Why hasn't the Singularity gone mainstream (yet?) (power, advance, physics)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
> I've had enough of this bare assertion of yours. Give a good argument or you lose.
That's contradictory, if you have enough then let it be. If not, well don't.
I'm interested in what you think "we" (or anyone) should prove, because IMO it would be an incredible feat if anyone could give hard proof of anything in the future so please tell.
For the rest of your post, it looks like you stopped trying being logical and started to be more personal, whatever you think is right, name-calling doesn't have its place here.
There are much more reasonable "soft" forms of transhumanism out there to be sure. Where it crosses the line is when one insists that nano-machines will take over and be able to control virtually all bodily function by 2030, which, I submit, is quite an extraordinary thing to claim. "Technology will continue to advance exponentially" is not a good argument and doesn't make it less crazy, even if it's repeated 100 times with slight paraphrasing.
Everyone has the right to believe things which are absurd. However, it needs to be understood that convincing others that something crazy-sounding is not, in fact, crazy, requires a very good argument which addresses what appear to be flaws in the line of thought.
Even if the crazy-sounding idea isn't crazy, your only hope to convince others of that is a reasoned argument, not a bare assertion, and not something hopelessly ill-defined but cool-sounding.
And no amount of wearable tech is remotely relevant, until you can come up with a quantifiable extrapolation to nanotech. Google glass, iWatch, whatever, is simply beside the point.
The non-singularitarians among us still have every reason to believe it is simply a fringe movement. We will continue to do so until convinced otherwise. This must be done by a well-laid out analysis and good logic, not by throwing esoteric ideas on the table and just expecting them to be believed because they sound cool and some (highly misused) real data may have been at one point thrown in the mix!
I posted this link before, but it might be relevant again. For a fairly in-depth analysis of the sigularity concept, I believe that this article will provide the types of arguments you are looking for: The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis
Beware that it is long and almost insanely meticulous in defense of every detail, but if you wade through it and still think there is nothing defensible about the singularity concept, then I'd enjoy hearing your responses to Chalmers specific claims. (BTW: Chalmers tends to be more flexible with the timeframes - thinking it might be more like a 100 years than 30, but he defends the basic ideas with considerable rigor.)
I don't find anything I really disagree with in that paper, and I think many non-singularitarians would concur. However, the debate here is about the much more radical claim that machines will be able to perform all functions of the human body and mind by 2030. This much stronger statement, so far as I can tell, is based not on evidence but on religious-like faith.
I don't find anything I really disagree with in that paper, and I think many non-singularitarians would concur. However, the debate here is about the much more radical claim that machines will be able to perform all functions of the human body and mind by 2030. This much stronger statement, so far as I can tell, is based not on evidence but on religious-like faith.
Ah, I see. If that's all you mean, then I probaby agree with you. I'm not even certain we will have full-fledged AI by 2030. I wouldn't want to bet against it, but I wouldn't really want to bet for it either. I basically just don't know about the timeframe. I do know that there are deep issues related to the nature of consciousness that we don't yet have a clue about solving, and I would not be surprised if AI research flounders behind schedule until these problems are solved. Still, whatever happens between now and 2030, I expect it will be pretty mind-blowing.
Ah, I see. If that's all you mean, then I probaby agree with you. I'm not even certain we will have full-fledged AI by 2030. I wouldn't want to bet against it, but I wouldn't really want to bet for it either. I basically just don't know about the timeframe. I do know that there are deep issues related to the nature of consciousness that we don't yet have a clue about solving, and I would not be surprised if AI research flounders behind schedule until these problems are solved. Still, whatever happens between now and 2030, I expect it will be pretty mind-blowing.
Yeah, and dependent on public policy (science and R&D funding). Back in the "good ol' days" there was Bell Labs, which actually paid people to research fundamental science. That closed down, and for a time you could actually make a living doing science, but only from government funding.
Nowadays you have companies like Intel and Google which fund specific R&D ventures, but less fundamental science. The government has now made it very difficult to get funding for fundamental science as the funding rate on grant proposals is abysmal, forcing scientists to waste their time chasing grants instead of actually doing science. This includes biomedical research.
If this trend continues, I have no reason to think the human brain will be reverse engineered at any time in my lifetime (I'm a healthy 27-year-old male).
The transhumanists should be pushing for generous biomedical research funding, including fundamental research. The approach of only doing "applied" neuroscience without effort to the fundamentals is very short-sighted and the applied neuroscience will eventually run out of gas, unless fundamental biology gets more funding and attention soon.
There are much more reasonable "soft" forms of transhumanism out there to be sure. Where it crosses the line is when one insists that nano-machines will take over and be able to control virtually all bodily function by 2030, which, I submit, is quite an extraordinary thing to claim. "Technology will continue to advance exponentially" is not a good argument and doesn't make it less crazy, even if it's repeated 100 times with slight paraphrasing.
Everyone has the right to believe things which are absurd. However, it needs to be understood that convincing others that something crazy-sounding is not, in fact, crazy, requires a very good argument which addresses what appear to be flaws in the line of thought.
Even if the crazy-sounding idea isn't crazy, your only hope to convince others of that is a reasoned argument, not a bare assertion, and not something hopelessly ill-defined but cool-sounding.
And no amount of wearable tech is remotely relevant, until you can come up with a quantifiable extrapolation to nanotech. Google glass, iWatch, whatever, is simply beside the point.
The non-singularitarians among us still have every reason to believe it is simply a fringe movement. We will continue to do so until convinced otherwise. This must be done by a well-laid out analysis and good logic, not by throwing esoteric ideas on the table and just expecting them to be believed because they sound cool and some (highly misused) real data may have been at one point thrown in the mix!
> Where it crosses the line is when one insists that nano-machines will take over and be able to control virtually all bodily function by 2030
They can have a processing power of an old 8-bit computer (C64 was used as an example in one of their TED videos) and can cheaply be made by the billions.
Give it 16 years and I bet they will be highly functional for human use (going where they should, release drugs there, kill off bad cells, connect to nerves, communicate together...)
> "Technology will continue to advance exponentially" is not a good argument
Well as we cannot predict the future using mathematical proofs (I have taken a course in chaos theory so I know this ) don't ask for one because no one will give you (a valid) one.
But then, what can we do?
We can (as explained over and over again) follow trends.
When a ballistic missile enters the atmosphere, no one can prove where it will end up despite mathematical calculations so what to do? Use prediction and statistics, following its 'trend' (trajectory) and give a 'most probable' outcome (say 99% at position P in a radius of 1km etc.).
When you check the trends (say computing power price) and see that it has been on an exponential decline (cpu power/$ doubles each X time) since decades or even more and there is no alarming signs that it will stop (barring the usual "the end is near"), I think it is more reasonable to think it will continue (especially in the near future!) than not. Much much more reasonable.
Feel free to bring your proofs it will stop though, the CPU speed discussion was interesting albeit a bit long ^^
Now add a couple of other ballistic missiles (biotech, nano tech, insert information technology dependent tech, ...) and your 99% chance of target hit will become 99.99%.
Still not a mathematical truth but thinking that the 0.01% will happen seems more like faith or wishful thinking.
Even if it is 75%/25% I'd go with the 75%.
> The non-singularitarians among us still have every reason to believe it is simply a fringe movement. We will continue to do so until convinced otherwise.
So you will be one of those that "didn't see it coming".
You don't think things will change so much, I do. The future will tell.
Till then, I'll continue to search for those trajectories and when they seems correct, I'll post them here!
autonomous automobiles cheaper than human operated in 2020?
That's absurd - the autonomous car requires a lot more equipment than the human-operated one does.
By analogy, automatic transmission has existed for more than 60 years and it's STILL more expensive than manual.
And you are postulating just a few years between a technology and it becoming cheaper than its absence?
That's just nuts.
Reminded me of a blog post I read this morning by Peter Diamandis about self driving cars, check out how much he thinks they will drop in price compared to classic ones (hint: they are way cheaper):
Ah, I see. If that's all you mean, then I probaby agree with you. I'm not even certain we will have full-fledged AI by 2030. I wouldn't want to bet against it, but I wouldn't really want to bet for it either. I basically just don't know about the timeframe. I do know that there are deep issues related to the nature of consciousness that we don't yet have a clue about solving, and I would not be surprised if AI research flounders behind schedule until these problems are solved. Still, whatever happens between now and 2030, I expect it will be pretty mind-blowing.
I know 2030 seems like a optimistic date but considering that information technology advances exponentially its really not. Why the pace of advancement today is so much faster then it was just 10 years ago and why it will be even faster in the next 10.
Yeah, and dependent on public policy (science and R&D funding). Back in the "good ol' days" there was Bell Labs, which actually paid people to research fundamental science. That closed down, and for a time you could actually make a living doing science, but only from government funding.
Nowadays you have companies like Intel and Google which fund specific R&D ventures, but less fundamental science. The government has now made it very difficult to get funding for fundamental science as the funding rate on grant proposals is abysmal, forcing scientists to waste their time chasing grants instead of actually doing science. This includes biomedical research.
If this trend continues, I have no reason to think the human brain will be reverse engineered at any time in my lifetime (I'm a healthy 27-year-old male).
The transhumanists should be pushing for generous biomedical research funding, including fundamental research. The approach of only doing "applied" neuroscience without effort to the fundamentals is very short-sighted and the applied neuroscience will eventually run out of gas, unless fundamental biology gets more funding and attention soon.
They can have a processing power of an old 8-bit computer (C64 was used as an example in one of their TED videos) and can cheaply be made by the billions.
Raw processing power isn't sufficient to do the tasks you want. You need mechanisms to control the system under discussion. Additionally, those mechanisms must be non-destructive.
For some tasks such as drug delivery, this may be fairly straightforward; however, for others, this is not so easily so. One I'd be particularly curious about is metabolic pathways. I'm pretty sure it would be fairly difficult to alter them in a sufficiently controlled way to do what one wants, without undesired side effects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valmond
Give it 16 years and I bet they will be highly functional for human use (going where they should, release drugs there, kill off bad cells, connect to nerves, communicate together...)
That's a lot of disparate goals there! (Nanobot migration, chemical processes, neurology).
Are you assuming the nanobots would be programmable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valmond
> "Technology will continue to advance exponentially" is not a good argument
Well as we cannot predict the future using mathematical proofs (I have taken a course in chaos theory so I know this ) don't ask for one because no one will give you (a valid) one.
But then, what can we do?
We can (as explained over and over again) follow trends.
When a ballistic missile enters the atmosphere, no one can prove where it will end up despite mathematical calculations so what to do? Use prediction and statistics, following its 'trend' (trajectory) and give a 'most probable' outcome (say 99% at position P in a radius of 1km etc.).
Yes, however, there's a big difference between applying known laws of physics to extrapolate projectile motion and forecasting technological development using arbitrary parameter choices.
Even something like the stock market is at least partially predictable using established statistics, but quite to the contrary, these technological forecasts are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valmond
When you check the trends (say computing power price) and see that it has been on an exponential decline (cpu power/$ doubles each X time) since decades or even more and there is no alarming signs that it will stop (barring the usual "the end is near"), I think it is more reasonable to think it will continue (especially in the near future!) than not. Much much more reasonable.
I know you don't think this matters as much, but the CPU speed and performance measures as discussed in the Herb Sutter article have broken their previously exponential trend - why do you expect your preferred performance measures not to do so as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valmond
Feel free to bring your proofs it will stop though, the CPU speed discussion was interesting albeit a bit long ^^
Now add a couple of other ballistic missiles (biotech, nano tech, insert information technology dependent tech, ...) and your 99% chance of target hit will become 99.99%.
Still not a mathematical truth but thinking that the 0.01% will happen seems more like faith or wishful thinking.
Even if it is 75%/25% I'd go with the 75%.
> The non-singularitarians among us still have every reason to believe it is simply a fringe movement. We will continue to do so until convinced otherwise.
So you will be one of those that "didn't see it coming".
You don't think things will change so much, I do. The future will tell.
Till then, I'll continue to search for those trajectories and when they seems correct, I'll post them here!
I won't comment on this point since I don't want to put words in your mouth...
It used to be the leader in innovation and science research. Do you think China will take over soon enough?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) don't ask for one because no one will give you (a valid) one.
