PDA

View Full Version : The Singularity is Near


chickenhead
11-13-2006, 01:13 PM
Have been reading this book called "The Singularity is Near" http://www.amazon.com/Singularity-Near-Humans-Transcend-Biology/dp/0670033847

I bought this book not expecting to buy into his overall conclusions, but more because it seemed like a decent primer on some very interesting developments in AI and human brain research.

My conclusion after the first chapter was that this guy is certainly a bit kooky, what he envisions as our destiny may be, but I do not see it any time soon. In other words, the human race may ultimately head towards his idea of utopia, but I think it will be a different wave of people.

BUT, there are many things to be optimistic/scared about, I think, so long as we don't destroy ourselves in the very near future (we will likely try very hard). This book certainly has me more interested in AI research, as that seems to be the lynchpin for most all of his predictions.

The idea that we are quickly nearing the point where we will have the computational ability to fully simulate the human brain, coupled with the exponential increase in sophistication of our brain modeling tools could lead to some very very interesting things.

The central idea is that once we have developed an AI system that is slightly smarter than ourselves, we will quickly recognize an exponential increase in intelligence, due to the AI being able to modify itself, in essence building even more intelligent systems.

Its interesting and frightening to think that all these sorts of things are possibly much much closer than we generally think. According to this guy at least, who is taken seriously by some pretty well respected people, we are looking at these sorts of systems within a short few decades.

GameTheory
11-13-2006, 01:32 PM
According to this guy at least, who is taken seriously by some pretty well respected people, we are looking at these sorts of systems within a short few decades.Guys like him, taken seriously and respected, have been saying the same thing for 50 years or more, and truthfully we are NO closer to developing a human-type intelligence. The one guy I think might be onto something is Jeff Hawkins. Look up the book "On Intelligence".

His ideas aside, the main problem is that everyone assumes intelligence and reason are things that are just "out there" separate from our specific biological bodies. They aren't. Human intelligence is HUMAN intelligence -- you can't just transplant it into a machine. You can maybe make machine intelligence, but it won't think like a human.

twindouble
11-13-2006, 02:01 PM
Guys like him, taken seriously and respected, have been saying the same thing for 50 years or more, and truthfully we are NO closer to developing a human-type intelligence. The one guy I think might be onto something is Jeff Hawkins. Look up the book "On Intelligence".

His ideas aside, the main problem is that everyone assumes intelligence and reason are things that are just "out there" separate from our specific biological bodies. They aren't. Human intelligence is HUMAN intelligence -- you can't just transplant it into a machine. You can maybe make machine intelligence, but it won't think like a human.

Not only that, "utopia" doesn't exist in nature or the known physical laws as we understand them to be. Anything we conjure up as near utopia would be awful boring.

T.D.

chickenhead
11-13-2006, 04:07 PM
Guys like him, taken seriously and respected, have been saying the same thing for 50 years or more.

The main reason I got the book was because I realized this was the guy who had scared Bill Joy enough to write a repsonse in Wired Magazine some years ago. I have seen Bill Joy on a number of panel discussions, and he always seemed like a very bright guy. I figured if Bill Joy took notice, it was worth looking at (though he was mainly frightened by the nanotechnology stuff, which is definately scary).



, and truthfully we are NO closer to developing a human-type intelligence. The one guy I think might be onto something is Jeff Hawkins. Look up the book "On Intelligence".

I will check out that book. I have a hard time when people say things like you said, that we are no closer. It is my understanding that just in terms of raw computational ability, outr fastest computers are still below that of a field mouse. I guess point being that it appears to me at first glance we are still not to the point technologically, or in our understanding of our own brain, where we should have reasonably expected to make much happen. But we have made tremendous progress over the past 50 years i.e. our techonogical savvy and tools are exponentially better, and our understanding of our own mechanics exponentially better. So if it is at all possible, then we are much closer. Whether we are at all close is another story. So, right now at least, I have a hard time being pessimistic about a field that does not appear to me to have yet had a really reasonable chance at achieving much.


His ideas aside, the main problem is that everyone assumes intelligence and reason are things that are just "out there" separate from our specific biological bodies. They aren't. Human intelligence is HUMAN intelligence -- you can't just transplant it into a machine. You can maybe make machine intelligence, but it won't think like a human.

One of my favorite observances of all time is Marshall McLuhans "The medium is the message". This sounds to me like what you are saying here, which sounds about right to me.

I wonder what you think some of the differences might be? What would you envision machine intelligence to be?