X-Message-Number: 15878 Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 15:02:57 +0100 From: Subject: [off topic] Singularity... Bah Humbug! References: <> CryoNet wrote: > Message #15875 > Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:26:24 -0500 > From: James Swayze <> > Subject: [off topic] Singularity... Bah Humbug! > References: <> > I don't buy the singularity, at least I'd rather not. I'll tell you why. One oft It must be a nice universe to inhabit, one that conforms to your beliefs and expectations. > touted product of the singularity is super AI so powerful as to take on the role > of a near god. I once was religious, luckily I kept an open mind and learned some > science and grew out of it. It was a little traumatic. I now am fully atheist. So, you're now of the opposite persuasion? > And I didn't go through all that just to end up bowing down some goddamn god of > our own making!! Machine AI!! Bah!! Bear with me before getting upset at me for This seems a rather simplistic view. There's no point in introducing an artificial Us/Them polarity. There's no point in introducing an event horizont either, as an observer traversing an event horizont of a spacetime singularity doesn't notice a damn thing. A late stage of an exponential is still smooth and contiguous. It's just, well, ramping up like crazy. Mahattan might look like magic to an australopithecine. Though a lot of change is being packed into increasingly shorter stretches of time, you can still keep current, if you choose to. Just don't get left behind. > being a luddite, I certainly am not. I'm all for AI, just not machine AI. I got Huh? > this picture in my mind of these whacked out scientists somewhere someday about > to flip the switch on the super AI they've created. There they stand nervously You must have seen "The Forbin Project" one time too many. > wondering with less than a fifty/fifty chance in our favor whether the damn thing > will even like us!! Heaven or Hell, we'll know in a minute!! Step right up folks > it's judgment day, paradise or oblivion...take a chance...flip the switch. I'm > reminded of a quote from an old british sci-fi, "The last word uttered by mankind > will be, What's this button do?". Strange, I thought it was "Uh-oh". > Does AI have to be machine? I don't think so. Why trust super intelligence to Hint: the A in AI stands for Artificial. > some inhuman machine. If not human they'll no doubt end up competing with us for > resources and we'll lose. Superiority breeds contempt more often than altruism. That's a distinct possibility. > Don't make machines smarter than us, it's colossal stupid!! Make us smarter > instead. Use any means available and then some. Use artificial means, use natural I agree here. However, some people are stupid, and *like it*. > means, use directed evolution and genetic manipulation. Put the AI inside each of > us. If we can indeed someday link human neurons usefully to digital data devices > then do so and then link us all together. Each of us a single processor in a 6+ > billion strong and growing multiprocessing super computer. Good advice, let's go Borg. > Think of how much more precious each and every life will become. Population > problem? Abortion issues? Not anymore we'll damn sure find ways to feed and house > everyone because they add to our strength. Not only that but these individual > processors are unlike anything Intel or AMD or IBM could ever come up with, each I wouldn't be saying "ever", not at this day and age. Whatever (and whenever) nanotechnology is going to deliver, molecular circuitry will be hitting the streets first. It's a question of 1) raw switches 2) the right architecture. We'll be certainly getting gadzillion of affordable switches, and there are rather srong clues about the right architecture, so essentially it's a question of time. > one is unique and uniquely and diversely talented. I don't even think machine AI > could achieve that. They'd eventually boil down to the single most efficient > algorithm or whatever and duplicate that over and over and whatever hidden flaws > it held...like "must kill all humans". Get rid of your anthropocentrism. Biology is not going to stay a constant, but nor are machines going to. "machine", "most efficient algorithm", "duplicate that over and over", "hidden flaws", "must kill all humans". Puh-leeze. I could flip all the sentiments 180 degrees to an anti-human bias, and it would ring just as true. Truer, if anything. > We have hidden abilities that put computers to shame. Now one caveat. I can't Little disagreement here, if you mean current computers. > stand it when someone usually some new ager says, "We only use ten percent of our > brains". I always hand them a rhetorical scalpel and say, "Here cut out 90% and > let's see how you do". However, as it turns out we do have amazing abilities we Actually, if you'd let every second neuron in your brain vanish tracelessly, you'd probably not notice a lot of difference, apart from some degradation. > stopped using somewhere along the evolutionary path. They're known today as > savant skills. Imagine that, calculating faster than any computer 9 digit prime > numbers in a flash being a primitive talent of all human beings. Well it seems to > be true and we are learning how to perhaps reawaken them and yet stay socially > functioning. Here are some references to back up what I've just said about > savantism. You may notice that idiot savants typically excel at a single task. You might have heard about a recent result (reference lost in mailbox upstream) where a focused disruption (using transcranial magnetic stimulation) produced idiot-savant-like effects in normal adults. > Quantum laser turns electron wave into (computer) memory Yawn. The idiot press once again misunderstood something quite profoundly. > Nanotech should be able to reduce the size of a quantum laser electron hard drive > to oh maybe the size of a dime or even the head of a pin. They'll be the rage! You should be reading up on some of that fancy Schroedinger stuff. Like a wavefunction trapped in a periodic boundary conditions/box, and the size of the box. Measurement, collapse of the wavefunction, and the like. Nano doesn't allow you to run rings around quantum mechanics, unfortunately. > Everyone will want one. Imagine all the mp3's you could listen to right from your > own head? Who needs Napster? ;) What's wrong with old-fashioned molecular memory? > I can imagine a time one day when we are all busily going about our daily > routines of work or play and all the while part of our brains are unnoticeably > calculating away at the latest big issue. Or perhaps only a few are needed for What makes you think your work and play will not be so demanding, as to require you to use whatever computational resources are at your disposal? > that issue and so only certain nodes are active for that while others mayhaps > have tuned into a live archeological dig somewhere, seeing through the vision of > those on site. > > Singularity? Who needs it? Or should I rather say, scary unknowable outcome Gravity? Who needs it? > Singularity who needs that? Not I! I believe we can be totally in control of THE > singularity if we don't act stupidly. You can't do much as a single person. (Unless you're the one very special butterfly, but there's no way of knowing). Mob IQ seems to follow the lowest common denominator approach. > > P.S. I have an answer for the oh so scary nano grey goo as well and it doesn't > entail avoiding nanotech just the how to appraoch. Oh, everything is easy. Except when it isn't. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15878