy of irrationality? Do you suffer in your today's body? Or mind? No offense, just trying to understand the reasoning, psychology, and outook of guys who would gladly trade real for the simulation! If you can't answer, would please to show some web-resource, where such discussions are held? Thanks.