Singularity – The Apocalypse?
I’m not a believer in prophecies of doom or end-of-the-world stuff, as they’re usually not grounded on any scientific facts and/or at most a bunch of ‘if’ and ‘when’, while being voiced by shady people.
However, i wanted to share with you a curious theory i came across the past days. The more i read about it, the more it made sense and rang a familiar bell, while totally blowing me away by the sheer plausibility of it, and how close we might be to it.
The theory i’m talking about is called the Singularity. It represents a future point in time of unprecedented breakthru of technological progress after which the human race and the world will be changed beyond recognition. The trigger for this event is the moment where a Superior Artificial Intelligence (SAI) is created. By definition, an SAI surpasses the human intellect, and as such ‘thinks’ like no other human. Here then, is where our model of the future breaks down. We cannot predict what an SAI can do after the Singularity occurs, as we are not super-intelligent ourselves. For example, just like a Chimpanzee can never think or comprehend like us, we cannot think or comprehend like an SAI.
Sounds like a lot of science-fiction techno babble right? Well.. bare with me a bit more.
Most people believe in the logical notion that we cannot possibly create an intelligence greater than our own. We created ‘it’, hence we understand ‘it’. Perfect logic, right? Wrong.
An SAI can be reached in either of three ways:
1. A computer/machine with hardware and software that surpasses human capabilities.
2. A hybrid of machine and man. A cyborg if you will.
3. A biologically advanced human, possibly by genetic engineering.
Here many of the people and scientists have different opinions on which of those three ways will lead to an SAI. The majority however, sides with the first one.
What happens in that case was explained quite well by a scientist named John Good back in 1965:
” Let an ultra-intelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultra-intelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an ‘intelligence explosion,’ and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus, the first ultra-intelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make. ”
Now you probably might say, okay we’re still hundreds of years from being able to create a computer that is more complex than our amazing human brain, if ever, right? Sorry, wrong again.
A known and proven notion called Accelerating Change describes an increase in the technological (and sometimes social and cultural) progress throughout history, which suggest faster and more profound change in the future. In simple words, the rate at which our technology progresses is getting faster and faster the further we go. This rate has a perfect mathematical exponential growth pattern, which we can measure. And if we can measure it, we can then predict where it’s heading. A good example is Moor’s Law of which you probably heard about.
And so based on current analysis of these patterns, it is projected that by the year 2020 we will have ‘simple’ computers equaling a single human brain in raw calculating power. By the year 2045 we will have computers equaling all human brains combined. Supercomputers are projected to reach these levels even faster, maybe as early as 2013 (!)
There’s so much more to say about all this stuff, and i didn’t even get into what the consequences of an SAI might be. I recommend you guys read more about this fascinating stuff and get the even more amazing bigger picture. I’d love to hear your opinions. What Say You?
Here are some links:
Singularity – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
Accelerating Change – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change
Singularity FAQ – http://jwbats.blogspot.com/2005/07/singularity-faq-for-dummies.html
Ray Kurzweil (the leading man on singularity) explains the basics – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PWXrnsSrf0 (it’s part 1, look on page for part 2 and 3)
** added Kurzweil’s essay on The Law of Accelerating Returns (you won’t be the same person after reading it) – http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1
\"What Say You?!?\" 
i’ll tell you what, that does sound plausible.
but there’s a couple of things that bother me in this theory.
first of all, i don’t think it’s a good idea to use an exponential growth pattern in order to predict when those things are going to take place. why is that? because yea, maybe it’s true that so far technology has advanced in a rather exponential pattern. but it’s only SO FAR. we don’t know for sure that we won’t encounter a certain slow-down in progress sometime in the near future, especially when it comes to computers. the reason for that is my second point: with all the progress in technology and research, we are still veeeeeery far from fully realizing the human brain. so it’s one thing that computer technology advances very fast, but brain research is a whole other thing. how can our computers compete with our logic when we don’t even completely understand our logic ourselves? ok, so according to the theory, the computers will be strong enough to advance on their own, and won’t need us to “fully realize” everything… but i still think there should be a certain starting point for that to happen. that starting point, in my opinion, can only take place when we get to a certain higher understanding of how our brain truly works in terms of logic and thinking.
i think we are far from this point. even if computer technology continue to advance exponentially and won’t encounter any drawbacks of it’s own, what’s really going to slow it down is brain research.
i don’t think this theory can take place in the near few decades…
Skynet for the win.
Alon that’s a fantastic point you made. I also had said the same thing to myself. But the fact is we might be too skeptical. Ray Kurzweil addresses this exact issue on the videos i posted, and actually pretty blows away this whole idea. I’ll give a short explanation of it myself though.
To understand why it might not take too long for us to unlock the ways of our brains, you need to be aware of a few things:
First, scientists today have already completely reverse engineered and replicated more than 20 regions in our brains, out of a total of a few hundred. And that’s using today’s technology.
Second, you’re basing your assumption that brain research will stay at slow progress even if technology continues to develop rapidly. Here is where you miss the entire point of Accelerating Change and another notion called “The Law of Accelerating Returns”. Basically, what these say is that not only does our technology develops faster and faster, but also that every new development leads to even more and greater developments in its wake. You can find proof for this in our every-day life. So try to imagine how fast brain research could accelerate using newer and better methods in the future. This brings me to next point:
Experts in Intel and IBM have already stated they are certain that current integrated-circuit progress in miniaturization and manufacturing will be sustained at least until 2019. And this is with current silicon-based tech. Consider that Quantum-based and Nanotechnology research is already well underway and rapidly gaining momentum, and you can see why experts say we won’t see any stop or even slow-down of the Accelerating Change.
Lastly, but most important, is the new discovery that our brain’s “construction plans” are much simpler than we thought. The entire information in our genes that are responsible for producing the brain is equivalent to about 100MB of data. Yes, you’re seeing correct – 100 megabytes. Amazing huh?
So how exactly does it become so complicated you ask? The key to that are Fractals. Those 100MB of genes tell the body how to create ‘something’ and then take that ‘something’ and multiply it by millions of times over. Exactly like mathematical fractals. Now, if only we had something that can calculate and make fractals… hmmm. oh yeah, we have – Computers!
See where I’m getting at?
dont you reckon CPU can do much more than a human brain?
the problem here, lies within the very example you gave with chimpanzes – just like they cant create US, we cant create something which is superior to ourselves.
ofcourse we CAN create a super computer – and there ARE many of those today, whose CPU can surpass our capabilities, MATHEMATICALLY, but what you are talking about in this theory of yours is CREATIVITY, the ability to CREATE things, and that might take hundreds of years in order for computers to have.
think about the term ‘intellect’ for a second, what does it mean? I think it means Perception. the way you perceive things. in order for that to happen in computers, they have to have eyes, ears, a mouth (in human terms, ofcourse) and such.
for today computers are only fed through keyboards, mice and mainly electric signals which run through their vains.
the conclusion is – once we widen the spectrum of “input sources” a computer can receive info from – we can advance in this matter.
Yes Adlerist, you’re correct. Your basic idea is spot on. However, like Alon, you failed to recognize a few things which change the scope and time of the outcome.
You stated the somewhat logical idea that we cannot create something which is superior to ourselves. But that is arguably not true. To be more accurate you need to add ‘Not Yet’ to that statement.
As you said computers already surpass some of our capabilities. Now, consider that in the future we’ll be able to reverse engineer our brains (which we have already started to do) so as to make a complete ‘software’ version of it and then install it on even more advanced computer hardware than today. What then will you get? Basically, a machine with a human intellect combined with relatively far superior ‘hardware’ than our biological brains. A machine with all of our Pro’s and none of our Con’s. What might such a machine be capable of?
It’s hard to imagine, but consider these: first, freed from the human body which demands more than 80% of its functions, the machine’s ‘brain’ would now have a lot more power to allocate and develop for ‘thinking’ purposes.
Secondly, because its computer hardware operates (calculates) at millions of times faster than our brain, it’s very perception of time changes. For what takes us months to think of, the machine would only take a few seconds. Or if you look at the machine’s point of view, a time span of a year will pass as mere days or hours in our rate. There’s actually a simple formula to calculate the different rates.
You said it would “take hundreds of years”. That’s true. Yet you’re forgetting that those years are AT TODAY’S RATE of progress. It’s not your fault, you’re only thinking with the common-sense “intuitive linear” view. If you study the Law of Accelerating Returns and Accelerating Change, you’ll see that the historically based true rate of progress is EXPONENTIAL and NOT linear. So we won’t experience 100 years of progress in this century – but the equivalent of many thousands of years in today’s rate. Your ‘hundreds of years’ might only take a decade or so.
As for computer perception and human like inputs – they are also rapidly developing. Take a look at what the Japanese have already accomplished in these fields… You might be in for a big surprise.
it’s hakol tov ve yaffe my friend, but what I was talking about is called “soul” 🙂
im afraid computers can never have that, but we are getting into a very phylosophical side of this matter.
and as for the technological growth of mankind – yes im fully aware of the fact that our “graph” isnt linear, but exponential – i’ll even tell you more – i once read somewhere that mankind DOUBLES it’s technological capabilities every 50 years.
and all that still leads me to believe that it will NOT be less than 50 years, until we can start achieving what you were talking about.
im ken ehhh…. SHLM!
🙂
You can’t program human instinct, human imagination or human feelings, these things cannot be programmed, and these things are an essential parts of today’s technology – and the future’s technology.
The rate of our technology’s advancement is truly staggering, yet even when we will be able to copy a human brain into a CPU, or rather, create a true AI, if you will, while it’ll be able to think and calculate and perform and pretty much do everything better than us humans it will never be able to surpass us completely , because it lacks ….the very thing that makes us all…well, Human.
Just an example:
If An apple will drop on a computer’s “head” , it will not begin the thought process that will lead it to realize there is such a thing as gravity and that the world is round that’s …human thought pattern, it CANNOT be programmed. Most great discoveries in our world were made by mistake, it’s the human instinct and imagination that leads us to create new things.
I’m sorry but i do not agree. Please provide me with the basis and proper reasons to why exactly we won’t be able to replicate human thought.
It’s not enough to say we cannot do it just because it doesn’t seem like that today.
You say it what makes us Human. But what is basically us Humans, if not but sophisticated biological machines governed by a ‘cpu’ consisting of billions of electrically powered neurons?
why shouldn’t we be able to replicate it??
Just so you know, scientists have already made successful connections between neurons and their machine counterparts.
Oh and Adlerist, please define for me if you can, what is exactly a “soul”.
No where in my post did i mention that we will not be able to replicate the human thought, what i said is that we will not able to replicate the human imagination, hunches and instincts.
These are much more complex things than “simple” thought patterns.
Humans are each unique in their own way, it has to do with the places they were raised in, their families, their educations they life’s experience, these things cannot be replicated, can’t make humans off an assembly line no matter how complex your AI is.
You don’t have to agree , nor is that the point.
I do firmly believe that, in the end, Machines with advanced AI will replace humans on most fields, they will be more precise, more accurate, work faster and will never make a “human mistake”, they will lack the human flaws, all our pros and none of our cons, you said, and rightly so. However:
An AI, no matter how advanced or sophisticated WILL never have the human instinct, the human hunch the human imagination.
Had the apple did no fall on Issac Newton’s head, would we , as a human race, even understand the prospect of gravity?
Had Albert Einstein’s father hadn’t shown him a Pocket Compass at the age of six, Would Einstein still start the studying of Atoms ?
See what i mean? how can you program these things?
An after thought:
It sometimes really amazes me the sheer arrogance we humans have when regarding ourselves. We think of ourselves as the pinnacle of creation and intellect, when in fact we haven’t yet fully understand ourselves.
We come up with multitudes of explanations to how we and the world around us functions, and yet we’re not even close to controlling either. And when some people encounter something which they don’t understand, they give up and say it’s a Divine power – a god. And that god is responsible for everything unexplainable, including us and our “souls”.
Why is a notion like god exists? Because limited people with limited brains gave up on their on nature and curiosity to figure out our existence. Most of the time they even prohibit others.
Luckily enough, we have a consistent small group of people throughout history who defy this kind of thinking. People who are humble enough to realize we are just the product of nature and it’s basic rules, rather than god-like magic. People who are in-fact more advanced than others in their effort to keep studying, understanding, inventing and pushing our collective knowledge further.
They are the key to the salvation of the Human race from it’s own arrogance.
Davidson, you are again missing the whole point. You’re thinking of a box computer that sits at your feet under the table, as the future manifestation of a future AI machine.
I’m talking about a very plausible future where technology had gotten to the point of harmony between machine and biological. For example, who says AI won’t be able to take on nano-built bodies, which may even appear human? What then would prevent similar scenes to the ones you described? Also, AI do not need to learn the slow and tedious way we do – they can share complete knowledge in just seconds.
What is “instinct”? what is “hunch”? “imagination”? They are all nothing but figures of our brain. So if one could replicate the entire human brain activities but on different ‘hardware’ why shouldn’t it have the same characteristics? It might even be better in-fact.
Look, it’s hard to understand and very easy to say no. It’s also a very arrogant to say that “it” cannot be replicated or done, while you do not yet fully understand “it”. This reaction reminds of the same people who said we can never fly. Years after they were proven wrong, they said we would never be able to fly faster than sound itself. And yet they were proven wrong again.
My point: Never say never.
You don’t know what is “instinct”, you don’t know what is “hunch” or “Imagination” And i don’t either , in fact No one knows, saying it’s just figures of our brain is ignorant, we haven’t found out nearly enough about the human brain to make that diagnostic.
How can you explain why a mother can all of the sudden sense that her husband/son/daughter are in grave danger, that something happened to them, even if their thousand of miles away?
How can you explain the sometimes incredible sense of Deja-Vu’ we sometimes feel? ( Guess it’s a glitch in the matrix 😀 )
Or the sense that something is just right or just wrong at a given situation , doesn’t matter which.
What i’m saying is, the most sophisticated machines in the world ARE us, Humans, Take a Cyborg, humanly shaped, Give him the most sophisticated AI possible, he will be amazing in everything he does, i doubt that not, but he will still lack that extra something that makes us human.
Don’t ask me to explain to you what that something is, because i can’t, no one can.
We are the most dominate race on the face of this earth, is it plausible that will create super cyber machines that will surpass us at pretty much everything? of course it is! But that’s not the point, these machines, in the end, will still lack those unexplainable things that make us human, no matter how human-looking we will create these Cyborgs,with a cloned human brain AI, doesn’t matter if we take this cyborg and let it grow in a normal domestic enviorment with a foster family, as some sort of a brilliant social exepirement, it will never be like us, in the end it’ll lack a certain something that will grant it the ability to truly surpass us.
As you seem to think i’m missing the point while i think i’m exactly on the point,
I think it’s safe to say we’ll have to agree to disagree on this matter
That being said – Very good thread.
Indeed i very much enjoy discussing this. It is the very reason i started this thread rather than keep it all to myself. 🙂
Continuing your last response, i’d say i kinda agree with you that no machine would ever be exactly human. You’ll also notice that i never suggested such a thing in the first place. My entire point is that an AI will never have or need to be human – it will be much more.
That is the entire point of the Singularity. The Singularity is a new major paradigm shift. It’s a completely different world with a completely different human race. It is in-fact our next evolutionary step.
The underlying notion here is that technology will bring us to a point where we will become one with it. Unlocking the marvels of our brains will not only enable us to create AI, but to also merge with it and become interchangeable. Ultimately, we will become the SAI itself. Converting our brains to ‘software’ will free us from our biological bodies and will open unimaginable possibilities.
Our current human form is just a temporary one. Why should we strive to keep it static and think it’s the best it can ever be? If we wouldn’t have evolved beyond our Ape-like starting point, you and i would now be sitting on top a tree somewhere fighting over a banana while making loud noises.
Natural evolution has run its course on us, and brought us to the point where it can no longer change us fast enough. It has brought us to the point where we can now take its job instead. We are now about to say “Thank you very much dear Natural Evolution, you’ve done a great job, but now it’s our turn.”
Technology is the next evolutionary force, albeit a much faster one. And where we’re headed, we won’t need our human bodies.
By the end of this century, being Human will require a new definition. Who knows what it will be.
Scary? maybe for most people. Because we never experienced such drastic change in such a short time, many might even be against it. However, many believe we cannot stop it. Whatever stands still is destined to die. So we have only one way to go – forward.
Personally, if it happens in my life time, i’ll embrace it with open arms and a big smile.
very interesting indeed.
both of you – Kizza and Davidzone – are correct, but not accurate. ofcourse, no1 could really be accurate on such matter.
Davidzon – it IS true that no machine will ever be as human as we are.
Kizza – it’s also very true that machines will be able to replace us and be superior to us, without having to be as human as we are.
it IS true that our perception of “being human” is wrong, as we cant possibly grasp the idea of some super AI replacing us. but it’s infact true, even though it sounds scarier and darker than anything we know.
But – kizza, although you are mostly right, I cant disregard your disrespect for Soul, Emotions, Feelings, and yes – GOD.
that’s the only thing lacking in your equation kizza – god.
the problem is you fail to define “god”. but so do most humans.
what if I told you that “god” is actually a supreme power/energy/entity or maybe even a group if AEONS.
what if i’d tell you that “GOD” consists of all of US, put together all at the same time?
now THAT is something we cannot fully grasp.
I think you should stop looking for scientific proofs for everything in life kizza.
what if i asked you to define “love”? what would u say then?
that im weak? that “love” is just an invention of the human mind? that we’re afraid to be alone? to die alone?
the beauty in life is not to search for explanations/proofs for everything, but rather to accept the fact that some things cannot be explained – and that’s not because we are too ignorant or weak or lacking technological capabilities to explain them, and not because we are too lazy to look for explanations.
as for the definition of “soul” – i like to look at it as pure cosmic energy. if you ask me, “god” consists of all of the human souls together at the same time. simply a huge resource of energy – but that’s only an idea and we shalln’t discuss it here.
in conclusion – science is a good thing, crucial to mankind, but it’s not 100%. nothing is 100%, not even SCIENCE. ask any scientist – they’ll tell you “there’s no such thing as 100%”. you hold a great deal of respect toward science and 0 respect for a little mysticism, soul, emotions and such.
ok this discussion has crossed the limits that you first defined to it – all thanks to me. sry about that.
🙂
shlm.
ok, i left this thread after adler’s first comments, and i just now read everything else.
Kizza, although i agree the theory you brought here is quite plausible, i still have to agree with Adlerist and DZone. i think the best example Dzone brought up was the apple falling from a tree. don’t get me wrong, i do believe that in some point we’ll be able to duplicate our brain into computer. but even if we do, and that computer will have all the “programs” or “algorithms” we have, he will luck the curiosity we have. a computer won’t be interested in “why”. he’ll always be interested in “what and how”, but not “why”.
furthermore, did you consider pain? let’s take the apple example again, and combine it with my last few lines. think of it this way: an apple fell on Newton’s head. he felt it, and it hurt. he probably started thinking about “why” the apple hit his head while he was scratching his melon with his hand, trying to relieve the shallow pain. it’s quite possible that he was upset with something hitting his head, which only made him more curios. i don’t think an apple hitting a robot on it’s head will have the same implications…a robot will just continue doing what he was doing. it’s really hard for me to explain what i mean. a robot will know what he’s supposed to be doing at a certain moment. i do think its probable robot will have sensors, but their lack of curiosity won’t allow them to steer away from their main actions, even if they do have millions of possible actions.
a robot in Newtons place would probably act like that:
look at the grass—->head sensor recieved input—–>calculate probable resting spot for object—–>move head in calculated direction—->lock eyes on object——>identify object—–>object identified as a green Apple—–>move head back to starting point—->lock eyes on previous point——>look at the grass.
i hope u see my point.
and on another note Kizza, i must say your comments are starting to freak me out. not because i’m starting to realize the plausibility of the theory, but because you’re starting to sound very fanatic…what adler said is true. seems like you hold a great deal of respect towards science and 0 respect to anything spiritual. and i’m not talking about anything hippie and shit. i’m talking about anything that’s not in our physical plain, but in our minds. psychology and philosophy are quite powerfull. saying that anyone who follows religion and believes in god is blind and stupid and narrow minded is very untrue. although it’s true that allot of incapable people turn to religion and god for a reason and structure in their lives, there are allot of very smart and intelligent people that follow religion. the only difference is that they understand it’s meaning for humans, and not just follow it blindly. some of our best minds here in Israel are religious people.
and anyways, you pay so much disrespect for religious people, but you’re being exactly like them, only your religious is progress, and you god is technology…
you said that religious people don’t what to acknowledge the fact that we are just natural creatures created by nature. ok, i might agree with that point, but i do believe in evolution. what you are saying is that technology will take us to the next stage in evolution! which means you DON’T believe in our natural nature….
phew….i think that’s it.
this thread really crossed it, ha? 😀
WOW. i really pissed you guys off huh? 😉
Upon reading my previous comments again, i can see how my phrasing might seem somewhat fanatic or disrespectful to some people. I truly didn’t mean to sound so harsh. However, let me make a few things very clear:
1- I didn’t intend, nor ever will intend, to get into an argument about god or religion. That is one of the few things in my experience that cannot be an appropriate subject of debate.
2- Yes i’m Jewish. But only by my birth right. I DO HAVE a lot of respect to religion and religious people. Some of them are as you said were great scientific minds. Yet i consider myself an Atheist. I do not believe in any kind of god or other spiritual force, and that is my absolute right as a free man.
3- I believe everything, E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G, can be explained by science one way or another, even though it is currently doesn’t seem even close. I have our entire human history as a basis and an example for that belief.
4- Evolution is a word that describes a broad spectrum of processes. Natural evolution is just one of them. Technological evolution is another. You cannot deny our natural evolution from single celled organisms just like you cannot deny our technological evolution since the invention of the wheel. They both are part of the larger and fundamental process of Evolution.
I DO NOT see any conflict between them. Beginning with a purely natural evolution, we transcended into a mixture of both natural and technological evolutions, and in the near future we will transcend into a purely technological evolution. I cannot think of anything more simple and logical than that.
5- This Singularity stuff is RADICAL. Shit guys, you think i can’t see that? Every time i read more about it (about 150+ full pages so far..) my mind struggles with the implications. However, for me, that doesn’t make it false or wrong. On the contrary – it makes me believe it even more.
Why? Because among many things, i realized something very important yet almost always overlooked: We Humans are radical. We are radical in our environment, in our thinking, in our behavior, in our feelings, in our imagination and practically in every aspect of our being.
Our history is not an exception either. During our short lives we do not witness radical changes in our way of life, and it has always been that way. However, it is only when we look back on our history and on a long enough time scale we can see how radically humankind has changed all along. Bring a man from the Middle-Ages to our present time and he will hardly recognize anything. Bring a man from the very first of civilizations to our time, and he will surely think we are Aliens.
What we can see now however, is that rate of change is accelerating. Unlike before, changes are occurring from generation to generation, and increasingly faster and greater every time. Based on that, it won’t be long before our next radical step.
To end my blubbering, i leave you with my final point: No matter how hard we try or not, reality has and always will far surpass our imagination and conceptions. Yet, it is only when you embrace radical ideas, can you start realizing what is truly possible. Just like the one you like to quote so much did.. Newton.
well put Kizza. you were very PK on your last reply. 🙂
still – there’s just one small thing I want you to think about, even though it doesnt relate directly to this discussion, and i’m talking about your Section #2 🙂
much like you, I also dont feel any connection to Judaism, except for what’s written in my ID. I dont have any sympathy towards ANY religion as a matter of fact. I dont believe in the idea of Religion. Religion only seperates people from one another and causes narrow mindness and other “not-so-good” things…
I also dont believe in ‘god’, as probably most people do. I described to you what I believe in.
What does the term “atheism” describe?
you dont believe in god at all?
you dont believe in the figure of ‘god’ as our religion pictures it? that god is some person sitting on a cloud and watching us?
to some people – ‘god’ means the power of nature and other cosmic powers.
to others – ‘god’ means a small wooden statue which they worship.
and to go even further – some people believe our god is some alien race from a far away galaxy…
im sorry to shift this thread into a discussion about god, but it just bothers me that people fall into false definitions of god and of other things, and therefore miss the entire point.
the point is – there is something else in the universe, be it physical, spiritual, or anything, which cannot be explained in words. nor can it be explained by science, not at THIS point.
in a book I once read, which pretty much describes “chats with god”, ‘god’ said: “I cannot explain the meaning of ‘god’ to a human being. such an attempt would resemble a 40 year old person trying to explain the relativity theory to a 1 week old baby”.
I like that analogy. I think that human beings still have a LONG way to go before we can attempt to explain the mysteries of the universe and other Timeless enigmas.
I agree with you a GREAT deal about technology being the next evolution. I think that in order to understand the universe and advance, mankind needs to crack the mysteries of the 4th dimension – which as you probably know is TIME.
god is beyond time. Time is just a human term. Time doesnt exist in the universe.
think about it 🙂
and again – sorry about dragging this into other blurry subjects, but i couldnt help it.
shiimshiim, shiim!
Phew, first of all allow me to state that this was one long reading for a post in this blog to be put up to speed.. to be honest I’ve seen Dzone’s first comment and then I said I would like to add something to the debate myelf.. though became quite busy to read it all. once that done I would like to say a few things. 100mb are a whole lot of information when put in the form of 1’s & 0’s. Though on the same breath I’d say one could never collect the sum of human’s creation under 100mb even if limiting oneself to the written word alone. Kizza, it’s true technology doesn’t progress in linear line. tough along with that, I would doubt one could ever make an AI as superior as it might be, to “understand” or rather appreciate it. Especially when referring to art forms even I struggle to understand like an Abstract. In my opinion an AI or SAI is limited by it’s greatest strength. Logic. and that which is not logical won’t be.. There might be art, but it would be photos not pictures, Models not statue, Rhymes not poems. When you added a partly biological partly mechanical that’s a whole other thing and has scarcely anything to do with the first subject of AI. and don’t dis us humans.. because if one thing can be said about humans it’s probably that once you give them a chance, they can defiantly surprise you.
Okay guys, listen. I really appreciate your insight and valuable comments on this subject and i greatly respect them all. But it has now gotten to a point where i feel that you are just not at the same level as me. What i mean is that i cannot keep on discussing this subject when you don’t have the same level of knowledge on it. By no means is that meant as an insult, i’m just stating a fact.
I did my best in this post to give you the big picture on this huge subject, but that’s only what it is – a big picture. Beyond this, i simply cannot delve into the fine details and many more important concepts that underline and base the Singularity.
I can see you have a lot of misconceptions and inaccurate assumptions carried from either stigmas, other people, movies or just from plain old general knowledge. Some of them i tried my best dispelling based on what i learned, yet i know for myself that i didn’t even scratch the surface. From here it’s up to you to read about and open your eyes on the subject. See the facts for yourself, read the words of the people who live and breath this subject and learn the details that build it. I promise you will find a complete answer to every question or notion you raised here, just like i myself had. The links to get you started I’d already posted at the beginning, and more are at the end of the post on the Singularity FAQ site.
I will gladly carry on discussion once you’re done.
Kizza, if I understand correctly what you’ve just written, you said we cannot discuss our theories and conceptions with you because we have not the same knowledge base as you have on a subject based on theories and assumptions? which you are more knowledgeable of just because you have read more theories? I do agree you have probably researched the matter more than all of us combined, it is definite just by feeling the air of zeal around you, But all of you have researched is other THEORIES. since if I am not mistaken there is no AI that even capable of self learning at this phase of technology not to mention of a SAI so all there is now are theories, and hereby I say your articles are equal to my Issac Asimov books. If by your response you have meant to say you agree that we disagree, that’s another thing entirely.
No Harozen, what i meant was the simple fact that no two people can seat down and discuss a specific matter in depth when only one side understands it. Just like i can’t discuss with you, say, the meaning of some movie which i saw and you didn’t. And also, you can’t say that because you saw other movies of the same genre, you’re able to understand and analyze that movie. So i’m sorry, i don’t buy the comparison of the Asimov books you’ve read to the scientifically and factual based theories i presented here. Asimov was an amazing visionary, but his books are at the end JUST books and conceived to that degree. While what i read were academic essays, scientific reports backed up by in-depth research by people who specialize in their specific fields.
And yes i agree that they ARE theories, but even that doesn’t mean you can seriously discuss them with me or anyone without first doing some homework.
Think about it.
p.s.- Again, don’t get me wrong – i’m NOT saying this from an arrogant point of view. i only wish you to be at the same level with me so we can discuss this on common grounds.
I beg the differ, You’ve read articles and essays X. They aren’t the only one out there. It’s a theory.. you are aware of it right? Future is predicted by mathematics.. you know Asimov wrote that in one of his books, that a man predicted the course of human future with mathematics. You say yeah it was a book.. Eh.. He’s a visionary, just like your experts. Math can predict the future relying on one thing. the past. you do know that right? And it has it faults. since you can say it’s predictable that human beings would research AI in the next 10 years or so, but what about those who say that in about 10 years this place won’t be able to be inhabited? Kizza I will tell you this, you can run out an argument out of zeal and negate anyone who disagree with you based on the fact they haven’t read the theories you have, because this debate inhabits in it philosophy on the human spirit alongside technology and math and that is why your theories and research base is NOT the only information to be considered here. I understand it’s annoying when people do not agree with your opinions, but negating them for irrelevance is not a way around a discussion. After all you have no proof and any other significant information of certainty of the information and theories you’ve read. So we gave you our theories instead of basing ourselves on some other people theories, that is why I at least thought you published it. I am sorry if I displeased you with my view of the matter but that is it for me. I did browse the links you’ve posted, but I found them, with no offense to the obviously intelligent people who mustered them, in one word, impugnable.
Whatever. I still love you, bro 🙂
Right back at ya xD
I hate you both.
HAAAAAA DAAAAAAAAAVIIIIDZOOONNE?!?!
i love you too, bro 🙂
oh, and why didn’t you comment on my magnificent Afro at my most recent post??? I demand a comment! 😉
I hereby SEAL this discussion, with a 60-ton cock.
(_)_)//////////////////////////////////////////////D