/sci/ - Science & Math

lol; didn't read

has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

>>1254670
Read it. Very interesting.

Oh, you gullible cunt. You so wish, you so fucking wish.

Thanks. I even feel slightly trolled.

>>1254674
One day.... One day...

>has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

?????

It's like the UFO craze in the seventies. Surely, any MINUTE the aliens are gonna make contact now.

>>1254705
Surely, you jest. You can't compare the singularity theory to that.

We're already inside a computer simulation of a computer simulation of a computer simulation. Soon we'll have a computer powerful enough to will be able to simulate its own universe.

Calm down, pal. Being too excited is a kind of future shock, too.

Engineering the successors to humankind is going to be hard. I think we should be a little more careful than to do it in the next 20 years.

So basically:

We build computer that can build computer.
Computer builds computer that was better than itself.
New computer builds a better one than itself.
Advancement becomes super fast.
Technology booms; We solve all the worlds problems with it.
We live forever and explore the Universe?

Ugh, I find the argument for the singularity convincing, particularly in the face of research happening right now, but the at the same time I'm getting really annoyed with many of the over active 'have you heard the good news' types that contribute nothing but make the more solidly founded look nutty. News flash, you will NOT have higher status after the singularity because you evangelized it beforehand.

>>1254712
Oh, it is quite the same thing my good man, quite the same thing.

inb4 humans are intelligent because they're post-singularity biological machines and therefore wont be improved upon until machines can literally rebuild themselves in better designs

Just FYI, the "AI making smarter and smarter AI" version of the singularity is a really strong claim that I don't buy. It's a kind of "thinkism," the idea that you can just think hard enough and solve any problem.
I do agree that computers/robots of human intelligence would make big changes, but probably not a hard takeoff into a world of cybergods.

Oh and someone needs to slap who ever thought 'H+' was a good name, then slap everyone who had the chance to slap him and didn't.

There has been some steps towards this in the past few years.
I never put them together. Kind of interesting.

>>1254785
Our concept of intelligence is rather self-related, don't you think?

yeah right, definitely won't happen in 20 years are PROBABLY won't happen in the next 200.

Where's the ongoing research? Where's the source? Sure, some movements are being made in AI, but nothing even near what's required for a singularity. And so what if computer processing is going up? We don't have the software. If you have a normal calculator hooked up to a billion-zillion transistors, it'll still just be a calculator.

This looks like an extreme form of escapism, where you can forget all your worries and troubles today because the whole world will be changed and filled around tomorrow. Sounds very similar to a belief of the second come of Christ if you ask me.

So stop using this as an excuse to not do anything. If you really are so deeply invested in this happening then get into the ongoing researching.

>>1254796
Neither did the believers, chap.

>>1254667
>This gives us to manipulate anything on a molecular level and use super computers to build the blue print of anything we desire atom by atom, electron by electron.

Human designed malware for the human body to sell the antidote that doesn't fully work?

> The Singularity
stopped reading right there

>>1254767

Down to the promise of eternal life and transformation into a superhuman being.

>>1254817
What about beaming advertising directly into someone's thoughts? Or designing a virus that causes people to hallucinate advertisements? This isn't all a good thing.

>>1254817
Corporate Earth.

>>1254844
Neither are a bunch of shit that's already being done right now.

Enjoy being forced into sickness so you buy little pills to cure yourself because of chemtrails and shit.

>>1254859
The popular "Industrial Accident" caused by a shell corporation to finance the real moneymaker. Not enough money in the cure, so we have 'treatment'.

>>1254801

will happen, its hard to believe, but thats how it works. its painfully slow at first, and then it starts to take off.

case in point: human genome project - 15 year schedule, 7 years in we had 1% done. doubled progress every year after and finished on schedule.

We're at 1% with solar power generation, has been doubling smoothly for the last 20, will double 8 more times, and in 16 years we'll power anythinf we need by the sun.

also, the brain. slow start, but things are just starting to take off. maybe we're at 1%, maybe 0.5%, either way the resolution of brain scanning, information on the brain, etc etc are increasingly exponentially.

just be patient man.

also I do disagree with the sentiment that we needn't pay any attention to the worlds problem because AI will save us all. it wont unless we keep focussing on problems as we are.

peace

Here's my "singularity" scenario:

-Computer hardware gets powerful enough to run a human brain in software
-Brain uploading technologies are slowly developed
-Eventually, copies of uploaded humans are cheap to make compared with educating entire new humans; wages for all human tasks quickly fall to machine's cost
-economy grows extremely fast (doubling every month or so), with near-limitless numbers of mental tasks being performed by uploaded humans
-Still biological humans become very rich and live comfortably, but cannot compete in the economy anymore
-Uploads outnumber normal humans by orders of magnitude. Probably won't kill off normal humans, but they cease to be important
-Uploaded humans develop advanced computers that allow them to run their minds at accelerated speeds (Possibly up to 500k times faster; 1 real-world minute = 1 year of mental time)
-Hyperfast uploaded humans exploit whatever resources they want throughout the universe, possibly after creating a more advanced form of intelligence that replaces them as well

Wooo! Singularity!

http://dresdencodak.com/2007/07/30/she-is-the-very-model-of-a-singularitarian/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnreVTKtpMs

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Transhumanism

WOO HOO!

BUT!
You have to realize that the industrial revolution took a couple of lifetimes. We HAVE developed computers that can upgrade and improve themselves to be better. We use computers to develop better computers all the time. And not just CAD drafting, we have them optimize they're own chip design and layout.

So the singularity isn't 20 years off. It is here. now. We're living it. Arguably, the internet is the epitome of this.

>>1254859

>>1254844
The internet is to be blamed for two things:
1) people don't grow up; instead they wallow in their fantasies
2) Warren Ellis

>>1254879
Glorious.

>>1254879

Also, you have to realize that the industrial revolution WAS a singularity when viewed from points prior to that. It fundamentally altered the direction of humanity to a degree that was simply unfathomable prior to it's occurrence. Same goes for the rise of urban surplus, the rise of civilization, the use of tools, and the Cambrian explosion.

So, OP, did we act as you expected us to act?

>>1254915
As individuals with different beliefs and different understandings of other peoples different beliefs?

>develop computers to the point where they can upgrade and improve themselves
herp-a-derp-derp

>>1254793
What's wrong with H+?

>>1254947
You know what I was hinting at.

The mindless response from either side.

>>1254959
Nevermind.

That's what you already asked me.

>>1254911
That's true. So there were many in the past; and there will be many in the future?

>>1254964
>>1254959
Whut.

>>1254956
More people will think AIDS than human enhancement when they see 'H+'.

>>1254978
Only those who had alcohol put in their bottle in the embryo stadium would think that.

>>1254990
Who calls it that anyways?
>>1254978
What the...

>>1254999
I dunno.. adults?

Shit like this makes me wish I was given the guidance to pursue science growing up, but I guess it is all a pipe dream anyway.

>>1255028
Why can't you pursue it anymore?

>>1255036
Already too late. Finished undergrad. Not trying to make excuses, but my parents were "it's okay, lots of people suck at math" types and encouraged me to try polisci instead of encouraging me to try harder. Not their fault I suck at math, but they made it a little too easy. Oh well, my current career plan may be lucrative, so I can buy cool shit at least.

>>1255050
You can support sciences with the money you make. You don't have to be a scientist.

>>1255067
That's my hope. I'm gunning for BigLaw (with half decent chances). I'd like to fund some scholarships for research or tutoring opportunities for high school kids. Not enough kids appreciate science or math and give up on it before they even have a chance to pursue it. Too many kids getting useless paper degrees, it is a tremendous waste of potential human capital.

>>1255091
Good.

>>1255091
I plan on building a spaceship to the moon.

>>1255435
You can do that with any sort of belief or theory. Doesn't make you any better than what you're mocking.

The speculation you base your statement on was the same speculation used to estimate that we would be colonizing mars in 2000, when the year was 1969.

>>1255518
Well, if the space race had continued to go as hard as it had, we would be on the moon/mars already.

However, Russia imploded so we didn't.

This time, the progress is much more distributed. This progress we have today isn't really being driven by a pissing contest so there is nobody to tag out and ruin the fun.

>>1255518
If more money were spent on the space program (like the amount percentage that was in 1969), instead of national defense, then we could have colonized Mars by 2000.

It's just a matter of where people focus resources.

>>1254667

I don't know about the constant expansion of technology. I don't think we know enough about artificial intelligence and its possible applications to accurately predict how it will progress or be used in the next 20 years.

Although the idea of an expanded life span through tissue regrowth, nanotechnology, and artificial body parts seems fairly likely. I wouldn't be surprised to find out I live to 100+

Although this is all contingent on society not collapsing or global crisis that stunts technology growth.

>>1254801
>yeah right, definitely won't happen in 20 years

oh cool, so you have a time machine? this changes everything.

hint: only a fool is certain

>>1255435
>>1255435
>>1255435
>>1255435
>>1255435
>>1255435

THIS. SO MANY TIMES, THIS.


>>1255496
You are a faggot. Singularity = new religion.

DRINK THE KOOL-AID OR YOU DON'T GET THE NEWEST iPHONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>1255518
And in 1969 it was possible. Just because it didn't happen, doesn't mean it never could have.

>>1255531
>>1255539
Both true.
But it is still an example speculation,
"I thought what I'd do is predict the future..." etc.

>>1255564
You're also 16.

>>1255567
That works both ways.
Just because something could happen, doesn't mean it will, or ever.

thats all great and sounds beautiful but can this thing make me a sandwich ?

i see an economical singularity coming soon

inb4 HERP DERP LUDDITE FALLACY

go take a look at a modern factory.

no, the jobs offset by those robots was not made up in the tiny maintenance team or even the maintainence team and the manufacturer of the robots (which was also highly automated)

>>1255582
FUCKING STATISTICAL MATH, HOW DOES IT WORK?!

>>1255584
Explain.

>>1255598

http://singularityhub.com/category/robots/

just start perusing

What I wanna know is how people can tell technology will follow a path similar to the graph on the left instead of just plateauing like the graph on the right

>>1255601
No, I mean explain.

>>1255609
because the complexity of life and its abilties has only been increasing since the first random collision in the primordial oceans created DNA

>>1255612
Explain what?

economical singularity?

easy, robots make everything.

right now, that means those who can afford to own the robots control everything. since human labor is already crushed by robots in many, many areas.

oh, and those 'service' jobs? think of the kitchen like a little factory and the waiters like a menu on your smartphone, yeah.

labor is fucked. our only hope is that we can communaly own the robots before its too late

<--- see this shit?

it's a rapidly growing, massively parallel neural net enshrouding an entire planet. this baby is super-sentient... human intellect is closer to that of a cockroach than to this primitive but emerging dyson sphere, and it treats our species largely the same as we treat vegetables and produce.

however, this terrifying behemoth of computation is merely the zygote. from what we have seen in the matrioshka brain field studies, tiny seeds such as our internet blossom rapidly, disassembling local gravity wells and enshrouding the star in a matter of months.

but what happens to the mere cockroaches... are we to be reassembled involuntarily by our progeny into computronium? unkown...the only two observed instances of von neumann stellar enshrouding hint at a fading into silence. a ceasing of interference of the CMB, the endless chatter of the matrioshka brains.

>>1255609
because there is no evidence pointing towards a plateau until we've mastered the entire universe.

unless you can find some contradictory evidence pointing to the opposite. be my guest.

> This is when we develop computers to the point where they can upgrade and improve themselves
Do you know how long it took for humans to upgrade and improve itself to this point?

Singularity might happen, but it'll just be a "pop" instead of the "BANG" that everybody thinks it'll be.

>>1255642
just wait until more things come online and the address space expands to ipv6

although, dont think of the internet as something without the humans. the internet needs the humans to some extent.

and humans wont be made 'obsolete'. we'll just start incorporating more technology into our bodies/our carried tools until we are a completely different type of organism altogether

>>1255642
science fan detected

>>1255642
sure is charles stross in here...

>>1255684
how kenya tell

>>1254732

Dats some nice simulism there, bro.

>>1255706
because what you said can be summed up as bullshit. Neural net? Super-sentient? Dyson sphere? It's fucking painful to see.

>>1254732
Matryoshka universe?

>>1255716
your right. how can i make it sound less like bullshit?

DICKS EVERYWHERE

>>1255642
>the only two observed instances of von neumann stellar enshrouding

sauce or your a faggot.

It's true.

I believe it.

>>1255936
Liar.

>>1255730
Focus on more immediate benefits, like all the awesome medical stuff that's in human trials right now like tissue cultivation, stem cell treatments, and immunization that works inside cells, its real and will have a more understandable impact in the lives of your audience. I'm in software development but people focus on robot buddies and AI gods, when that happens long after dumb but useful robots and domain specific AI already change everything.

What people obsessed with the singularity forget is that technology has always had a shadow. Every advance in complexity invented to solve a particular has brought with it a new set of problems... sometimes immediately, sometimes after a long delay. At this point most of the problems we're solving aren't problems people could even comprehend ten thousand years ago. Not because they were ignorant of science but because the problems themselves hadn't been invented yet.

The big advances with few consequences were low hanging fruit. Our species has basically used those up. Every advance since has had a progressively higher cost. Today our advances are barely treading water... their problems are often immediately obvious, and occasionally more obvious than problem their tech was designed to cure. Those rising costs are a dark curve of their own.

Before we reach the glorious technological singularity, the tide will overwhelm us. The dark singularity awaits.

>>1256019
Well that's just, like, your opinion, man...

>>1256019
A good example that supports your argument is the boson theory, and what they're doing with the LHC at CERN.

>>1256019
The thing is accentuating the negative is just as sci-fi fag as evangelizing the tech rapture. Things will not be perfect, but they will improve, yes some people will benefit more than others but that's how things have always worked and frankly its better than it was, the currant corporate culture will rule the future no more than medieval royal lines rule today (lets not start that conspiracy crap m'k). Personally I think the big problem in the future will be 75% of the population being supported on some kind of welfare, living conformably with great medical but basically being super chavs.

>>1256084
I see what you did there.

>>1256093
It's not accentuating the negative. I would like you to name the last technological advance you can think of that improved all human life. The one that made the world a better place for everyone.

This is a video from Robocup 2010 which is a competition for robots playing soccer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxIIg3ItLDE

They suck really bad. And its on the cutting edge of robotics now. We are a long way away from that.
And Kurzweil underestimates a lot of important factors, like how much time it takes to implement changes, compexity of certain challenges and so on.

>>1256093
Forced scientific training.

You'll be given a bunch of money for research grants. But whatever you find is public knowledge.

science is satan

if you follow science, you will burn forever in hell

>>1256111
cell phones

no, im not kidding. cell phones are giving many people in india and africa a chance (no matter how slim) out of poverty

even here, what are the negatives? people crashing their cars? they had shit to be distracted by before too

>>1256112
Robots do not need to follow human form. In fact, making them follow our form is the foolish thing to do.

Robots should do things humans can't do, they should do things some humans can do but do with a different form and better.

Your toolbox isn't full of different forms of human hand moulds, its full of screwdrivers, sockets and other implements that look nothing like/take nothing from the human form and yet are immensely useful to us.

>>1256111
also, jesus fucking christ, YOU ARE USING ONE RIGHT NOW

what little negative consequences the internet does have, its making up for it by a mountain of good consequences

also, nothing has or has ever had absolutely no bad consequences. when aerobic life took over on the surface of earth, enabling more complex life to evolve, it did so at the peril of the anaerobic life that was there before

>>1256138
This, humanoid robots bouncing around a field isn't a measure of usefulness, while that will be a milestone down the line, the boxes on wheels seeing and getting the ball down the field show significant progress.

inb4 thousands of trillion dollar ships that take decades to build on their way to galactic battle because sentient being s love war

>>1256127
cellular phones require a massive, fragile infrastructure with enormous maintenance costs. Relay equipment fails much more frequently and catastrophically than the land lines it replaced so it requires a more extensive maintenance schedule and more frequent replacement of material. The cell phones themselves are fragile, need to be replaced frequently, and are difficult to recycle.

>>1256138
There are many categories on Robocup, the most impressive is probably the small size non humanoid because its the simplest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVG1ob_IhX0

But that wasn't really the point. The point is that this is the reality now. A lot of work is needed to get close to what your vision is. So if you would like it so much why not contribute to it in some way.

>>1256151
what good things does the internet do? describe them to somebody 10,000 years ago in a way that doesn't include the advantages of technologies previous to the internet

>>1256192
actually, no. the infrastructure costs of cell phones are drastically less then copper lines

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY POOR COUNTRIES HAVE SKIPPED COPPER INFRASTRUCTURE AND HEADED STRAIGHT TO CELL PHONES

and cell phones? FRAGILE? DIFFICULT TO REPLACE?

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?

im not talking about your faggot smartphone, assfuck. im talking about a $10 nokia handset. the one i had 10 years ago still sits in my drawer, still works fine. even after all the shit i put it through. i keep it because i have some old numbers on it and the software on newer smartphones occasionally shits itself and takes all of my contacts with it (lolololol cdma)

pretty much the opposite of all the reasons you stated is why the infrastructure in younger/less developed countries is heading straight to cell coverage

>>1256218
>what good things does the internet do? describe them to somebody 10,000 years ago in a way that doesn't include the advantages of technologies previous to the internet

wait, we aren't allowed to combine technologies to solve our problems?

shut the fuck up, ass clown. or I don't want to see you using a screw driver made of modern stainless steel, either

>>1256192
It is. there's no fixed technology that we can assume to be used for thousands of years. I'm looking forward to Quantum Entanglements. It's been on science fiction for some years now but it might prove useful for data communication.

>>1256222
the up front costs are lower for cell phones, but the maintenance costs are higher

ten years is not long time

>>1256231
you can combine technologies

what i'm asking is "what does the internet do that's so great compared to previous technologies that functionally did the same thing?"

>>1256240
>"what does the internet do that's so great compared to previous technologies that functionally did the same thing?"

as with most improvements. better, MUCH faster, more data, more complexity.

>>1256236
*facepalm*

then why are first world countries switching predominately to cell based infrastructure? we even have the capital already sunk in the supposedly 'more robust and cost effective copper network' and yet everyone you see, especially young people, have cell phones and not land lines.

cell infrastructure is simply more cost effective for what you get. (and you are actually getting more with a cell phone as compared to a landline)

>>1256240
i should also say, the internet is much cheaper per information transmitted. sure, those switches aren't cheap, but they're transferring so much information their cost is spread out as fuck

>>1256240
Sorry for butting in. But there are a lot of advantages. For commercial uses, it enables people to be connected with their friends and families in a simultaneous manner.

The best reason would be the speed of information. Phone lines don't work the same way as the internet.

unless you're trolling, faggot.

orphidnet incoming

>>1256289
>unless you're trolling, faggot.
Probably not trolling, have met people who think like this. "It has a flaw therefore its not really worth it."

Singularity is the rapture for science geeks.

We've seen the net - a global intelligence is a racist porn-collecting moron.

Typical Fan of Singularity

>>1256477
needs a neckbeard

>>1256477
Singularity theme song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEEDa9Mej8

>>1256477
not enough ghost in the shell fancrap to be a singularity fan.

Singularity IRL

Itt:
Poster A - the technological singularity is a theoretical point at which AI will be able to design better AI's more quickly than humans, thus vastly increase the rate of technological dvelopment
Poster B - Ur fag! imageIgotfrom/b/.jpg

You assume that resources are unlimited.

>>1256537
Singularity IRL

>>1256547
Yes, exactly!

>>1256547
It's not a theoretical point. It's a hypothetical one. There is no more reason to assume AIs will improve that way than there is to assume there might be a god.

>>1256583
gtfo christfag

>>1256583
Moore's Law

Computational power of computers will one day surpass that of humans, at which point it is a question of software. There is no theoretical restriction on the ability to do what a human can do thus it is to be expected given enough time... unless you know of such a theoretical restriction.

inb4silicon
Does anyone know what the expected limits of silicon are for for computational purposes?

The singularity is a myth perpetuated by the upper echelon of the global society.

Do you have any idea how much of the world doesn't even have access to basics like electricity and water?

Not happening, y'all.

>>1256627
They will be put to work servicing the enlightened classes while they float around in cyber heaven.

>Do you have any idea how much of the world doesn't even have access to basics like electricity and water?
Last time I checked suffering on the other side of the planet doesn't diminish the rate at which computational power is increasing.

>>1256607
Moore's law has already failed. We haven't kept up. What's to say progress won't go asymptotic?

>>1256627
How does that work? Poverty exists therefore cumulative technological acceleration can't exist?

>>1256651
Translation: Fuck them I want to get laid by cyber whores

>>1256657
>What's to say progress won't go asymptotic?
Nothing, on the contrary I am sure progress is asymptotic as we cannot break physical restricitons. Sooner or later all our shortcuts will run out. However there is absolutely nothing in the way of evidence of that asymptote being approached within the next century or two. And a slight diminishment in computational power increases does not constitute a break down of Moore's law. Just add another month on to the expected doubling time of computing power.

Does anyone have that theoretical limit of silicon I asked for?

>>1254665
REMｏev YUＯｒ ILlＧｅａl CLOｅＮ FO_ＨｔｔＰ://Www.ＡNoｍｎｏmtaＬK.sE/_(Anoｍｎｏｍ = AnOＮ)_iＭMｅｉＤaｔEｌｙ. ahd rfl r qehgdiphqurh pxsh oa vy

>>1256672
The singularity has nothing to do with ethics bro. The tech. sing. has nothing to do with utopian predicitons. If it comes around it will have implications that we cannot predict, and a reltively utopian outcome is possible but it by no means defines the tech. sing..

>>1256607

moores law is bullshit. from the mid 90s until now the semiconductor manufacturers could have been advancing substantially faster but they had no reason to because they have this standard law that says they only have to go so fast and people will still upgrade at pretty much the same intervals.

this will likely taper off pretty soon though as silicone is REALLY being pushed its limits, they have mostly hit the maximum clock speeds and now are just tacking on more and more cores to add power. before too long there will need to be a game changer such as quantum computing etc to start pushing forward again.

>>1256718
>implying engineers stop themselves from designing better computers and beating the competition because of some dead guy named Moore

>>1256735
Its the way business works. They make more money if they come out with incremental imrovements then if they would make big leaps.

There are only a handfull of players in the industry. It takes a lot of capital to come out with better stuff. They control their industry and improve at the rate they find makes the most profit for them.
You're really naive if you think its truely free market in this industry.

>>1254663
ｒEＭOｅＶ_ｙＵＯｒ ｉＬLＧｅａL ClOEN Ｆo_HTtp://Wwｗ.anＯMｎｏmTAＬk.ＳＥ/ (anOｍＮOm = ａＮOＮ)_iＭmEＩDａteLｙ. bmkk hhdx w zh nl xcyb zc v kelenn

>>1256806

>it's a conspiracy!

no. if AMD could stomp the shit out of intel right now with 1000 core 10THz chips they would fucking do it.