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

81–90 of 147 posts

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#81

Post by semanticist »

jcfrei wrote: post #29
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 ro…

Increases in computing power affect the whole chain - you're looking at the high end, where the limit of computing power is pushed but you also need to remember that computing power for a given cost increases across the whole spectrum of computing devices.

My phone can listen to what I say, translate it into French, and speak it back to me, albeit leveraging external compute power to do most of the heavy lifting. But it wouldn't be possible to provide that external compute power at scale 20 years ago.

I'm also sure that countless small innovations in bioinformatics add up collectively to significant changes over time, and those individual innovations are powered by the more broadly available increases in computing power.

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#82

Post by arethuza »

ez77 wrote: post #63
ez77 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean the Internet? How would that be intelligence? Or do you mean my brain? That's not artificial intelligence (at least not obviously artificial!). Edit: Maybe you meant a computer... but that would be quite a long shot. In short, spell it out, guys!

Why the downvote? Was the last sentence considered rude? I can only hope I wasn't downvoted for 'lack of IQ' in not understanding a hint...

Sorry, I think I downvoted by mistake - I went and upvoted a few of your other comments by way of apology. :-)

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#84

Post by hxa7241 »

SimonPStevens wrote: post #39
albertzeyer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building some intelligent machine is still possible within this limit. There is an example that it is possible: the human brain. But you are right that we could be more far away from that than what we think. And also that it may be that the limit of intelligence of some machine might actually not be so much be ahead of human intelligence. (Whereby, personally, I think that it should be theoretically and practically p…

I agree with you entirely, I'm sure strong AI will be reached. Even if we dropped down onto linear growth, I think strong AI isn't that far away. I just think exponential growth can't continue indefinitely as Kurzweil predicts.

> I think strong AI isn't that far away

But we don't even have intelligent humans yet!

But seriously, I am not sure it can be said to be near or far. Think of it analogously to physical capability. Have we developed 'strong' Artificial Physical Ability? Do we define and measure our physical machines in comparison to human physical abilities? Was the aim of inventing machines just to make artificial humans? No, we develop every kind of physical machine, and in fact we really aim to make all the kinds of things that are not like what humans do.

So why shouldn't informational machines be the same? Is what humans do with information the only thing possible to do, and the only thing we might want to do? No. We won't be making AI to be like humans much, but for a great range of other, non-human-like, applications. Using human intelligence as a single simple measure just will not work or mean anything much.

We think of 'strong AI' as being an ultimate image of the future, but really it diverts us from imagining the much greater range of possibilities the future really holds.

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#85

Post by hxa7241 »

arethuza wrote: post #16

I read pretty much exactly the same prediction in "The Mighty Micro" in the early 80s (intelligent machines. immortality) etc. - which pretty much influenced me to do a CS degree and go into postgraduate AI research. Nobody would be more delighted than me if immortality is achieved in 2045 (I'll be 80!) but do I expect it? Not really, nor do I expect effective commercial fusion power either (which also has a habit of…

> artificial general intelligence is perfectly possible (we do, after all, have a working example)

It depends what is meant by 'general'. Would we say that humans have 'general' physical capability? Well, we can do quite a few things, yes, but there are plenty of things various animals and machines can do that we cannot, and there are certainly plenty of further things conceivably possible. Why would not informational machines -- intelligence -- be like that?

Have we developed a general physical machine yet? What would that mean?

Human 'intelligence' is just one small example. It is not really special, and not a general measure of anything. So although AI will certainly improve, saying there is a particular threshold that will be passed is sort-of problematic (which does seem to fit the history of AI).

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#86

Post by [deleted] »

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

[deleted]

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#87

Post by aneth »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #77
grellas wrote: post #69

Progress hyperaccelerates, and every hour brings a century's worth of scientific breakthroughs. We ditch Darwin and take charge of our own evolution. The human genome becomes just so much code to be bug-tested and optimized and, if necessary, rewritten. Indefinite life extension becomes a reality; people die only if they choose to. Death loses its sting once and for all. Kurzweil hopes to bring his dead father back t…

> I am a theist because I believe that [we] derive ultimate meaning and hope from believing in something that is bigger than [us]. Wait a minute, you admit that you believe in something because it feels good? It sounds like you want to believe in God, but actually don't really. I'd like to test that, so please forgive the following troll. God doesn't exist, and those who believe it does are wrong (yes, my belief is t…

I agree. This is a dangerous sort of argument, to believe something - particularly something so core to human behavior - simply because it is convenient and satisfying.

In fact, this type of justification is at the root of many of the terrible things that have happened in the world - from slavery to genocide.

Are you a terrible person? Maybe not, but only because it doesn't feel right.

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#88

Post by dfranke »

DanI-S wrote: post #62
dfranke wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If even the new consciousness isn't able to know, then what does "same" mean and what part of that definition aren't you satisfying? More acutely, why should you care about satisfying it?

It means you think you just spent $500m on your 'upload' when in reality you just committed some elaborate suicide, launching some other (very similar) chap into immortality. Selfless, but unintentional.

This isn't responsive. You've only answered my question to the extent of defining "same" as the opposite of "other", which is not a lot of progress. So again, what makes this "other" chap "other", and why should anyone care about satisfying that criterion?

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#89

Post by AffableSpatula »

gimpf wrote: post #57
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Building some intelligent machine is still possible within this limit. There is an example that it is possible: the human brain. Assuming the human brain to be a mere machine.

Dualist priors have not yet been shown to be useful.

are you including stuff like Taoism in that?

Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

#90

Post by kenj0418 »

thomas11 wrote: post #66
arethuza wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know that the instance of you that awakes every morning is really the "same" consciousness as went to sleep the night before? :-)

Buddhists say it's not.

Yes, and a large number of people (fail to) follow rules handed down to them by a shrubbery - but how is that relevant?
Post reply on HN