Timing the Singularity

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2048138,00.html

 

U gotta time that shiat just right.

 

Timing the Singularity
The Singularity. The event when the rate of technological change becomes human-surpassing, just as the advent of human civilization a few millenia ago surpassed the comprehension of non-human creatures. So when will this event happen?

There is a great deal of speculation on the 'what' of the Singularity, whether it will create a utopia for humans, cause the extinction of humans, or some outcome in between. Versions of optimism (Star Trek) and pessimism (The Matrix, Terminator) all become fashionable at some point. No one can predict this reliably, because the very definition of the singularity itself precludes such prediction. Given the accelerating nature of technological change, it is just as hard to predict the world of 2050 from 2009, as it would have been to predict 2009 from, say, 1200 AD. So our topic today is not going to be about the 'what', but rather the 'when' of the Singularity.

 

we have to develop stem cell technologies to successfully merge with the machine and survive the singularity.

 

singularity=end of man. when the singularity is reached and "computers" are able to think on their own they'll be thinking at the speed of light (literally). What do you think we'll be to "human computers" we'll be nothing intelligence wise, they can read and interpert info at the speed of light, we'll be seen as a species that merely destroys more than we help (the earth), they'll see us as nothing more than a cockroach. maybe they'll look at the sea and decide the salt water will decay their parts too quickly and rid the earth of the oceans. then they reign supreme whether they physically erradicate us or not. it's ok though, because all "beings" are destroyed at the rate that they grow. with their ability to think at the speed of light they'll destroy themselves at a rate just as fast as they build their civilization.

 

I would imagine that a higher level of intelligence would most likely include empathy for all living things. So, the superintelligent robots would be more likely to help us get rid of problems like war, hunger, energy crisis, etc., than destroy us for their own betterment. We would also have some control over this...since we're the ones building the robots, we could program them so that they're not allowed to harm humans.

 

They very well could show degrees of empathy but if they become smarter and faster than humans saying 'they're not allowed to hurt humans' would be a meaningless concept. People hurt 'lower' lifeforms all the time even those we deem we shouldn't whether on accident, cruelty or for survival.

The article is suggesting these advanced life form(s) would become autonomous at some point.

 

I'm not quite sure I understand how the singularity accomplishes self-awareness. Technology may become more advanced than the human brain but that doesn't mean it will become self-aware, develop a conscious, develop emotions. Yet everyone talks as if that is what the singularity means. Can anyone explain how this is going to be accomplished?

 

I don't think we would know when/if it develops self awareness, perhaps it need not even be self aware.

I guess one could hypothetically envision a robot that has chips that are similar to serotonin neurotransmitters placed in its 'head' that allow it to show and give emotion that humans recognize, maybe it recognize what dogs, ants and beavers feel too. Perhaps when it gets real angry it can be programmed to do the macarena.

 

it happened at the beginning of time ... long b4 this planet was inhabited
its not a future event, it far in the past
:sunny:

its like the mark of the beast
way beyond chip impants in dna id
this was implimented when humans were created

 

i'm inclined to agree with you there... i think... :willy_nilly:

 

I think you've just discovered the secret to world peace.

 

The Evolutionary Singularity Macarena Theory

 

I guess my reasoning is based on the fact that we're creating these things for the explicit purpose of benefiting mankind. That is their foundation, their raison d'etre. That makes them fundamentally different from every form of life which has ever existed, since they were all produced through evolution/natural selection, which is driven by preservation of the self and elimination of competitors.

The idea of the singularity simply means that we will reach a point where further technological advances are out of our hands, and machines will take over this task...but they will still be acting on behalf of humanity.

Plus, at present all war and destruction is based on the scarcity of the resources necessary to sustain our mortal bodies. Machines don't need any of that stuff.

I guess I just have a hard time thinking of a reason why the machines would exterminate us. I'm not saying it's impossible, since by the very nature of the singularity we can't predict what will happen. But, it seems more likely that the machines will be of help to us.

Self-awareness is tricky to define. Similar to what guerillabedlam said, if you were to build an exact replica of a human brain, and it exhibited all the properties normal humans exhibited, would anyone be able to say whether or not it was self-aware? For that matter, we only really "know" that all humans are self-aware because every individual knows that he/she is self-aware, and thus naturally assumes everyone else has to be also. You can never 100% prove that anybody other than yourself is self-aware.

 

I see what you're saying. I am just a bit confused because I've seen the singularity defined in different ways. Some people describe it just as you did above, where technology will become so advanced that the human brain will be too limited to improve upon it and it will take over the task itself. I read an article the other day about how the singularity will be the next step in human evolution in that humans and machine will become one and human consciousness will be implanted into machines.

And a lot of people seem to think that the singularity means that machines will become so advanced that if they don't neccessarily develop self-awareness, they will advance to the point where they will be able to be defined as being alive.

In which case, I've been examining the definition of Life: the ability to reproduce, adapt and evolve, respond to stimuli, and undergo metabolic processes. The reproduction and metabolic elements are the two that intrigue me the most when thinking about the singularity. I've already seen examples of machines growing and adapting and responding to stimuli, but I'm a bit dumbfounded when thinking of machines that can reproduce and assume metabolic processes

 

How does this differ? Especially if the cyborg version becomes reality...

Every machine I've ever known and own has stopped functioning at some point, I don't think they would be exempt from expiration.

I don't think it would be like a terminator situation necessarily but especially if they had our capabilities and beyond something is bound to happen. Cars and planes already kill animals and people already.

 

Hmm. I don't see how or why they would develop metabolic processes. But they would presumably be able to reproduce simply by building other machines. I dunno if it would be right to classify such machines as "life" in the biological sense, even though we might be able to interact with them in all the same ways we interact with other humans. Although if they do indeed merge with human consciousness like you mention, that might blur the line a bit.

 

Think of it as the difference between evolution and intelligent design. In evolution, each species exists for the sole purpose of perpetuating itself, with no regard for the well-being of other species (unless it is to the original species' advantage, like in symbiotic relationships e.g. bees and flowers). On the other hand, the machines are designed for the specific purpose of aiding humankind. They are completely removed from the struggle for existence that every single species has to go through. Thus, the selfishness element is eliminated because the machines don't have to fight to survive.

They're not exempt from expiration, but they don't have to fight over scarce resources like food or oil.

 

I think your perception on what possibly can be evolution is a too narrow of scope. We would have a symbiotic relationship with them, assuming they own at least equal intelligence and can operate around the clock pretty much they would have to be self sufficient to some degree, They would also need resources to perpetuate themselves. I'm not saying that's how it would happen necessarily but there is nothing about that that defies evolution, even to my ~1130 cc brain.

 

I'm going by Darwin's theory of evolution/natural selection, which is the slow unconscious accumulation of minor changes over many generations of reproduction. The scenario we're talking about violates that in several ways, but most important is the fact that the machines are not created unconsciously; they are premeditated and carefully engineered by humans to fit our specific purposes. Yes, it is evolution in the sense that technology is evolving to fit our purposes more and more efficiently--but that is not the same as Darwin's theory, and as such different rules apply to it.

The concept of "selfishness" is strictly a product of Darwinian evolution; in a state of nature it is necessary for all living beings to be selfish in order to gain as much of an advantage as possible over other species in the continuous struggle for existence. With machines, we're starting with a clean slate; no inherited traits from biological ancestors. The machines may grow and develop on their own, but we get to pick the initial conditions: empathy for all living things, no fear of death, no concept of a self, you name it. Thus there is no reason why man-made machines would inherit or develop the trait of selfishness unless we program it into them.