X-Message-Number: 30145
From:
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:59:24 EST
Subject: "singularity"
Content-Language: en
In math, a "singularity" occurs where the independent variable, time, is
finite but a dependent variable becomes "infinite" (unbounded). The
"singularity" of tech advancement is more properly called a "spike"--a very
large but not
infinite spurt. In current discussions, "singularity" is often used to refer
to a situation where Artificial Intelligence (AI) would result in computers
dominating the world with their own agendas.
Now a few thoughts on this and the alleged danger of singularity AIs
deciding to eliminate humans. It s not important in a cryonics context
regardless, since the resources of cryonicists are tiny compared to those of
computer
people generally, but a little dose of realism may just possibly prevent some
waste of energy.or enervating pessimism.
In the third place, as many have pointed out, the promise or threat of
Artificial Intelligence seems still remote, a half century after a lot of big
talk
and heady predictions.. Anyone not aware of this need only look at the
current pitiful performance of search engines, despite the market forces that
ought to provide plenty of incentive.
In the second place, the original human programmers will almost certainly
want to retain control or otherwise protect themselves against a possible
monster. In all probability, the computer will not be allowed to have feelings
of
its own--even if that were possible, which it might not be-- but will be
required to work in conjunction with a human brain and under the control of the
human at all times.
In the first place, the worriers just don t seem to understand the nature of
drives or motivations in the AI context. Part of this may be a
holdover from Asimov s laughable laws of robotics that supposedly might
determine
a computer s behavior. For example, one of those laws says that a robot
cannot harm a human or, by inaction, allow a human to come to harm. To imagine
that any such rule could be programmed into an algorithm is just absurd. The
robot would immediately and always have to argue with itself about the
meanings of the terms and about the hierarchies of harm and would almost
instantly
have a nervous breakdown. Likewise, if the computer were somehow at some
point programmed to seek (say) its own aggrandizement, this too would
immediately encounter essentially (probably) insuperable problems.
As for Kurzweil et al, in my opinion they make basic errors in sweeping
under the rug the question of putative computer consciousness. They just assume
that, at some level of complexity, consciousness will "emerge" and the
computer will "wake up" and decide to do its own thing. Elsewhere I have
explained
in detail why this is baloney.
It is true that IF a computer were sufficiently intelligent and motivated
and independent and capable of self-modification, it would be impossible to
control, because it would necessarily have communication, and it could
accomplish whatever it wanted by persuasion, however physically limited it
might
initially be. But, as previously noted, it would not be allowed independence,
instead being slaved to a human brain, i.e. made an extension of the human, in
roughly the same way that our subconscious minds sometines do detail work for
us. (Yes, our subconscious minds sometimes betray us and undo us, but that
should be avoidable.) Incidentally, the "slaving" would not necessarily involve
direct neural communication, with a chip in your head. It could be something
much simpler, such as a requirement in the program in certain situations to
pause and wait for external input.
Robert Ettinger
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ]
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30145