LookupukooL Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 I wonder what the average year you guys think that the singularity (as popularized by Ray Kurzweil) will fall on, if any year at all.For the purposes of argument i'll define the "singularity" as the emergence of artificial intelligence smart than the collective sum of humanity's intelligence. The idea is from that point on the laws of accelerated returns seem to imply a potential burst in intelligence with the AI very quickly rocketing its way to a level of intelligence many orders of magnitude more advanced than the most brilliant of men. So i'm curious to hear the thoughts of a philosophically reflective forum when and if you believe this will happen and what its implications for our species, this planet and its future are.Ray says 2045. I personally think thats a bit ambition. However, I don't see us reaching the year 2100 without some radical shift in our integration with machines.
WasatchMan Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 While the idea of the singularity is not fundamentally flawed, it is not as probable or easy to accomplish in the way Ray predicts. This is because of the extremely low probability of human civilization being the first intelligent species to emerge in the universe. It is actually highly probable that intelligence emerged elsewhere in the universe 100s of millions of yeas ago. Therefore, given that humans are only about 200 years into its first industrial period, and lets say 300 years by the time Ray predicts them to create the singularity, it would have already been created thousands of times 100s of millions years ago and would have already permeated much of the universe. However, we see no evidence of an advanced exponential emergent technology permeating the universe leading me to conclude that while theoretically possible, a singularity in technology is extremely hard to create, and will not be created within the first 300 years of a civilizations industrial age.
Crallask Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 I find it kinda useless to speculate on this type of matter. I mean, how many times to sudden, giant breakthroughs come out of seemingly nowhere? It could be 10 years from now - I'd buy that. It could be post 2080 - I'd buy that too. Besides that, who says we won't have integrated with machines in a way that our minds are always growing with technology at such a rate that a singularity would be technologically impossible? I sure can't make such a claim. In fact, I care more about being able to print/regrow organs and reverse the affects of aging than I do some singularity. If they think they can make one and it's beneficial - power to them. I'd rather see bio fuels, body molding and recreation - super advanced medicines and etc come about first though. I suggest checking out the H+ magazine or other such institutions to read up on where technology could be headed. IN the mean time, I'm gonna sit here baffling over breakthroughs such as bio-organic batteries that could be recharged in minutes and give electric cars a distance of hundreds of miles. I'm pretty focused on the future - but holy shit is the present amazing as well.
Better Future Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 The singularity as OP describes it seems inevitable to me. Many people do want to create a super intelligent A.I. All it would take is some clever programming. We might need a better understanding of how our own brains work first. I'm sure our species will do its best to keep it under control and have it work for our own benefit. It would be like having a much more powerful version of Nikola Tesla. It would understand all human knowledge, do it's own research and we would ask it to solve our problems. I would say we would have such A.I closer to 2245 as opposed to 2045. I also think it is inevitable that humans will transcend their own biology and decide to live in virtual worlds inside supercomputers.
LookupukooL Posted April 4, 2015 Author Posted April 4, 2015 i'd like to respond to the idea that this singularity type future is refuted by a lack of evidence from outer-space. or, the idea that because we don't observe aliens with this advanced technology or AI swarms permeating the Universe in some way argues against its plausibility.this argument doesn't phase me for several reasons. firstly, the universe is so vast and spread out that detecting technology that would very likely be on the nano scale if not the atomic scale would be nearly impossible for us to do with current technology. secondly, there is no reason to assume that the technology of an advanced (post singularity) civilization's technology would be perceptible to us. for all we know the technology of this life exists beyond our sensory experience. its compelling given that we don't even experience bluetooth of wifi with our 5 natural senses. thirdly, a civilization this advanced would most likely not want to engage with us as we would be ants to them. so while i'm not suggesting that the singularity is set in stone i do think its pretty compelling. and the lack of evidence in the universe for it is not an example of its non-existence but our primitive intelligence and lack of ability to perceive it. (hey thats almost like some arguments for God).. advanced AI, God.. whats the difference? lol
Romulox Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 I also think it is inevitable that humans will transcend their own biology and decide to live in virtual worlds inside supercomputers. Perhaps you already decided to escape the post-singularity world and you're living in the supercomputer now. My estimated ETA for the singularity is -50 years ago (whatever year that might be). I'll be that guy
Better Future Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 Perhaps you already decided to escape the post-singularity world and you're living in the supercomputer now. It is possible but I don't see why I would forget that I did or why I would choose to live in a reality where mentally ill pilots crash planes into mountains.
Deil Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 this argument doesn't phase me for several reasons. firstly, the universe is so vast and spread out that detecting technology that would very likely be on the nano scale if not the atomic scale would be nearly impossible for us to do with current technology. I appreciate this comment. It's incredible how narrow-sighted people can get on the idea of the vastness of space. I mean I still hear people saying things like, "How did the Voyager not hit one of Jupiter's Moons?" Space is HUGE people! Okay, so Galaxies are huge, but there are clusters of Galaxies too. Woah! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_cluster But wait, there's more! SUPERCLUSTERS. Clusters of Clusters combined! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercluster Wait, wait.... What?! There are superclusters so large that they just call it a GREAT WALL? Seriously. Just leave it to nature to ruin all preconceptions of the size of things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloan_Great_Wall So there are a tremendous amount of things in space, but there is also a lot of... Space. You know those asteroid field scenes in all those space movies? Dodging and weaving between the things? Well if you flew a ship through our Keiper belt, you would likely not even notice. There's a lot of space between every object in space. Another good example is if we were halfway through the process of colliding with Andromeda, you would also likely not even notice. Pretty cool, eh? I think even if millions of different species had reached a singularity, then I wouldn't be the least bit surprised they didn't even find us, let alone land or fly by our planet.
Recommended Posts