31–40 of 147 posts
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…
Which one?
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…
Quantum computation as been explored but as yet we don't have a computer capable of executing the quantum algorithms.
That aside, all I'm saying is that exponential growth has a limit. That growth could be measured in MIPS or in algorithm performance, it doesn't really matter, but I don't think that growth will continue exponentially.
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.
Even assuming current processing capability growth rates continue, it's unlikely I'll live to see a complete modeling of the human brain (an emulation approach to AI). There's always the possibility someone will discover a secret sauce that permits self-aware artificial intelligence.
That would be an interesting time to live in.
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…
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 possible to build much more intelligent machines at some point.)
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.
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.
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…
we do, after all, have a working example Which one?
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.
I'm not saying he is wrong about the next 100 years, the singularity or AI, I'm saying may be wrong about the short term and he certainly can't be right indefinitely.
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…
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…
A more fundamental issue for me is that computer aren't able to think in place of people. If you want to work on hard problems, you have to learn all the relevant information beforehand. Thus setting a hard limit on how much progress can be made, provided we do not find ways to learn faster or to make computers think for us.
Add to this that for me many domains of knowledge nowadays are presented in unnecessary complex ways. We are building (and this is especially true in computer science) a bunch of complexity based on a bunch of complexity. I believe that one day the piled complexity will lead us to a standstill and that we will have to seriously simplify some systems.