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

2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 147 posts

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#21

Post by arethuza »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #17
jtagen wrote: post #9

Why does everyone seem to think that machine intelligence is solely a function of processor speed?

You'd better hope it is. If hardware is what limits the rate of improvement of AI, you get slow growth. If knowledge of how to write the software (perhaps by copying algorithms from the brain) limits it, then you get sudden improvements and serious potential for a runaway singularity.

I'm pretty sure the "knowledge of how to write the software" is the most complex part of the problem by far.

However, one outside chance of a limit may be that the brain is doing something that is fundamentally different to the kinds of operations carried out by a normal computer - which is essentially the argument in The Emperor's New Mind. When I read that book at the height of my own AI enthusiasm I thought it was pretty silly. However, after reading Anathem (of all things) it made me wonder if perhaps Penrose may have had a point.

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#22

Post by twfarland »

Sometimes I think we are driven by our animal instincts, and that intelligence is just 'processing power' that modulates or assists those instincts. I wonder, would a system with unlimited processing power even 'want' to develop and expand if it didn't have any 'urges?' Or would there be a chance that it would happen upon the creation of its own arbitrary 'instincts?'

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#23

Post by ErrantX »

arethuza wrote: post #21
JulianMorrison wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd better hope it is. If hardware is what limits the rate of improvement of AI, you get slow growth. If knowledge of how to write the software (perhaps by copying algorithms from the brain) limits it, then you get sudden improvements and serious potential for a runaway singularity.

I'm pretty sure the "knowledge of how to write the software" is the most complex part of the problem by far. However, one outside chance of a limit may be that the brain is doing something that is fundamentally different to the kinds of operations carried out by a normal computer - which is essentially the argument in The Emperor's New Mind. When I read that book at the height of my own AI enthusiasm I thought it was…

I think that the limitations we face vary depending on what model you are trying to solve.

So; are you trying to create software that "emulates" human intelligence (i.e. AI)? In which case, yes, software is the major limitation.

Or are you trying to create an artificial (and independently functioning) model of the human brain? In which case you have two limits; hardware speed. But also a huge lack of knowledge about the "secrets" of our brains :)

I suspect #1 will be first solved.

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#24

Post by matthiaswh »

arethuza wrote: post #20
rue wrote: post #18

I remain unconvinced that a transplanted consciousness would really be the same person as opposed to a new, identical person. What's worse, it might be impossible to tell the difference since even the new consciousness wouldn't be able to know. … But it'd really suck to be the last generation before some significant increase in lifespan (say, up to 200) is reached.

Greg Egan's Permuation City has an interesting examination of what might happen to "copies": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City

On the same note, the Asgard race of aliens from Stargate SG-1 were also copies. Later episodes in the series address the same sort of scenario.

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#25

Post by d4nt »

arethuza wrote: post #21
JulianMorrison wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd better hope it is. If hardware is what limits the rate of improvement of AI, you get slow growth. If knowledge of how to write the software (perhaps by copying algorithms from the brain) limits it, then you get sudden improvements and serious potential for a runaway singularity.

I'm pretty sure the "knowledge of how to write the software" is the most complex part of the problem by far. However, one outside chance of a limit may be that the brain is doing something that is fundamentally different to the kinds of operations carried out by a normal computer - which is essentially the argument in The Emperor's New Mind. When I read that book at the height of my own AI enthusiasm I thought it was…

Maybe one way to overcome this would be to model the body at the molecular/atomic level and "run" someone's DNA. It's not impossible to imagine that a super computer in 30 years, starting with an model of an embryonic cell, could emulate the growth of the human body. It wouldn't even have to happen in real time. From the point of view of the individual, time would feel normal.

This, of course, has massive ethical and practical implications. It wouldn't be fair to do this without simulating external stimulus (e.g. photo's hitting the back of the eye) or human to human interaction. You wouldn't be able to ask the individual beforehand so it probably would be considered completely unethical... that doesn't mean someone won't do it eventually though.

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#26

Post by arethuza »

ErrantX wrote: post #23
arethuza wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure the "knowledge of how to write the software" is the most complex part of the problem by far. However, one outside chance of a limit may be that the brain is doing something that is fundamentally different to the kinds of operations carried out by a normal computer - which is essentially the argument in The Emperor's New Mind. When I read that book at the height of my own AI enthusiasm I thought it was…

I think that the limitations we face vary depending on what model you are trying to solve. So; are you trying to create software that "emulates" human intelligence (i.e. AI)? In which case, yes, software is the major limitation. Or are you trying to create an artificial (and independently functioning) model of the human brain? In which case you have two limits; hardware speed. But also a huge lack of knowledge about…

I tend to think #2 is the approach that is most likely to lead to a "real" general intelligence - reverse engineer what we know works, replicate the essential "secrets" (whatever they are) and scale up and out.

I just don't see much progress on #1 - and people have been trying this approach for 50 years.

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#27

Post by JulianMorrison »

arethuza wrote: post #21
JulianMorrison wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd better hope it is. If hardware is what limits the rate of improvement of AI, you get slow growth. If knowledge of how to write the software (perhaps by copying algorithms from the brain) limits it, then you get sudden improvements and serious potential for a runaway singularity.

I'm pretty sure the "knowledge of how to write the software" is the most complex part of the problem by far. However, one outside chance of a limit may be that the brain is doing something that is fundamentally different to the kinds of operations carried out by a normal computer - which is essentially the argument in The Emperor's New Mind. When I read that book at the height of my own AI enthusiasm I thought it was…

Penrose is wasting his time and ignoring Occam's razor. There is no reason to suppose neurons need any quantum special sauce to do computation.

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#28

Post by AffableSpatula »

SimonPStevens wrote: post #15

All of Kurzweil's predictions are based on extrapolating exponential growth. That's all very well, but exponential growth in physical systems is usually restricted within limits. In a such a system the negative feedback may also be growing exponentially, which means although initially it may be too small to be noticed, after the growth passes some boundary the negative feedback becomes relevant and the overall growth…

"The question is how close are we to the limit and that is something we are only likely to know when we reach it."

You've posed the question and then immediately explained why it's fruitless to ask.

Even if you are right that there must be limits; if you have no idea when his models are likely to break down then your skepticism is no more solid than his prediction.

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#29

Post by jcfrei »

SimonPStevens wrote: post #15

All of Kurzweil's predictions are based on extrapolating exponential growth. That's all very well, but exponential growth in physical systems is usually restricted within limits. In a such a system the negative feedback may also be growing exponentially, which means although initially it may be too small to be noticed, after the growth passes some boundary the negative feedback becomes relevant and the overall growth…

I think with the advent of quantum computers a limit in computing power is still far way. Nonetheless, what has brute computing power enabled us to do so far? There have been a few prestigious projects, ie. deep blue, seti, cern, molecular folding, etc. which take advantage of this power. But most research projects profit little from an increase in computing power. I think new software and algorithms play a bigger role in trying to enable machines to solve the more "human" tasks.

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#30

Post by ugh »

rue wrote: post #18

I remain unconvinced that a transplanted consciousness would really be the same person as opposed to a new, identical person. What's worse, it might be impossible to tell the difference since even the new consciousness wouldn't be able to know. … But it'd really suck to be the last generation before some significant increase in lifespan (say, up to 200) is reached.

That question always gets me. I tend to think that it doesn’t matter but I’m really not sure.

It seems to me that for consciousness to be not permanent, additional systems or mechanisms are required. There would need to be some sort of external thing (external meaning something that is not scanned) which keeps track of our consciousness. How else would non-continuous consciousness work?

Post reply on HN