Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
You guys are only scraping the surface of the current knowledge. Some books that would fill in what you're talking about include "On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins and "The Singularity is Near" by Kurzweil. Also Ben Goertzel is an AI guru--his blog is chock full of singularity stuff. It's probably good to mention that not everbody thinks like Ray. However, if an AI is constructed that is smarter than a human and can self improve all bets are off. Nobody knows what would be the result. I don't feel very flaky in mentioning this. Maybe 8 years ago I would feel weird believing that strong AI is coming but doing some(a lot) of deep reading about guys who are getting someplace (Hawkins for instance) has changed my mind. His figuring out that the brain process that is important is prediction, coupled with "invariant" object representations has convinced me. It ain't neural nets and genetic algorithms anymore. Those were way off the mark. They work for what they do but the brain doesn't work that way. t ----- Original Message ----- From: "Per Boysen" <perboysen@gmail.com> To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 2:20 AM Subject: Re: Interpreting the Singularity (O.T.) Interesting thoughts, Andy! I remember in the sixties when people were so scared about the growth of global population (of humans) as this growth had been measured to follow a progressive curve. Some futurists thought it would lead to "a demographic explosion" and a cruel Armageddon scenario. So what happened? Well, the global population growth curve simply stopped being progressive and found a new balance. I listened to the linked video and must say those guys did not seem to pick up on Kurzwell's extrapolation on the escalating progressive curve. They seemed to present a more probable future scenario. The main point, as I understand it, being the issue with different people experiencing access to information differently. Boosting the technical accessibility to "unlimited information" will not give the same result for every individual, because what comes out to a great deal depends on who is navigating this brand new super efficient synapse based interface. And as our brains learn pretty fast there will at some point be a progressive curve of people getting divided into classes. Classes with different abilities to digest and thrive on the brave new world. I can't see why you wouldn't agree to that future scenario. If looking around you may find that this process has already started. Not very bright outlook though, in many ways the antithesis to the present ideas of democracy and everyone's equal rights. I personally think knowledge and technology is good but I often miss the political perspective that could educate us in a way that we should be able to set the controls for a target we want and avoid less wanted scenarios. Per On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:46 AM, andy butler <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > Again this depends on the assumption that an exponential increase will > extend "to infinity". > > In the history of the universe, no exponential > increase ever did that yet. > > Look at the growth of any organism, > in the early stages cell division is exponential, > but there's no infinitely large carrot. > > andy > > > Louie Angulo wrote: >> >> here is a further interesting take on Kurzwell philosophy from my >> previous thread. >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK4gevQ5uqg >> >> cheers >> Luis >> >> > >