Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Futurist Ray Kurzweil Pulls Out All the Stops (and Pills) to Live to Witness the Singularity

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 95 posts

Re: Futurist Ray Kurzweil Pulls Out All the Stops (and Pills) to Live to Witness the Singularity

#21

Post by pchristensen »

AnotherUser wrote: post #11

To address the points raised in these comments: 1. We do NOT have "the equivalent computing power of a kitten's brain." That's like saying that because we have apples we have the equivalent taste of an orange. The only real way to translate current silicon processor-based computing into a biological brain-based form is to ask how http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19767/ ">many neurons can we model on current ha…

RE #4: He (the clone) may not be you, but it will surely think of himself as himself, and after the fork and you go one living different lives, who's to say he's wrong?

Re: Futurist Ray Kurzweil Pulls Out All the Stops (and Pills) to Live to Witness the Singularity

#22

Post by pchristensen »

xirium wrote: post #20
r7000 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great points. > Consider if you could make perfect clones of yourself, with all of your memories and developments. > Those clones would act exactly like you, but they still wouldn't be you. I believe the argument is something along the line of if you replace a neuron with some sort of artificial neuron are you still "you"? How about another 10? How about a handful here and a handful there over the course of a year? W…

If you put an old harddisk in a new computer does it boot to the same desktop? If you say "That does apply to people because..." then Ray counters that we'll find out if this is the case within our lifetimes.

Well, you'd have to remap all the sensory inputs (computers don't have that problem since they have standard interfaces). For instance, if you got put in a smaller body you'd keep reaching for things and coming up short; you'd have a different sense of balance; speech would be hard since mouth and vocal cords would be different shape and quality; lots of things like this. The brain is extremely adaptable and could theoretically learn to do this (esp with something like rehabilitation therapy), but trying to do it all at once would be a tall order.

Basically instead of a computer's fixed API, you are continually negotiating a new interface between brain, body, and world with every action you take. Keeping it updated isn't hard but starting from scratch takes lots of trial and error (just watch a baby grow and you'll see what I mean).

Re: Futurist Ray Kurzweil Pulls Out All the Stops (and Pills) to Live to Witness the Singularity

#23

Post by pchristensen »

fiaz wrote: post #19
AnotherUser wrote: post #11

To address the points raised in these comments: 1. We do NOT have "the equivalent computing power of a kitten's brain." That's like saying that because we have apples we have the equivalent taste of an orange. The only real way to translate current silicon processor-based computing into a biological brain-based form is to ask how http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19767/ ">many neurons can we model on current ha…

I strongly disagree with Point #2. How we interact with our environment contributes greatly to how we perceive the world. Intelligence that is synthesized outside of natural processes (I think the term "AI" is paradoxical when describing super-human intelligence) will require means of interacting with the environment in the same way we require our bodies. It would be evolutionarily advantageous for a superhuman intel…

If you boil down what the brain really does, it chooses actions based on experience and inputs. If we want an AI that will operate in the real world, then yes, it will need some sort of body so it can learn how the world works (physics simulations are nowhere near as complete as the real world is). If we want an AI that makes financial predictions, then streaming in stock prices, financial reports, news data, etc is enough input and no body is necessary. An AI that isn't going to produce any physical action doesn't necessarily need to learn physical movements, etc.

Having said that, physical environment simulations are ahead of where AIs are right now so they're a good place to start.

Re: Futurist Ray Kurzweil Pulls Out All the Stops (and Pills) to Live to Witness the Singularity

#24

Post by edw519 »

mechanical_fish wrote: post #18

I've got a better plan for my future: I'm going to grow old and die . (Unless, of course, fate intervenes and I don't grow old. But I intend to keep planning to grow old right up until the last minute!) It's a classic plan, and well tested. Lots of prior art. Lots of examples to learn from, and a lot of infrastructure and literature. You folks can find fault with my plan if you want. But here's the thing: You're goin…

OK, fish, I'll bite. I read your reference, but he never came out and said what he ACTUALLY DID during those 6 months. Is there a "rest of the story" or is it inferred?

Nice link. Really got me thinking. Maybe the subject of a future thread...

Re: Futurist Ray Kurzweil Pulls Out All the Stops (and Pills) to Live to Witness the Singularity

#26

Post by pchristensen »

mynameishere wrote: post #16
AnotherUser wrote: post #11

To address the points raised in these comments: 1. We do NOT have "the equivalent computing power of a kitten's brain." That's like saying that because we have apples we have the equivalent taste of an orange. The only real way to translate current silicon processor-based computing into a biological brain-based form is to ask how http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19767/ ">many neurons can we model on current ha…

we will use the term AI instead of robot I use the term "robot" because these things need a physical component, especially if they are going to be manufacturing other physical components that contain themselves. AI is attached to atoms no matter what. Atoms are expensive. As soon as expense is involved, economic scarcity is involved. As soon as scarcity is involved, competition is involved. the only thing that matter…

A newborn baby, I strongly suspect, contains very few algorithms.

Few, but they are meta-meta-meta algorithms like "Try something. If it makes me happy, do it more. If not, do it less." Then it builds up more advanced rules and patterns to act on later.

Incidentally, humans have much less "firmware" (like the kitten hating the dog) than other animals. That's why our young are vulnerable for so much longer, but also why we do so much more as a species - we learn our environment rather than being pre-programmed for it.

Having a kid and watching it grow is very instructive for anyone interested in the only successful experiment in creating human-level intelligence.

Re: Futurist Ray Kurzweil Pulls Out All the Stops (and Pills) to Live to Witness the Singularity

#27

Post by Hexstream »

david927 wrote: post #7
Alex3917 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you say the pills are dangerous without knowing what they are?

I'm channeling a pharmacist friend here. Either a pill has no effect (such as Vitamin-C) and just gives you expensive urine, or it has an effect. And if it has an effect, it has a side effect(s). No pharmacist in the world knows what would happen if you mix that many pills, whatever they are, and so, unless most of them are herbal non-drugs, he's taking a big chance, which is exactly what he's trying to avoid. Thus t…

Vitamin C has no effect?! That's not what mommy told me :(

Any references?

Re: Futurist Ray Kurzweil Pulls Out All the Stops (and Pills) to Live to Witness the Singularity

#28

Post by ericb »

r7000 wrote: post #12
AnotherUser wrote: post #11

To address the points raised in these comments: 1. We do NOT have "the equivalent computing power of a kitten's brain." That's like saying that because we have apples we have the equivalent taste of an orange. The only real way to translate current silicon processor-based computing into a biological brain-based form is to ask how http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19767/ ">many neurons can we model on current ha…

Great points. > Consider if you could make perfect clones of yourself, with all of your memories and developments. > Those clones would act exactly like you, but they still wouldn't be you. I believe the argument is something along the line of if you replace a neuron with some sort of artificial neuron are you still "you"? How about another 10? How about a handful here and a handful there over the course of a year? W…

On the same token, if you cloned me, and he was sitting next to me and I had to choose who would get shot, I'd choose him. He isn't me because I can't access his thoughts. I think identity is tied to physical and temporal location and is in continual flux, so a clone is never me--it never occupies the same points in space and time. The nerve replacement idea is tough, though. Maybe our idea of identity is wrong, artificial, or too limiting.

Re: Futurist Ray Kurzweil Pulls Out All the Stops (and Pills) to Live to Witness the Singularity

#29

Post by ericb »

mynameishere wrote: post #16
AnotherUser wrote: post #11

To address the points raised in these comments: 1. We do NOT have "the equivalent computing power of a kitten's brain." That's like saying that because we have apples we have the equivalent taste of an orange. The only real way to translate current silicon processor-based computing into a biological brain-based form is to ask how http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19767/ ">many neurons can we model on current ha…

we will use the term AI instead of robot I use the term "robot" because these things need a physical component, especially if they are going to be manufacturing other physical components that contain themselves. AI is attached to atoms no matter what. Atoms are expensive. As soon as expense is involved, economic scarcity is involved. As soon as scarcity is involved, competition is involved. the only thing that matter…

> A newborn baby, I strongly suspect, contains very few algorithms.

I would say "very few" is going way too far. There is essentially language recognition (Broca and Wernicke's areas), pattern recognition, and a large body of instincts and social skills (via pre-programmed behaviors and mirror neurons) built-in already.

Post reply on HN