Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: The Singularity - Page 19







Post#451 at 09-16-2004 08:41 AM by beautifulcartoon73 [at Pennsylvania, USA joined Aug 2004 #posts 270]
---
09-16-2004, 08:41 AM #451
Join Date
Aug 2004
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Posts
270

quit giving me the heebie-jeebies...

...no, go on. i am rivited.







Post#452 at 09-16-2004 02:04 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
09-16-2004, 02:04 PM #452
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
If forecasts hold, within 24 hours New Orleans will be under several feet of water. The death toll could be in the hundreds, if not the thousands. Now, of course we will never know if Ivan was caused by human-induced climate change, but that is beside the point. The point is: when will we decide that the time for talking is over, and the time for action is here?
Well, it looks like New Orleans has been spared, so we can now return to our regularly scheduled broadcast of Survivor: East Fishkill and do nothing until the next catastrophe looms. Eat, drink and be merry!
Yes we did!







Post#453 at 09-16-2004 07:52 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
09-16-2004, 07:52 PM #453
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
If forecasts hold, within 24 hours New Orleans will be under several feet of water. The death toll could be in the hundreds, if not the thousands. Now, of course we will never know if Ivan was caused by human-induced climate change, but that is beside the point. The point is: when will we decide that the time for talking is over, and the time for action is here?
Well, it looks like New Orleans has been spared, so we can now return to our regularly scheduled broadcast of Survivor: East Fishkill and do nothing until the next catastrophe looms. Eat, drink and be merry!
You tawkin' East Fishkill, New Yowk? I yoosta live derr.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#454 at 10-11-2004 03:00 AM by Vince Lamb '59 [at Irish Hills, Michigan joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,997]
---
10-11-2004, 03:00 AM #454
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Irish Hills, Michigan
Posts
1,997

If any of you want to see an interesting display of AI in action, surf over to groups.google.com and search for "lady chatterly". You'll find thousands of posts by a bot--an automated program that is attempting to pass the Turing Test. Sometimes it succeeds, sometimes it doesn't. However, sometimes the humans responding to it fail the Turing Test, too!

BTW, the posts themselves, and the sometimes befuddled responses, are a scream!
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."







Post#455 at 10-11-2004 08:57 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-11-2004, 08:57 AM #455
Guest

Re: How fast can monkeys adapt?

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
How fast can monkeys evolve?



Two weeks ago, Natasha and three other monkeys were diagnosed with
severe stomach flu. At the zoo clinic, she slipped into critical
condition, said Igal Horowitz, the veterinarian.

"I was sure that she was going to die," he said. "She could hardly
breathe and her heart was not functioning properly."

After intensive treatment, Natasha's condition stabilized. When she
was released from the clinic, Natasha began walking upright.

"I've never seen or heard of this before," said Horowitz. One possible
explanation is brain damage from the illness, he said.
Perhaps the headline ought to read:

How fast can monkeys adapt?

Kind of like a limping dog, unable to put pressue on an injured foot, perhaps stomach pain made Natasha favor walking upright? And even while the pain has ceased, her brain has been slow to "get over it."

Seems to me the Evolutionaries can be just as optimistically religious in their beliefs as the Creationists. But that's just my unqualified opinion on the matter.







Post#456 at 10-11-2004 09:16 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
10-11-2004, 09:16 AM #456
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Re: How fast can monkeys adapt?

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
How fast can monkeys evolve?



Two weeks ago, Natasha and three other monkeys were diagnosed with
severe stomach flu. At the zoo clinic, she slipped into critical
condition, said Igal Horowitz, the veterinarian.

"I was sure that she was going to die," he said. "She could hardly
breathe and her heart was not functioning properly."

After intensive treatment, Natasha's condition stabilized. When she
was released from the clinic, Natasha began walking upright.

"I've never seen or heard of this before," said Horowitz. One possible
explanation is brain damage from the illness, he said.
Perhaps the headline ought to read:

How fast can monkeys adapt?

Kind of like a limping dog, unable to put pressue on an injured foot, perhaps stomach pain made Natasha favor walking upright? And even while the pain has ceased, her brain has been slow to "get over it."

Seems to me the Evolutionaries can be just as optimistically religious in their beliefs as the Creationists. But that's just my unqualified opinion on the matter.
At most, it's an interesting development. On the other hand, if Natasha passed this trait to her offspring, that would be significant.

Go back to sleep. Your world is still safe.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#457 at 10-21-2004 01:32 PM by Jeremiah175 [at North Tonawanda, Ny joined Dec 2002 #posts 323]
---
10-21-2004, 01:32 PM #457
Join Date
Dec 2002
Location
North Tonawanda, Ny
Posts
323

U.N.: Robot Use to Surge Sevenfold by 2007

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041021/D85RTNNO1.html

U.N.: Robot Use to Surge Sevenfold by 2007

Oct 21, 11:55 AM (ET)

By JONATHAN FOWLER


GENEVA (AP) - The use of robots around the home to mow lawns, vacuum floors, pull guard duty and perform other chores is set to surge sevenfold by 2007, says a new U.N. survey, which credits dropping prices for the robot boom.

The increase in domestic robots coincides with record orders for industrial robots, the U.N.'s annual World Robotics Survey adds.

The report, issued Wednesday by the U.N. Economic Commission for Europe and the International Federation of Robotics, says 607,000 automated domestic helpers were in use at the end of 2003, two thirds of them purchased last year.

Most of them - 570,000 - were robot vacuum cleaners. Sales of lawn-mowing robots reached 37,000.

By the end of 2007, some 4.1 million domestic robots will likely be in use, the study says. Vacuum cleaners will still make up the majority, but sales of window-washing and pool-cleaning robots are also set to take off, it predicts.

Sales of robotic companions, like Sony's canine-like Aibo, also have climbed, with some 692,000 "entertainment robots" around the world.

Until very recently, robots have failed to live up to expectations, acknowledged Colin Angle, chief executive of iRobot Corp. of Burlington, Massachusetts, whose Roomba is a popular robovac and which also makes robots used by the U.S. military.

"Our biggest hurdle right now is skepticism," Angle said. But "we are just at a point where robots are becoming affordable ... and some of them can actually do real work."

The UNECE said household robots could soon edge their industrial counterparts, which have dominated since the U.N. body first began counting in 1990.

"Falling or stable robot prices, increasing labor costs and continuously improving technology are major driving forces which speak for continued massive robot investment in industry," said Jan Karlsson, author of the 414-page study.

In the first half of 2004, business orders for robots were up 18 percent on the same period a year earlier, mostly in Asia and North America.

Japan remains the most robotized economy, home to around half the current 800,000 industrial robots. After several years in the doldrums, demand there jumped 25 percent in 2003. But Europe and North America are fast catching up.

European Union countries had 250,000 robots in operation at the end of last year, mostly in Germany, Italy and France. Demand from North American businesses rose 28 percent, with some 112,000 robots in service by the end of last year.

The machines are also taking off in richer developing countries, including Brazil, China and Mexico, spurred by plummeting prices.

Taking the global average, a robot sold in 2003 cost a quarter of what a robot with the same performance cost in 1990, the study found. It predicts that by 2007, world industrial robot numbers will likely reach at least 1 million.

The term "robot" covers any machine that operates automatically to perform tasks in a human-like way, often replacing the human workers who did the job previously. In most cases, robots move under their own propulsion and do not need to be controlled by a human operator after they have been programmed.

Most industrial robots are used on assembly lines, chiefly in the auto industry. But increasingly, companies are using them for other tasks, the study said.

There are now some 21,000 "service robots" in use, carrying out tasks such as milking cows, handling toxic waste, ferrying medicine around hospitals and assisting surgeons. The number is set to reach a total of 75,000 by 2007, the study says.

Of course that's just the beginning.

By the end of the decade, the study says, robots will "also assist old and handicapped people with sophisticated interactive equipment, carry out surgery, inspect pipes and sites that are hazardous to people, fight fire and bombs."
Born 8.22.78







Post#458 at 02-27-2005 08:34 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
02-27-2005, 08:34 PM #458
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Army's Future Combat Systems - Autonomous Robots by 2014

Army's "Future Combat System" calls for
autonomous robot soldiers by 2014


What surprises me is that the technology is proceeding faster than I
expected.

On Friday, the Army cut the ribbon on the huge "System of Systems
integration laboratory" in Huntingdon Beach, Calif.
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6787

This will be the simulation, testing and integration lab for the
Future Combat Systems project, which will deploy, by 2014, a network
of intelligent battlefield robots which will replace the duties of
ordinary soldiers, and will have the ability to kill.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/...ess/robot.html

The robots will be in a variety of forms, including aircraft, ground
vehicles, and special-purpose units that look like toy trucks.

When I heard the BBC interview Pentagon spokesman Gordon Johnson
about the project, I was struck by how careful Johnson was to be
reassuring. These robots will NOT be making autonomous decisions to
kill, he assured us. Human soldiers will be monitoring everything
they do, and human soldiers will have to approve any killing.

I was also struck by the fact that Johnson was talking about the
initial deployment in 2014, and the interviewer failed to ask the
obvious question: "What about 2020 or 2025?" By that time, these
autonomous robots will be much more numerous and much more advanced,
and it will not be desirable or even possible for a human being to
approve each action. By that time, intelligent computer robots will
be making decisions on their own.

So what does this mean for the timeframe for the Singularity?

Just as intelligent robots will be used as soldiers, they'll also
have a wide variety of commercial uses, everything from robot
plumbers to robot nursemaids, all making autonomous decisions. And
those robots will soon be making all their decisions on their own as
well.



Intelligent robots will also be doing scientific research to develop
improved versions of themselves, so that intelligent robots will
eventually be far more intelligent than human beings. The point in
time where intelligent robots are essentially in control of their own
destiny is called "The Singularity," because there will be a bend in
the exponential growth technology curve, as shown in the adjoining
graphic. There is no way to have any idea what's going to happen
to the world after that point.

Various analysts have estimated the date of the Singularity as
occurring anywhere between 2015 and 2045. Early in 2004, I estimated
that the Singular would occur in 2030.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/....i.robot040709

However, the aggressive schedule for the deployment of Future Combat
Systems leads me to believe that technology is farther ahead than I
had estimated. Furthermore, it now appears that a supercomputer will
have the power of the human brain in the 2008 time frame, where I had
estimated 2010-2012. http://www.research.ibm.com/bluegene/

These schedules lead me to wonder whether the Singularity will come a
little earlier, perhaps around 2025. On the other hand, some of
these schedules may turn out to be too optimistic, so I'm going to
stick with the 2030 estimate for the time being.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com







Post#459 at 02-27-2005 08:34 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
02-27-2005, 08:34 PM #459
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Army's Future Combat Systems - Autonomous Robots by 2014

Army's "Future Combat System" calls for
autonomous robot soldiers by 2014


What surprises me is that the technology is proceeding faster than I
expected.

On Friday, the Army cut the ribbon on the huge "System of Systems
integration laboratory" in Huntingdon Beach, Calif.
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6787

This will be the simulation, testing and integration lab for the
Future Combat Systems project, which will deploy, by 2014, a network
of intelligent battlefield robots which will replace the duties of
ordinary soldiers, and will have the ability to kill.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/...ess/robot.html

The robots will be in a variety of forms, including aircraft, ground
vehicles, and special-purpose units that look like toy trucks.

When I heard the BBC interview Pentagon spokesman Gordon Johnson
about the project, I was struck by how careful Johnson was to be
reassuring. These robots will NOT be making autonomous decisions to
kill, he assured us. Human soldiers will be monitoring everything
they do, and human soldiers will have to approve any killing.

I was also struck by the fact that Johnson was talking about the
initial deployment in 2014, and the interviewer failed to ask the
obvious question: "What about 2020 or 2025?" By that time, these
autonomous robots will be much more numerous and much more advanced,
and it will not be desirable or even possible for a human being to
approve each action. By that time, intelligent computer robots will
be making decisions on their own.

So what does this mean for the timeframe for the Singularity?

Just as intelligent robots will be used as soldiers, they'll also
have a wide variety of commercial uses, everything from robot
plumbers to robot nursemaids, all making autonomous decisions. And
those robots will soon be making all their decisions on their own as
well.



Intelligent robots will also be doing scientific research to develop
improved versions of themselves, so that intelligent robots will
eventually be far more intelligent than human beings. The point in
time where intelligent robots are essentially in control of their own
destiny is called "The Singularity," because there will be a bend in
the exponential growth technology curve, as shown in the adjoining
graphic. There is no way to have any idea what's going to happen
to the world after that point.

Various analysts have estimated the date of the Singularity as
occurring anywhere between 2015 and 2045. Early in 2004, I estimated
that the Singular would occur in 2030.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/....i.robot040709

However, the aggressive schedule for the deployment of Future Combat
Systems leads me to believe that technology is farther ahead than I
had estimated. Furthermore, it now appears that a supercomputer will
have the power of the human brain in the 2008 time frame, where I had
estimated 2010-2012. http://www.research.ibm.com/bluegene/

These schedules lead me to wonder whether the Singularity will come a
little earlier, perhaps around 2025. On the other hand, some of
these schedules may turn out to be too optimistic, so I'm going to
stick with the 2030 estimate for the time being.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com







Post#460 at 02-28-2005 01:04 PM by Prisoner 81591518 [at joined Mar 2003 #posts 2,460]
---
02-28-2005, 01:04 PM #460
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,460

Re: Army's Future Combat Systems - Autonomous Robots by 2014

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
Army's "Future Combat System" calls for
autonomous robot soldiers by 2014


What surprises me is that the technology is proceeding faster than I
expected.

On Friday, the Army cut the ribbon on the huge "System of Systems
integration laboratory" in Huntingdon Beach, Calif.
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6787

This will be the simulation, testing and integration lab for the
Future Combat Systems project, which will deploy, by 2014, a network
of intelligent battlefield robots which will replace the duties of
ordinary soldiers, and will have the ability to kill.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/...ess/robot.html

The robots will be in a variety of forms, including aircraft, ground
vehicles, and special-purpose units that look like toy trucks.

When I heard the BBC interview Pentagon spokesman Gordon Johnson
about the project, I was struck by how careful Johnson was to be
reassuring. These robots will NOT be making autonomous decisions to
kill, he assured us. Human soldiers will be monitoring everything
they do, and human soldiers will have to approve any killing.

I was also struck by the fact that Johnson was talking about the
initial deployment in 2014, and the interviewer failed to ask the
obvious question: "What about 2020 or 2025?" By that time, these
autonomous robots will be much more numerous and much more advanced,
and it will not be desirable or even possible for a human being to
approve each action. By that time, intelligent computer robots will
be making decisions on their own.

So what does this mean for the timeframe for the Singularity?

Just as intelligent robots will be used as soldiers, they'll also
have a wide variety of commercial uses, everything from robot
plumbers to robot nursemaids, all making autonomous decisions. And
those robots will soon be making all their decisions on their own as
well.



Intelligent robots will also be doing scientific research to develop
improved versions of themselves, so that intelligent robots will
eventually be far more intelligent than human beings. The point in
time where intelligent robots are essentially in control of their own
destiny is called "The Singularity," because there will be a bend in
the exponential growth technology curve, as shown in the adjoining
graphic. There is no way to have any idea what's going to happen
to the world after that point.

Various analysts have estimated the date of the Singularity as
occurring anywhere between 2015 and 2045. Early in 2004, I estimated
that the Singular would occur in 2030.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/....i.robot040709

However, the aggressive schedule for the deployment of Future Combat
Systems leads me to believe that technology is farther ahead than I
had estimated. Furthermore, it now appears that a supercomputer will
have the power of the human brain in the 2008 time frame, where I had
estimated 2010-2012. http://www.research.ibm.com/bluegene/

These schedules lead me to wonder whether the Singularity will come a
little earlier, perhaps around 2025. On the other hand, some of
these schedules may turn out to be too optimistic, so I'm going to
stick with the 2030 estimate for the time being.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Our very own version of Cylon Centurians developed and ready for deployment by 2014?! :shock: (Too bad there's no emoticon of a red dot going back and forth - at least that I know of.)







Post#461 at 02-28-2005 01:04 PM by Prisoner 81591518 [at joined Mar 2003 #posts 2,460]
---
02-28-2005, 01:04 PM #461
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,460

Re: Army's Future Combat Systems - Autonomous Robots by 2014

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
Army's "Future Combat System" calls for
autonomous robot soldiers by 2014


What surprises me is that the technology is proceeding faster than I
expected.

On Friday, the Army cut the ribbon on the huge "System of Systems
integration laboratory" in Huntingdon Beach, Calif.
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6787

This will be the simulation, testing and integration lab for the
Future Combat Systems project, which will deploy, by 2014, a network
of intelligent battlefield robots which will replace the duties of
ordinary soldiers, and will have the ability to kill.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/...ess/robot.html

The robots will be in a variety of forms, including aircraft, ground
vehicles, and special-purpose units that look like toy trucks.

When I heard the BBC interview Pentagon spokesman Gordon Johnson
about the project, I was struck by how careful Johnson was to be
reassuring. These robots will NOT be making autonomous decisions to
kill, he assured us. Human soldiers will be monitoring everything
they do, and human soldiers will have to approve any killing.

I was also struck by the fact that Johnson was talking about the
initial deployment in 2014, and the interviewer failed to ask the
obvious question: "What about 2020 or 2025?" By that time, these
autonomous robots will be much more numerous and much more advanced,
and it will not be desirable or even possible for a human being to
approve each action. By that time, intelligent computer robots will
be making decisions on their own.

So what does this mean for the timeframe for the Singularity?

Just as intelligent robots will be used as soldiers, they'll also
have a wide variety of commercial uses, everything from robot
plumbers to robot nursemaids, all making autonomous decisions. And
those robots will soon be making all their decisions on their own as
well.



Intelligent robots will also be doing scientific research to develop
improved versions of themselves, so that intelligent robots will
eventually be far more intelligent than human beings. The point in
time where intelligent robots are essentially in control of their own
destiny is called "The Singularity," because there will be a bend in
the exponential growth technology curve, as shown in the adjoining
graphic. There is no way to have any idea what's going to happen
to the world after that point.

Various analysts have estimated the date of the Singularity as
occurring anywhere between 2015 and 2045. Early in 2004, I estimated
that the Singular would occur in 2030.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/....i.robot040709

However, the aggressive schedule for the deployment of Future Combat
Systems leads me to believe that technology is farther ahead than I
had estimated. Furthermore, it now appears that a supercomputer will
have the power of the human brain in the 2008 time frame, where I had
estimated 2010-2012. http://www.research.ibm.com/bluegene/

These schedules lead me to wonder whether the Singularity will come a
little earlier, perhaps around 2025. On the other hand, some of
these schedules may turn out to be too optimistic, so I'm going to
stick with the 2030 estimate for the time being.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Our very own version of Cylon Centurians developed and ready for deployment by 2014?! :shock: (Too bad there's no emoticon of a red dot going back and forth - at least that I know of.)







Post#462 at 05-12-2005 05:52 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
05-12-2005, 05:52 PM #462
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

The Singularity

To all:

5/12/2005 - I've renamed this thread to "The Singularity". This name
is less confusing.

The old name was: Eschatology - The End of the Human Race by 2100?

This thread was begun on May 16, 2003, almost two years ago, to
discuss the possibility that computers would become so intelligent
that the human race would disappear by 2100.

We discussed this vigorously, and many people contributed to the
discussion. My own thinking evolved to my own conclusion that "The
Singularity" will take place around 2030.

The Singularity is the point in time where autonomous, self-contained
computer entities are not only more intelligent than humans, but also
able to research new versions of themselves, and manufacture improved
versions of themselves.

Work on intelligent, autonomous robots is going on around the world.
IBM will have a supercomputer with more brainpower than a human brain
by 2008. The Department of Defense has announced the Future Combat
Sytems project, which will deploy intelligent, autonomous robot
soldiers on the battlefield, able to make "shoot to kill" decisions on
their own, by 2014. And that's not 900 years away. It's only 9 years
away.

When the movie I, Robot came out last summer, I put an article
about the subject on my web site.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/....i.robot040709

I thought that the movie might trigger a public debate about the
Singularity, but I was surprised that it generated nothing at all,
except for an occasional article.

On the other hand, during casual conversations, I've asked a number
of people if they've seen the movie and what they think of it. I've
been surprised that many people seem to be quite aware of the fact
that robots / computers are going to be taking over the world in the
not too distant future, but they aren't especially concerned about
it. My own son Jason, who's a junior majoring in biotechnology at
Georgia Institute of Technology, is actually looking forward to
designing the super-intelligent robots.

So I guess I've come to the conclusion that the Singularity isn't
really going to have much of an effect until it finally occurs. In
the meantime, in the late 2010s and the 2020s, there'll be a lot of
neat computerized servants that will be making everyone's life easier
(the people who are left after the war), and everyone can just enjoy
that until the end comes.

And if I have any remaining doubts about 2030 as the date of The
Singularity, my doubts are only that the 2030 date is too late. By
the early to mid 2020s, there will be millions of computerized robot
soldiers running around, manufactured in America, China, India,
Russia, the EU, and other countries as well. In that kind of
"primordal soup," The Singularity is not too far off.

As that old song goes, "Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think!"

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com







Post#463 at 05-12-2005 06:05 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
05-12-2005, 06:05 PM #463
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

The Singularity

Response to:
http://fourthturning.com/forums/view...=129463#129463

Dear catfishncod,

Quote Originally Posted by catfishncod
> I have a number of strong disagreements concerning your depiction
> of the Singularity but I will not list them all here, as it is
> tangential to the current discussion. I will only point out in
> passing that no exponential growth process lasts forever in this
> universe, and that there are rate-determining steps in each of the
> processes leading to the Singularity that are often overlooked and
> are near to exhaustion. I don't believe in (1) machine dominance
> of the Singularity (machine dominance depends upon machines not
> only achieving superhuman capabilities but doing so at an
> exponential rate greater than human capabilities), (2) its
> exponential character (growth of complexity will soon be reduced
> to polynomial levels), or (3) the assumption that humanity becomes
> irrelevant with the Singularity (we will be quite different but
> human nature, including the Turnings, will not be destroyed).

> That said, I believe an event with passing similarity to the
> postulated Singularity will likely be an element of the 2100 or
> 2180 Crises.

> This short story
> [[http://www.davidbrin.com/stonesofsignificance1.html]] comes
> closer to my idea of the Singularity but still does not include an
> aspect I believe to be key, that of meta-consciousness at a level
> above that of the individual. Please note that the story concerns
> the advent of a new Awakening in post-Singularity society.

> Matters concerning the Singularity would best be shunted to a new
> thread, as the Vinge hypothesis is not central to GD.
I don't completely understand your point about machine dominance, but
I do know that there will be a bend in the technology curve after the
Singularity representing a faster rate of exponential growth. That's
because human intelligence has been constant for many millennia,
and technological development was limited by human intelligence.
After the singularity, the "brain" doing research will itself become
more intelligent at an exponential rate.

I totally disagree with your claim about polynomial growth. I'm not
aware of anything that supports such a view.

I agree that it's possible that humans will coexist with
super-intelligent computers. Just as we have no reason to kill all
the dogs and cats, the super-intelligent computers will have no
reason to kill us. However, there will be a transition period.

The more I think about these ideas of combining computers with the
human brain, the less I like it. I don't want any computer servant
probing my brain, knowing everything I think, trying to "help" me,
because the servant may become master and control everything I do. By
that time, I wouldn't even be able to commit suicide if I wanted to.
I'll just take my cyanide pill right away, thank you.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com







Post#464 at 05-13-2005 02:24 AM by Jesse '77 [at Providence, RI, USA joined May 2003 #posts 153]
---
05-13-2005, 02:24 AM #464
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Providence, RI, USA
Posts
153

I don't believe that designing A.I.s from scratch is likely to be a viable strategy--the human mind is pretty good at designing complex hierarchical rule-based programs, but designing highly nonlinear, self-organizing systems like the brain is something that we don't have much aptitude for. The fact that they neural networks are self-organizing means you don't have to program all the details by hand, but even the brain of a newborn baby probably contains a lot of subtle genetic "design" that predisposes it to be able to respond to its environment, and to other intelligent beings, in a meaningful way (the existence of syndromes like autism shows how easily this can go wrong). You can try to evolve such systems rather than design them by hand, but considering how many generations it took to go from the organisms with the simplest neural nets to brains of the complexity of humans, I'm not optimistic about the possibility of our being able to reproduce this process in a much smaller number of generations if we have to start from scratch. So, like Ray Kurzweil, I think the most viable strategy for creating a truly intelligent machine is reverse-engineering the brain of an actual human, or mind uploading, which basically means figuring out how individual neurons work and interact with their neighbors well enough to simulate them accurately on computers, and then mapping out every neuron and neural connection in a real person's brain and simulating the entire collection on a sufficiently powerful computer. So although such beings would no longer be human biologically, they would still start out entirely human mentally (and they would probably want simulated human bodies too, since that's what their brains are used to). But their rate of perception and thought could be much faster than ours, since signals in biological neurons are pretty slow compared to signals in computers (from their point of view, it would just look like we biological humans were moving at a glacial pace and they were thinking at a normal speed), and so hundreds of subjective years of tinkering with their own brains to slowly increase their mental abilities could go by very quickly in realtime, in which case we would get the same sort of "singularity" that you've been talking about.







Post#465 at 05-15-2005 09:45 AM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
05-15-2005, 09:45 AM #465
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Dear Jesse,

Quote Originally Posted by Jesse '77

> I don't believe that designing A.I.s from scratch is likely to be
> a viable strategy--the human mind is pretty good at designing
> complex hierarchical rule-based programs, but designing highly
> nonlinear, self-organizing systems like the brain is something
> that we don't have much aptitude for. The fact that they neural
> networks are self-organizing means you don't have to program all
> the details by hand, but even the brain of a newborn baby
> probably contains a lot of subtle genetic "design" that
> predisposes it to be able to respond to its environment, and to
> other intelligent beings, in a meaningful way (the existence of
> syndromes like autism shows how easily this can go wrong). You
> can try to evolve such systems rather than design them by hand,
> but considering how many generations it took to go from the
> organisms with the simplest neural nets to brains of the
> complexity of humans, I'm not optimistic about the possibility of
> our being able to reproduce this process in a much smaller number
> of generations if we have to start from scratch. So, like Ray
> Kurzweil, http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=1 I think the
> most viable strategy for creating a truly intelligent machine is
> reverse-engineering the brain of an actual human, or mind
> uploading,
> http://www.ibiblio.org/jstrout/uploa...UHomePage.html which
> basically means figuring out how individual neurons work and
> interact with their neighbors well enough to simulate them
> accurately on computers, and then mapping out every neuron and
> neural connection in a real person's brain and simulating the
> entire collection on a sufficiently powerful computer. So
> although such beings would no longer be human biologically, they
> would still start out entirely human mentally (and they would
> probably want simulated human bodies too, since that's what their
> brains are used to). But their rate of perception and thought
> could be much faster than ours, since signals in biological
> neurons are pretty slow compared to signals in computers (from
> their point of view, it would just look like we biological humans
> were moving at a glacial pace and they were thinking at a normal
> speed), and so hundreds of subjective years of tinkering with
> their own brains to slowly increase their mental abilities could
> go by very quickly in realtime, in which case we would get the
> same sort of "singularity" that you've been talking about.
I haven't checked out Ray Kurzweil's AI page in a while, so I thank
you for referring me to it. I'm glad to see that he's replaced that
gaudy graphic with a simple article listing on the home page.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/ I was initially disappointed to see that
the cute AI chick was no longer there, but then I found her by
clicking on "Ramona." Unfortunately, however, it's still Ramona
version 1.0, because she's still as dumb as a cricket.

However, I totally disagree with Kurzweil's view that the way to the
Singularity is to reverse engineer the brain. The more that Kurzweil
pursues this view, the more impatient I get with him, because it's a
Rube Goldberg solution that is too complex to implement before 2030,
and because there's a much easier way to develop super-intelligent
computers, as the speed of computers increases. I developed the
"Intelligent Computer algorithm" over a period of several weeks in
this thread last year.
http://fourthturning.com/forums/view...?p=93588#93588

I've developed the algorithm further in Chapter 7 of my book
Generational Dynamics for Historians, which can be read for
free on my web site.

The idea behind the algorithm is that the computer builds up
knowledge bits by fitting other knowledge bits together like jigsaw
puzzle pieces. This is, I claim, the way that the human brain works
from a functional point of view, and computers will do it much better
than humans because super-fast massively parallel computers can solve
jigsaw puzzles much faster than humans can. This is, in fact, the
common sense algorithm, and the one that actually will be implemented
in the next few years, by programmers who haven't yet saved up enough
money to head out to Circuit City and purchase their first brain
reverse engineering kit.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com







Post#466 at 05-15-2005 02:00 PM by Croakmore [at The hazardous reefs of Silentium joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,426]
---
05-15-2005, 02:00 PM #466
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
The hazardous reefs of Silentium
Posts
2,426

John,

Your take on The Singularity and mine are somewhat different. I went to your links and found your arguments rigorous, credible, and worth reading. Part of what you say falls in line with other heralds of robotic wonderlands. I think you are correct in this anticipation, and what we will see will be more astonishing than even Roomba. But I think this wrongly places the emphasis on mechanical analogs rather than on digital codes.

As Freeman Dyson et al. have argued, we are entering a post-Darwinian era, where the analogs of human nature go virtual for the sake of extreme genetic self-preservation (genes are digital, btw). The action, therefore, is not in producing analogs of phenotypes (robots) but in creating virtual domains of digital encryption (like genotypes). One particularly nice feature of digital domains is their promise of immortality. The development of these domains will require robots, of course, just as genotypes require phenotypes to keep them going. But this brave new virtual world, IMO, is what The Singularity hoopla is all about, not the robots per se.

Aren't we already "living" in a virtual world to some extent when we participate on this forum? This is just the tip of the virtual iceberg. The only robots we'll need eventually are computers, which are a lot more digital than they are analogous, or at least they will be.

--Croakmore







Post#467 at 05-15-2005 07:02 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
05-15-2005, 07:02 PM #467
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Re: How fast can monkeys evolve?

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
How fast can monkeys evolve?



Natasha, a 5-year-old black macaque, walks at the Safari Park near
Tel Aviv on Tuesday.


Monkey apes humans by walking on two legs

Macaque at Israeli zoo walks upright after near death experience


By Dan Waldman
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:05 p.m. ET July 21, 2004

JERUSALEM - A young monkey at an Israeli zoo has started walking on
its hind legs only --- aping humans --- after a near death experience,
the zoo's veterinarian said Wednesday.

Natasha, a 5-year-old black macaque at the Safari Park near Tel Aviv,
began walking exclusively on her hind legs after a stomach ailment
nearly killed her, zookeepers said.

Monkeys usually alternate between upright movement and walking on all
fours. A picture in the Maariv daily on Wednesday showed Natasha
standing ramrod straight like a human. The picture was labeled
humorously, "The Missing Link?"

Two weeks ago, Natasha and three other monkeys were diagnosed with
severe stomach flu. At the zoo clinic, she slipped into critical
condition, said Igal Horowitz, the veterinarian.

"I was sure that she was going to die," he said. "She could hardly
breathe and her heart was not functioning properly."

After intensive treatment, Natasha's condition stabilized. When she
was released from the clinic, Natasha began walking upright.

"I've never seen or heard of this before," said Horowitz. One possible
explanation is brain damage from the illness, he said.

Otherwise, Horowitz said, Natasha's behavior has returned to normal.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5479501/
Heh, another Oliver.







Post#468 at 05-16-2005 05:01 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
05-16-2005, 05:01 PM #468
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Dear Richard,

Quote Originally Posted by Croakmore
> Your take on The Singularity and mine are somewhat different. I
> went to your links and found your arguments rigorous, credible,
> and worth reading. Part of what you say falls in line with other
> heralds of robotic wonderlands. I think you are correct in this
> anticipation, and what we will see will be more astonishing than
> even Roomba. But I think this wrongly places the emphasis on
> mechanical analogs rather than on digital codes.

> As Freeman Dyson et al. have argued, we are entering a
> post-Darwinian era, where the analogs of human nature go virtual
> for the sake of extreme genetic self-preservation (genes are
> digital, btw). The action, therefore, is not in producing analogs
> of phenotypes (robots) but in creating virtual domains of digital
> encryption (like genotypes). One particularly nice feature of
> digital domains is their promise of immortality. The development
> of these domains will require robots, of course, just as genotypes
> require phenotypes to keep them going. But this brave new virtual
> world, IMO, is what The Singularity hoopla is all about, not the
> robots per se.

> Aren't we already "living" in a virtual world to some extent when
> we participate on this forum? This is just the tip of the virtual
> iceberg. The only robots we'll need eventually are computers,
> which are a lot more digital than they are analogous, or at least
> they will be.
I'd like to put your remarks into the framework that I developed in
my book, and then make a comment after that.

Human beings will develop the first version of the Intelligent
Computer. After the Singularity occurs, IC version 1 will develop IC
v 2, which will develop IC v 3, and so forth. Now, IC v 1 can be
developed in different ways, with different parameters, and that will
affect how it develops IC v 2, but what I claim in my book is that
the iterative development of new IC versions will converge on a
unique limit point. This will be a "Singularity # 2," when the IC
will have reached its maximum level of development, when everything
that there is to discover will have been discovered.

We have no way of knowing what this limit point world will be like.
Perhaps humans won't exist. Or perhaps humans will coexist with the
ICs in whatever form they take. Perhaps they'll be our servants.
Perhaps they'll be our masters. Perhaps our minds with merge with
theirs in the "digital domain" that you refer to.

Now the other argument that I make in my book is that if intelligent
life has evolved anywhere else in the universe, then it must (under
certain reasonable assumptions) evolve in pretty much the same way as
on earth, using exactly the same Generational Dynamics paradigm and
the same four turnings and the same generational archetypes. Also,
technological development must proceed in the same way, with the same
kinds of exponential growth curves. Thus, if there's intelligent
life elsewhere in the universe, that it must reach its own
Singularity much like ours, and go on from there to the limit point,
Singularity # 2.

Now, some astronomers speculate that intelligent life has developed
in billions of other places in the universe. We can assume that
several billion of these have already reached Singularity #2.

We might also speculate that all these billions of worlds are
benignly keeping an eye on us, waiting for us to reach Singularity #
2 so that they can announce their existence to us.

So then maybe your "digital domain" will encompass all the
Singularity # 2 worlds in the universe. And maybe you will achieve
immortality in that way.

But obviously there's no way to know that. Maybe every planet always
blows itself up between Singularity # 1 and Singularity # 2, so that
we might currently be the most advanced planet in the universe (until
we blow ourselves up too).

So you say that you've been arguing with other people about a
post-Darwinian era, by which I assume you mean what the world will be
like after Singularity # 1.

I don't believe that it's possible to conclude much about that world,
but that's not the point I want to address with you.

The point I want to address is: Why do you care?

I mean, I care because it's an interesting intellectual exercise and
all that. But I'm 61, and I've found increasingly in the last few
years that I'm tired of life, and that death, whenever it comes, will
be something of a relief.

Thus, worrying about what life will be like after Singularity # 1,
except for the tiny bits of information we can ascertain as an
intellectual exercise, and reaching conclusions about immortal
digital domains seems about as useful to me as arguing about how many
angels can fit on the head of a pin.

And yet here you are, talking about immortality being "nice." Why
would immortality be nice? How are you going to spend your time in
that digital domain? Are you going to solve word puzzles all day
long? Gossip about who's probing whom? Write short stories or paint
great works of virtual art? What?

You're older than I am, and you're obviously a lot more cheerful than
I am. (I sometimes tell people that I'm the gloomiest person they'll
ever meet.) You must have a positive view of life and eternity that
makes immortality "nice." I don't see it. What is it?

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com







Post#469 at 05-17-2005 04:56 PM by Jesse '77 [at Providence, RI, USA joined May 2003 #posts 153]
---
05-17-2005, 04:56 PM #469
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Providence, RI, USA
Posts
153

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
Dear Jesse,

Quote Originally Posted by Jesse '77

> I don't believe that designing A.I.s from scratch is likely to be
> a viable strategy--the human mind is pretty good at designing
> complex hierarchical rule-based programs, but designing highly
> nonlinear, self-organizing systems like the brain is something
> that we don't have much aptitude for. The fact that they neural
> networks are self-organizing means you don't have to program all
> the details by hand, but even the brain of a newborn baby
> probably contains a lot of subtle genetic "design" that
> predisposes it to be able to respond to its environment, and to
> other intelligent beings, in a meaningful way (the existence of
> syndromes like autism shows how easily this can go wrong). You
> can try to evolve such systems rather than design them by hand,
> but considering how many generations it took to go from the
> organisms with the simplest neural nets to brains of the
> complexity of humans, I'm not optimistic about the possibility of
> our being able to reproduce this process in a much smaller number
> of generations if we have to start from scratch. So, like Ray
> Kurzweil, http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=1 I think the
> most viable strategy for creating a truly intelligent machine is
> reverse-engineering the brain of an actual human, or mind
> uploading,
> http://www.ibiblio.org/jstrout/uploa...UHomePage.html which
> basically means figuring out how individual neurons work and
> interact with their neighbors well enough to simulate them
> accurately on computers, and then mapping out every neuron and
> neural connection in a real person's brain and simulating the
> entire collection on a sufficiently powerful computer. So
> although such beings would no longer be human biologically, they
> would still start out entirely human mentally (and they would
> probably want simulated human bodies too, since that's what their
> brains are used to). But their rate of perception and thought
> could be much faster than ours, since signals in biological
> neurons are pretty slow compared to signals in computers (from
> their point of view, it would just look like we biological humans
> were moving at a glacial pace and they were thinking at a normal
> speed), and so hundreds of subjective years of tinkering with
> their own brains to slowly increase their mental abilities could
> go by very quickly in realtime, in which case we would get the
> same sort of "singularity" that you've been talking about.
I haven't checked out Ray Kurzweil's AI page in a while, so I thank
you for referring me to it. I'm glad to see that he's replaced that
gaudy graphic with a simple article listing on the home page.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/ I was initially disappointed to see that
the cute AI chick was no longer there, but then I found her by
clicking on "Ramona." Unfortunately, however, it's still Ramona
version 1.0, because she's still as dumb as a cricket.

However, I totally disagree with Kurzweil's view that the way to the
Singularity is to reverse engineer the brain. The more that Kurzweil
pursues this view, the more impatient I get with him, because it's a
Rube Goldberg solution that is too complex to implement before 2030,
and because there's a much easier way to develop super-intelligent
computers, as the speed of computers increases. I developed the
"Intelligent Computer algorithm" over a period of several weeks in
this thread last year.
http://fourthturning.com/forums/view...?p=93588#93588

I've developed the algorithm further in Chapter 7 of my book
Generational Dynamics for Historians, which can be read for
free on my web site.

The idea behind the algorithm is that the computer builds up
knowledge bits by fitting other knowledge bits together like jigsaw
puzzle pieces. This is, I claim, the way that the human brain works
from a functional point of view, and computers will do it much better
than humans because super-fast massively parallel computers can solve
jigsaw puzzles much faster than humans can. This is, in fact, the
common sense algorithm, and the one that actually will be implemented
in the next few years, by programmers who haven't yet saved up enough
money to head out to Circuit City and purchase their first brain
reverse engineering kit.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
It sounds to me like you're basing your ideas on the old-school notion of A.I. where you can create intelligence just by trying to replicate high-level linguistic processes in the human mind, without bothering about the neural dynamics that underly this or any attempt to replicate the sensory patterns that we humans understand words to represent. I think it's very implausible that an A.I. could "understand" the words it's using in any meaningful way if all it knows is how different words are defined in terms of other words--I think the only way genuine intelligence can emerge is if the A.I. starts out by learning to deal with a rich stream of sensory information, and learns how to interact with the world it's sensing with some sort of body (whether robotic or virtual), and then it can use that level of intuitive understanding of the world as a base for beginning to learn language, associating symbols to complicated sensory patterns. The idea of intelligence as some sort of pure linguistic symbol-processing is one that few A.I. researchers think is likely to work these days, I think--for example, see the course description on this page, which says:
Although AI as a field has been around since the 1960's, in the past decade it has undergone a radical transformation.? The traditional approach to AI was based on symbol processing:? the mind was conceived of as a symbol processing engine that creates and manipulates symbol strings.? The modern approach to AI treats the mind a?statistical and probabilistic computing engine.?CSCI 3202 will emphasize the modern approach.
Similarly, see the notes for a lecture on the problems with the traditional approach to A.I. here:
- In this lecture, we point out some of the major problems faced by the cognitivistic paradigm.
- All of these problems arise because of the cognitivists' neglect of the fact that intelligent agents (animals, humans and robots) are embodied agents living in a real physical world.

- Virtual versus real worlds
??? - models from cognitivistic paradigms focus on high-level intelligence (for example: playing chess), successfully
??? - computer vision, in contrast, proves much more difficult (why? because it has to cope with real world)
??? - traditional AI programs deal with abstract, virtual worlds
??? - abstract, virtual worlds are models with precisely defined states and operations (think about Tarski's world)
??? - Example: chess is a formal game with discrete positions, set of legal moves, and the state is completely knowable
??? - By contrast consider soccer: nonformal game, real world, dynamic, no uniquely defined states, continuous, ??? ??? - Also: gravity, inertia, sensory noise, disturbances, malfunctions.... All physical phenomena
??? - Natural intelligent systems (animals, humans) all have to cope with these phenomena, also before they grew to become intelligent
??? - Therefore: new AI research focuses on soccer (RoboCup) instead of chess (Deep Blue)


- Pragmatic problems
??? - Robustness: traditional AI systems lack tolerance to noise

??? - Real-time processing: central information processing slow down the systems, not capable of coping with real-time dynamics of real world

??? - Sequential nature: traditional programs work step-by-step, while natural brains process massively parallel

??? - Other problems: goal-directed nature, hierarchical organisation of programs

...

- Symbol-grounding problem (Harnad, 1990)
??? ??? - The problem of how symbol relate to the real world
??? ??? - In trad. AI, symbols are purely syntactic structures: relations to other symbols are defined
??? ??? - Relations of symbols to the real world is not defined, nor discussed
??? ??? - (In lingusitics, the semantics of symbols always refer to a defined model. The relation of this model to the real world remains unclear and up to the user's own interpretation.)
??? ??? - Symbolic structures (including world model) are closed systems (in computer science and trad. AI)

??? ??? - In computer science this poses no problem as long as there is a human interpreter: the mapping of symbols are expected to be grounded in the user's experience.
??? ??? - However, in autonomous robotics, we want to remove the human interpreter from the loop!
??? ??? - Thus, the meaning of symbols must somehow be grounded in the system's own interactions with the environment.
But I suppose the only way we'll know for sure is when we actually have sufficient computing power, at which point we can try different strategies and see what the results are.







Post#470 at 05-18-2005 01:57 PM by Croakmore [at The hazardous reefs of Silentium joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,426]
---
05-18-2005, 01:57 PM #470
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
The hazardous reefs of Silentium
Posts
2,426

Quote Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
...I'd like to put your remarks into the framework that I developed in
my book, and then make a comment after that.

Human beings will develop the first version of the Intelligent
Computer. After the Singularity occurs, IC version 1 will develop IC
v 2, which will develop IC v 3, and so forth. Now, IC v 1 can be
developed in different ways, with different parameters, and that will
affect how it develops IC v 2, but what I claim in my book is that
the iterative development of new IC versions will converge on a
unique limit point. This will be a "Singularity # 2," when the IC
will have reached its maximum level of development, when everything
that there is to discover will have been discovered.

We have no way of knowing what this limit point world will be like.
Perhaps humans won't exist. Or perhaps humans will coexist with the
ICs in whatever form they take. Perhaps they'll be our servants.
Perhaps they'll be our masters. Perhaps our minds with merge with
theirs in the "digital domain" that you refer to.

Now the other argument that I make in my book is that if intelligent
life has evolved anywhere else in the universe, then it must (under
certain reasonable assumptions) evolve in pretty much the same way as
on earth, using exactly the same Generational Dynamics paradigm and
the same four turnings and the same generational archetypes. Also,
technological development must proceed in the same way, with the same
kinds of exponential growth curves. Thus, if there's intelligent
life elsewhere in the universe, that it must reach its own
Singularity much like ours, and go on from there to the limit point,
Singularity # 2.

Now, some astronomers speculate that intelligent life has developed
in billions of other places in the universe. We can assume that
several billion of these have already reached Singularity #2.
John, I have not read your book, so my remarks lack acuity in that respect. I would agree that we are heading swiftly toward something like Singularity #1, with intelligent computers and all. But we differ on the particulars.

For one thing, I do not agree with your assumption on the ubiquity of intelligent life in the universe. We have nothing but anthropic hope to support that notion, and I ain't going there. To me the SETI project is silly and wasteful. My contention is quite the opposite: we are a lonely bunch of brainy bipeds whose evolution involved a billion bifurcations, each of which included a stroke of natural luck that may never have happened before or since. Remember, biologists still do not know even the raw essentials of how life got started here on Earth. We simply do not know where it came from, and we scarsely know what it is. (The same could be said about gravity!) For us to assume that life grows everywhere -- and intelligently, too -- is fantasy, I think. I could go along with microbial panspermia, if we could find the evidence on Mars, for example, but I can't accept the notion that smart eukaryotes just naturally spring forth everywhere from those prokaryotic bugs because they are predisposed to some friendly Darwinian promise.

The only assumption I can accept right now is that we are extremely lonely out here on this stary tentacle of the Milky Way. If it were otherwise we would not likely need a SETI project to "tune in" to the heavenly voices. They'd be speaking loudly enough. I say we shouldn't get caught up in that web of Asmovian statistics -- "Exterrestrial Civilizations," for example -- and come back down to Earth where we still know too little to evolve from scratch even one morsel of life in our fancy laboratories.

Quote Originally Posted by John also
...
We might also speculate that all these billions of worlds are
benignly keeping an eye on us, waiting for us to reach Singularity #
2 so that they can announce their existence to us.

So then maybe your "digital domain" will encompass all the
Singularity # 2 worlds in the universe. And maybe you will achieve
immortality in that way.

But obviously there's no way to know that. Maybe every planet always
blows itself up between Singularity # 1 and Singularity # 2, so that
we might currently be the most advanced planet in the universe (until
we blow ourselves up too).

So you say that you've been arguing with other people about a
post-Darwinian era, by which I assume you mean what the world will be
like after Singularity # 1.

I don't believe that it's possible to conclude much about that world,
but that's not the point I want to address with you.
I don't know about your "Singularity #2." Singuilarity #1 seems to be enough for me right now.

This notion of a post-Darwinian era comes originally from Carl Woese. It means that the old Darwinian era involving natural selection is rapidly shifting toward a new venue in digital determinism. (Remember, I differentiate between analog and digital domains of reality.) Genes and other forms of digital code are becomming the preeminent heralds of a new "selection" process (but I still think it's natural). This, in theory, is how we are careering toward The Singularity.

A digital afterlife is better than none at all, IMO. Churches will promise their versions of an afterlife, and that's OK. Digital competition is just around the corner. Our genes are nothing if they are not bent on immortality (some genes are known to have "lived" for more than 400 million years, which seems somewhere close to immortality.). That point is astonishingly clear -- even Gould and Dawkins agreed on it, which was rare. I don't know if Virtual Afterlike will be "nice," but it will be, nevertheless. Everybody will want one!

Quote Originally Posted by John also
The point I want to address is: Why do you care?

I mean, I care because it's an interesting intellectual exercise and
all that. But I'm 61, and I've found increasingly in the last few
years that I'm tired of life, and that death, whenever it comes, will
be something of a relief.

Thus, worrying about what life will be like after Singularity # 1,
except for the tiny bits of information we can ascertain as an
intellectual exercise, and reaching conclusions about immortal
digital domains seems about as useful to me as arguing about how many
angels can fit on the head of a pin.

And yet here you are, talking about immortality being "nice." Why
would immortality be nice? How are you going to spend your time in
that digital domain? Are you going to solve word puzzles all day
long? Gossip about who's probing whom? Write short stories or paint
great works of virtual art? What?

You're older than I am, and you're obviously a lot more cheerful than
I am. (I sometimes tell people that I'm the gloomiest person they'll
ever meet.) You must have a positive view of life and eternity that
makes immortality "nice." I don't see it. What is it?
Your words trouble me, John, and I'm not sure how to respond. You are a sincere person, and I want to respond in a like manner. I gave some thought to this last night and decided that we may be functionally different on several key points.

1. I am natrually a loner. I crave solitude. This is not to say I don't socialize at all. And I am somehow able to keep a nice lady in my life despite of my intraverted condition. John, I may have some advantage over you in this respect that keeps me from loneliness and despair. My problem is that too much socializing of any kind exhausts me, and I must repair to my cave and recharge my battery.

2. At 66 I am still healthy and vigorous. I live in a waterfront condo where my sailboat is moored only 200 yards from my front window. I am not rich; I'm poor by CNN standards. But I'm still rich as hell! For mine is a mild and magnificently beautiful environment, easily accessible by sailing. Without that I may not be so happy and cheerful. Once I lived in Richland, WA, with the Mormons and tumbleweed, where I was not so happy and cheerful; and once I lived in Toledo, OH, where I was not so happy and cheerful. If I had to live in Toledo (where I grew up) for the rest of my life I'd get out my .357 and take that silvery pill. So I guess it's my environment that means a lot. Does your environment enrich you in this way?

3. I fell lucky. I take risks. I see each day as another opportinity to sniff out nature and find out something new. Each evening, without exception, I reflect on having another day of good health to participate in this starkly unique circus called Earth Life. It's heaven to me. So you might say I live from cocktail hour to cocktail hour, each precious one starting at 4:00 pm (amounting to a couple of beers with special hops).

What I'm guessing is that we just have different outlooks on life because of our different environs. I don't know much about where you live -- Framingham, MA -- or if you can afford to move or travel. Are you a loner? I can recommend cocktails at 4:00 pm; others might recommend church at 8:00 am. Whose to say? Despair is a hard thing to deal with. Please know that you matter and make a difference. You're graceful, and that counts for something important.

--Croak







Post#471 at 05-20-2005 08:17 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
05-20-2005, 08:17 PM #471
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Dear Jesse,

Quote Originally Posted by Jesse '77
> It sounds to me like you're basing your ideas on the old-school
> notion of A.I. where you can create intelligence just by trying to
> replicate high-level linguistic processes in the human mind,
> without bothering about the neural dynamics that underly this or
> any attempt to replicate the sensory patterns that we humans
> understand words to represent. I think it's very implausible that
> an A.I. could "understand" the words it's using in any meaningful
> way if all it knows is how different words are defined in terms of
> other words--I think the only way genuine intelligence can emerge
> is if the A.I. starts out by learning to deal with a rich stream
> of sensory information, and learns how to interact with the world
> it's sensing with some sort of body (whether robotic or virtual),
> and then it can use that level of intuitive understanding of the
> world as a base for beginning to learn language, associating
> symbols to complicated sensory patterns. The idea of intelligence
> as some sort of pure linguistic symbol-processing is one that few
> A.I. researchers think is likely to work these days, I think--for
> example, see the course description on this page, which says:
The Intelligent Computer algorithm I proposed uses a variety of
technologies only one of which "symbol-processing" in the sense you
describe.



If I show you the above picture of a room crowded with furniture, and
I ask you to pick out the clock, you could do so instantly.

If I give you the number 79439 and ask you to tell me its prime
factors, it would take you a while.

This timing difference is counter-intuitive. Finding the clock in
the above picture should be a long, time-consuming job. You'd have
to search through boundaries between different colors, and identify a
region of the picture that appears to identify something with the
"clockness" attribute. Finding the prime factors of 79439 looks like
a much smaller job, requiring much less work, and yet it takes a lot
longer.

The IC algorithm will work functionally pretty much like the human
brain does. Identifying the clock will be done by using massively
parallel computing to compare the picture to million, billions or
trillions of pictures already stored in memory. The first version of
the IC will take a long time to be "trained," of course, just as it
takes a long time for children to be "trained" to recognize objects,
but in the end it will work just as fast or even faster than the
human brain, since computers will soon operate faster than the human
brain.

Similarly, the IC algorithm will find the prime factors of 79439 the
same way a human does -- by trying one factor after another.
Computers can already do this much faster than humans can.

> Although AI as a field has been around since the 1960's, in the
> past decade it has undergone a radical transformation. The
> traditional approach to AI was based on symbol processing: the
> mind was conceived of as a symbol processing engine that creates
> and manipulates symbol strings. The modern approach to AI treats
> the mind a statistical and probabilistic computing engine. CSCI
> 3202 will emphasize the modern approach.
> http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~mozer/co.../syllabus.html
Now this is really hilarious.

First off, AI has been around the since the 1950s. I took my first
AI course from Prof. John McCarthy in spring, 1962, and he'd already
been at it for several years.

But to say that AI has undergone a radical transformation is really a
joke. AI can fairly be described to be an almost total failure. It's
very hard to identify even one meaningful thing that AI researchers
have accomplished.

There is a radical transformation going on, and it's a grudging
acceptance that "brute force" algorithms are the only ones that are
going to work. AI researchers used to think of brute force
algorithms as contemptible, but now the "radical transformation" is
one that recognizes the value of brute force.

Well, let me be fair. Brute force algorithms were impossible for
most applications until now, since computers weren't powerful enough.
But as computers surpass the human mind in power, brute force
algorithms become reasonable. Treating the mind as a
"statistical and probabilistic computing engine" is a variation of
this, since it uses brute force algorithms to generate a list of
possible solutions, and then use statistical and probabilistic
analysis to select from among the solutions. This is essentially
what the human mind does.

Quote Originally Posted by Jesse '77
> But I suppose the only way we'll know for sure is when we actually
> have sufficient computing power, at which point we can try
> different strategies and see what the results are.
I certainly agree with this. I envy the researchers at IBM at other
places that get to play with super-powerful computers and get to
spend their time implementing intelligent computer algorithms.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

(113 * 37 * 19 = 79439)







Post#472 at 05-20-2005 08:19 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
05-20-2005, 08:19 PM #472
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Dear Richard,

Quote Originally Posted by Croakmore
> For one thing, I do not agree with your assumption on the ubiquity
> of intelligent life in the universe. We have nothing but anthropic
> hope to support that notion, and I ain't going there. To me the
> SETI project is silly and wasteful. My contention is quite the
> opposite: we are a lonely bunch of brainy bipeds whose evolution
> involved a billion bifurcations, each of which included a stroke
> of natural luck that may never have happened before or since.
> Remember, biologists still do not know even the raw essentials of
> how life got started here on Earth. We simply do not know where it
> came from, and we scarsely know what it is. (The same could be
> said about gravity!) For us to assume that life grows everywhere
> -- and intelligently, too -- is fantasy, I think. I could go along
> with microbial panspermia, if we could find the evidence on Mars,
> for example, but I can't accept the notion that smart eukaryotes
> just naturally spring forth everywhere from those prokaryotic bugs
> because they are predisposed to some friendly Darwinian promise.
I didn't really assume this; I did say, "if intelligent life has
evolved anywhere else in the universe...."

However, I do believe that the chances are good that intelligent life
has evolved elsewhere. I think of a planet as a place where millions
or billions or trillions of "experiments" can be conducted
simultaneously (just like a massively parallel computer). For life
to advance to the next level, it's only necessary for ONE of these
experiments to succeed. Over a period of billions of years, enough
experiments will succeed to develop life, and intelligent life, on
any planet with the appropriate initial conditions.

One of the things I've tried to do with the "Singularity #2"
discussion is to try to give an explanation for why we haven't
"heard" from other intelligent life. The SETI experiment is based on
two assumptions: (1) That there are many planets with intelligent
life in the universe; and (2) that just one of them will happen to
transmit messages that the SETI project can identify.

The Singularity #2 discussion says that the second assumption is
flawed, even assuming that the first assumption is true. Assumption
(2) says that billions of intelligent races will all evolved in
different ways and act differently, just as they do in Star
Trek
, and that therefore one of them will transmit the messages
we're looking for. But the Singularity #2 discussion says that
billions of intelligent races will all act exactly the same as one
another
, and so either they'll all transmit messages or none of
them will.

Now, once a planet has reached Singularity #2, then everything will
have been discovered, and the world will be run by limit-point
computers which may have no need (no "motivation") to contact other
planets, or to transmit messages. Therefore, there might be billions
of planets with intelligent life, and none of them would be
transmitting messages that SETI could find.

Quote Originally Posted by Croakmore

> I don't know about your "Singularity #2." Singuilarity #1 seems to
> be enough for me right now.

> This notion of a post-Darwinian era comes originally from Carl
> Woese. It means that the old Darwinian era involving natural
> selection is rapidly shifting toward a new venue in digital
> determinism. (Remember, I differentiate between analog and digital
> domains of reality.) Genes and other forms of digital code are
> becomming the preeminent heralds of a new "selection" process (but
> I still think it's natural). This, in theory, is how we are
> careering toward The Singularity.

> A digital afterlife is better than none at all, IMO. Churches will
> promise their versions of an afterlife, and that's OK. Digital
> competition is just around the corner. Our genes are nothing if
> they are not bent on immortality (some genes are known to have
> "lived" for more than 400 million years, which seems somewhere
> close to immortality.). That point is astonishingly clear -- even
> Gould and Dawkins agreed on it, which was rare. I don't know if
> Virtual Afterlike will be "nice," but it will be, nevertheless.
> Everybody will want one!
This argument confuses me because I can't tell if it confuses form
with function. New forms of super-powerful computers may combine
digital and analog technologies. Furthermore, when Singularity #2 is
reached, then these super-powerful computers will have immortality,
although with everything already discovered, there'll be nothing else
for them to do.

The fact that genes are bent on immortality doesn't mean that they'll
be immortal. Didn't homo sapiens beat out Neanderthal man and
Cro-Magnon man (sorry, I don't remember which of these is which, and
which came last)? Those species' genes also were bent on
immortality, but they're gone.

Similarly, homo sapiens genes may be bent on immortality, but
that doesn't mean they'll get it.

You really ought to think some more about Singularity #2, because
that's the immortal life you're signing up for. You wouldn't buy a
used car without checking it out, so why would you sign on the dotted
line for immortality before you found out about it?

Quote Originally Posted by Croakmore
> Your words trouble me, John, and I'm not sure how to respond. You
> are a sincere person, and I want to respond in a like manner. I
> gave some thought to this last night and decided that we may be
> functionally different on several key points.

> 1. I am natrually a loner. I crave solitude. This is not to say I
> don't socialize at all. And I am somehow able to keep a nice lady
> in my life despite of my intraverted condition. John, I may have
> some advantage over you in this respect that keeps me from
> loneliness and despair. My problem is that too much socializing of
> any kind exhausts me, and I must repair to my cave and recharge my
> battery.

> 2. At 66 I am still healthy and vigorous. I live in a waterfront
> condo where my sailboat is moored only 200 yards from my front
> window. I am not rich; I'm poor by CNN standards. But I'm still
> rich as hell! For mine is a mild and magnificently beautiful
> environment, easily accessible by sailing. Without that I may not
> be so happy and cheerful. Once I lived in Richland, WA, with the
> Mormons and tumbleweed, where I was not so happy and cheerful; and
> once I lived in Toledo, OH, where I was not so happy and cheerful.
> If I had to live in Toledo (where I grew up) for the rest of my
> life I'd get out my .357 and take that silvery pill. So I guess
> it's my environment that means a lot. Does your environment enrich
> you in this way?

> 3. I fell lucky. I take risks. I see each day as another
> opportinity to sniff out nature and find out something new. Each
> evening, without exception, I reflect on having another day of
> good health to participate in this starkly unique circus called
> Earth Life. It's heaven to me. So you might say I live from
> cocktail hour to cocktail hour, each precious one starting at 4:00
> pm (amounting to a couple of beers with special hops).

> What I'm guessing is that we just have different outlooks on life
> because of our different environs. I don't know much about where
> you live -- Framingham, MA -- or if you can afford to move or
> travel. Are you a loner? I can recommend cocktails at 4:00 pm;
> others might recommend church at 8:00 am. Whose to say? Despair is
> a hard thing to deal with. Please know that you matter and make a
> difference. You're graceful, and that counts for something
> important.

First off I didn't mean to trouble you. A lot of people feel the way
I do. Didn't Henry David Thoreau say that, "The mass of men lead
lives of quiet desperation"?

I appreciate your sincerity and honesty, but you didn't answer the
most difficulty question: How are you going to spend your immortal
time?

Let me put it a different way.

You enjoy solitude. You enjoy sailing. You take risks. You've done
lots of different things. You take risks.

OK, you've been doing that for 65 years. Suppose I play God and say:
Great, Richard. I'm going to grant you an additional 65 years.

OK. You've got another 65 years. Are you going to do exactly the
same things for the next 65 years?

That isn't enough for you? OK, I'll grant you 650 years. That's ten
times what you've had so far. Do you really think that you'll enjoy
your solitary life or your sailboat for 650 years for ten lifetimes?

Not enough? How about 6500 years. How about 65000 years. Still not
enough? How about FOREVER?????

You see what I mean? You're signing up for something that could be
horrible.

I always like to think that no matter how horrible something is,
sooner or later it'll be over. If a tooth breaks, it's horrible, and
going to the dentist is horrible, but if I just get it over with,
then I'll be ok.

And what about you? What if you sign up for immortality and you end
up in Richland, WA or Toledo, OH, which you hated? And that's not
the worst possibility. What if you spend eternity being tortured?

It's not like a dentist appointment. You've signed for immortality!
It'll never end. You'll be in Toledo for 65,000,000,000 years, and
then you'll do it over again, and again, and again.

So are you really, really sure you want to sign up for immortality?

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com







Post#473 at 05-21-2005 09:13 PM by Croakmore [at The hazardous reefs of Silentium joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,426]
---
05-21-2005, 09:13 PM #473
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
The hazardous reefs of Silentium
Posts
2,426

Yup, John, I think I'm going to go for it, one day at a time. But I'm not spending 6.5x10^10 years in Toledo, for crying out loud (I shrink from the thought); maybe I'll opt for suffleboard in Hawaii, or eternal sex with Marilyn Monroe, or maybe learn how to play the blues on my virtual piano. And why couldn't Singularity #2 simply add a feature to eliminate suffering and install joy and so on? No one will buy it if they are going to feel miserable all the time.

Turning seriously for a moment, here's how my "one day at a time" attitude works. My father took ill with lymphoma at my age and died two years later after a whole lot of suffering. Everybody says I'm a lot like my father. Now, I am very much persuaded by the roles genes play in aging and health, so I figure my biological clock is ticking. Those bad genes will catch up to me soon or later. That's why every good day is a good day. It's an escapist attitude, you know.

--Richard







Post#474 at 05-21-2005 11:37 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
05-21-2005, 11:37 PM #474
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Dear Richard,

Quote Originally Posted by Croakmore
> Yup, John, I think I'm going to go for it, one day at a time. But
> I'm not spending 6.5x10^10 years in Toledo, for crying out loud (I
> shrink from the thought); maybe I'll opt for suffleboard in
> Hawaii, or eternal sex with Marilyn Monroe, or maybe learn how to
> play the blues on my virtual piano. And why couldn't Singularity
> #2 simply add a feature to eliminate suffering and install joy and
> so on? No one will buy it if they are going to feel miserable all
> the time.

> Turning seriously for a moment, here's how my "one day at a time"
> attitude works. My father took ill with lymphoma at my age and
> died two years later after a whole lot of suffering. Everybody
> says I'm a lot like my father. Now, I am very much persuaded by
> the roles genes play in aging and health, so I figure my
> biological clock is ticking. Those bad genes will catch up to me
> soon or later. That's why every good day is a good day. It's an
> escapist attitude, you know.
Well, I wish you the very best, Richard. I hope you spend eternity
in the company of a dozen beautiful hula girls. I'll ask my son to
implement the "Hawaii" feature in the first version of the
"intelligent computer," and and make sure that you can use it.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com







Post#475 at 05-22-2005 08:00 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
05-22-2005, 08:00 AM #475
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Scientific Darbyism

This all sounds like a secular version of Dispensationalism of the progressive Protestants of the Darby school. Is the Singularity the Rapture in a white lab coat?


Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Ian Pearson, 21st Century Dispensationalist, er -- head of the futurology unit at BT
If you draw the timelines, realistically by 2050 we would expect to be able to download your mind into a machine, so when you die it's not a major career problem.
He admits his prophecies are both 'very exciting' and 'very scary'.


I hope those lab coat sleeves can be securely tied at the back. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:
-----------------------------------------