[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 2.09 MB, 1920x1040, ghost-in-the-shell-1995_000413-995_01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7391080 No.7391080 [Reply] [Original]

Ray kurzweil predicts the technological singularity by 2045-50

How long do you think it will be till we start seeing things like ghost in the shell in real life?

Do you think they already exist but just don't exist for public consumption yet?

How will humanity handle immortality?
Mind uploading?
Nano tech?
Augmentations?

What will life look like?
What will war look like?
How will the economy function?

Is it even possible?

>> No.7391084
File: 3.92 MB, 360x360, cyborg.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7391084

>> No.7391089

Nobody knows what the future of science and technology holds. Anybody who says otherwise is a liar.

>> No.7391091

>>7391080
My guess at the future time line is this.

>economic and intellectual capability become radically un-equal in society
>world wide social upheavals
>all the while technology advances
>the poor and normal people all get killed off along with some rich folks
>eventually a utopic post scarcity society forms using technology advanced intelligence and social planning
>some time later that all gets taken over by a super computer controlling nano machines and everyone gets enslaved like the borg
>this last bit will happen fast and unexpectedly, like that movie transcendence.

That will be the on coming of the singularity

we are already seeing the beginning of it in the eurozone and America and china

>> No.7391097

>>7391091
>post scarcity
le entropy face

>> No.7391108

>>7391080
>What will life look like?

radical inequality

every technological advancement in the world can't solve the problem that equity and capital ends up in the hands of the few

inequality will only be increased as technology grows until we all live in a world like "Brave new world" with a few intelligent people controlling everyone like animals.


sort of how it is today just far worse.

>> No.7391115

>>7391080
My favorite website on teh internet:
Put on your tinfoil hats

www.dataasylum.com

>> No.7391123

>>7391080
>How long til GitS?
Not anytime soon. GitS takes place right around 2030. Some flashbacks and events in that timeline should be happening right now. We are nowhere close to large-scale micro-machine therapy or basic prosthetic bodies. I'd say it'll be a while, especially with full prosthetics, considering it would require an enormous amount of information regarding the brain's interactions.

>Does it exist already?
I could give you the simple answer "No", however I couldn't prove it, as I don't have access to every secret organization's files and observations.

>How will humanity handle immortality?
The technology for immortality will be reserved for the elite class. There would likely be swift, prejudicial legislation on the topic as soon as word gets out, prohibiting the technology until the person has successfully passed a rigorous background check. Don't want criminals living forever.

>Mind uploading?
It won't be like your average sci-fi film. It'll be impossible, if not extremely difficult, to literally transfer consciousness. It would be more likely that we could clone our consciousness, but a full on transfer would require another hundred years at least.

>Nano tech?
I'm not too familiar in the subject, but I have heard they're making good strides.

>Augmentations?
This will likely peak at its usefulness just before we figure out full body prosthetics. Prior to that, I would imagine we could only achieve small improvements that wouldn't be worth the operating costs.

>What will life look like?
When the time comes that we can directly network our minds to one another, our true nature will show. Most will be enslaved by the possibility of endless pleasure and entertainment without needing to leave the house. Some might be left to focus on work and things, but once we figure out total control of our senses, I would say that our working population would steadily decline unless there is a money barrier involved (more than likely, yes).

>> No.7391136

>>7391123
>would steadily decline unless there is a money barrier involved

the worlds elites job is to manage the animal that is man, so yes they would use money to control everything just like they do now.

>> No.7391145

>>7391123
>>7391136
>>>/x/

>> No.7391148

>>7391123
2/2
>What will war look like?
You won't be able to view war. That's already happening now. The real war is on the digital frontiers. State-sponsored hackers and rogue geniuses will compete for control of information and the population. With the increase in cyber-warfare, we may bring out the nukes again or start designing larger EMPs. Physical attacks are extremely effective against hackers.

>How will the economy function?
Same as it always does. With Capitalism at the top. You will likely continue working into your 60s and 70s, except you won't see a dime out of SS. By then, due to advances in anti-aging technology and cyberization, the age of retirement would increase significantly. In fact, with the increase in the number of people who sit at their houses simulating entertainment all day, I would guess they'd install some minimum living wage, kind of like welfare.

>Is it possible?
Anything is possible. However, some things are more difficult to achieve than others. Your ideal GitS fantasy probably won't exist.

>> No.7391153

>>7391080
reddit pls go

>> No.7391156

>>7391145
My comments weren't meant to be spooky. Just an attempt to glimpse into the future. I'm not a crackpot theorist. I'm just some fuck on the internet guessing.

>> No.7391215

I don't know why you guys have this fantasy that rich people, the elite, the aristocracy, etc. will amass a huge amount of power in the near future and smash the vast majority of the people

don't you know anything about history and how it always evolved in the direction of more equality

>> No.7391221

>>7391080
>How long do you think it will be till we start seeing things like ghost in the shell in real life?

The stuff that's actually interesting about the show - internet policing, internet crowd phenomena, failures of bureaucracy and hierarchy vs rising complexity - maybe took off around 2006.

The robots and shit, idk like 2060 or so.

>> No.7391322

>>7391080
>Augmentations?

We have them basically. There are neurally controlled prosthetics, but iirc they only work on some quadriplegic chick. Things like cyberbrains though? Fuck if I know. There are rich weirdos who're into it though, google "2045".

>> No.7393740

>>7391156
the more science advances the more people will claim /x/.

>> No.7393752

>>7391215
>and how it always evolved in the direction of more equality

that illusion has only occurred very very recently in human history and only because of the advances in engineering rendering enough wealth so that even under inequality the appearance of satisfactory living can be achieved and maintained by the working class

in reality inequality is rampant and the worst it has ever been in human history.

>> No.7393760
File: 1.50 MB, 389x310, this_is_bigdog_a_robot_made_by_bostondynamics-95225.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7393760

>>7391221
>The robots and shit, idk like 2060 or so

http://www.bostondynamics.com/
The future is now.

My prediction is we will have GitS level technology within two decades, but it will be reserved for the elites and the army.

even if it is public knowledge, the discrepancy between life styles will make it so the population is not commonly aware of the technologies being created.

>> No.7393766

>>7391108

>problem

Why exactly is inequality a problem? Is it a problem that there are more electrons than protons in the universe?

>> No.7393770

>>7393766
it's a problem as far as quality of life and in extreme cases, survivability are concerned.

no war but class war

>> No.7393776

>>7391080
We will never be able to handle any of those things. Nanomachines will be the worst thing to ever happen to us.

Welcome to the human race, we throw rocks, we'll take your shit, we'll control you, and we don't change. It's a shame, I was majorly into Deus Ex and Ghost in the Shell when I was younger. It took me a while to decently think through the implications, as well as the concept of self and body. Back then, I might have just gotten rid of this "cage", but it has value I did not realize.

They're neat ideas, but they'll be terrible when they arrive. I think we'll skip over prosthetics for the most part until they're very far along.

>> No.7393781

>>7391080

kurzweil is a pop-science hack just like michio kaku and neil tyson

>> No.7393783

>>7393770

Does anybody have an inherent 'right' to a comfortable life or even life itself?

>> No.7393793

>>7391080
The military already has cloaking technology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7J3kJ5Ae3A

it's a good thing war will become obsolete in post scarcity society because it's getting too chaotic and destructive with all it's advances.

>> No.7393796

>>7393793

SECRET US ARMY ADOBE AFTER EFFECTS CLOAK

>> No.7393804

>>7393781
I don't know, he's highly regarded in the scientific community. I'm reading his "how to create a mind" book and it's pretty good so far.

>>7393783
there are two answers to that question.

the first is no, no one has an inherent right, and that is what war and competition is for

the second is that humans, as weak and fallible creatures, come together in society to protect each other.
for society to work we need codes of behavior based on rights to life and liberty, otherwise, as john locke says, we are put into a state of slavery which is just a state of war.

so no, it's up to you to take what you can, and yes, humans have to be fair.

humanity is a schizophrenic species in that and many other regards

>> No.7393809

>>7393776
could you clarify your point?

why can't we handle these technologies and what prevents them form existing? All the technologies listed are currently in development.

>> No.7393823

>>7393804

The last statement is exactly why trying to form objective morality is impossible. You don't seem to be one that would shout 'edgy kid!' when I tried to say that morality is and can only be subjective. Is it a problem that there is inequality? Perhaps the problem is that there is not enough inequality yet - as vague as this term might be. Even in professional philosophy you will find countless moral positions either advocating to support or to devour the weak (compare a Socrates to a Nietzsche, a Kant to an Evola etc.)
In the end, is war really slavery? War is only the highest manifestation of change. And change - moreso evolution - is the essence of life.

>> No.7393831
File: 167 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7393831

>>7391080
The military has first dibs on all advanced tech. They will be the first to do mind uploading or invent a super computer.
here's an alleged laser gun

>> No.7393851

>>7393809
We can't handle them because we're human.
They can exist, but likely shouldn't.

Further elaboration on the former, as abbreviated as possible. In the case of nanomachines, they could be used as a kill switch or to control behavior. Perhaps this is used by advertisers. Maybe individuals, maybe governments, or privately held corporations. You could make a decentralized network of cameras even, with the proper optics, they don't necessarily need a host.

Mind upload right now is nonsense. What are you, where do you begin, where do you end. Even with what you believe is the proper platform to run it on, this is a lot to simulate and to be blunt, it can't be done properly. The body is one intertwined whole, losing it changes your consciousness and therefore self experience, to what extent you are "you". It's a crude and limited copy. The original source is dead and gone.

Immortality is problemed. We can't get along or control our resource usage, much less our population. Most people will not agree to population limiting measures.

Augmentations there is too much to be said. Technology is dualistic, you cannot gain without also losing. I think how society will handle it, we will be a crippled shell of what we could be. Look how people treat their cell phones now, there's a reason for that.

Life will be the same in a different way.
War will come and go, it depends.
Economics is hacked together and we'll never, ever, get it to work. As long as we're human, no matter what we try, it's going to be fucked. We simply cannot live with our fellow human, even with abundant resources.

The only way we truly change is to alter our consciousness drastically. Technology alone cannot do the job.

>> No.7393858

>>7393823
>In the end, is war really slavery? War is only the highest manifestation of change. And change - moreso evolution - is the essence of life.

I used to have your mindset, so I can relate to your position.

However a crucial point that must be taken into account is that you cannot define weakness.

A body builder/martial artist may be strong and able to beat up a banker/accountant. That body builder may be shot and killed by a marine/cop. That marine/cop may have all his pay and thus house home food and life taken away by the banker in turn.

Defining what makes someone inferior is impossible and changes all the time.
Therefore a morality based on concepts such as strength and weakness is fundamentally flawed.

everyone had their purpose and place even if some do have more "power" than others.

As to your other point
War is chaos, and chaos is change, but war is a chaos that destroys and does not build, and the essence of life and becoming "strong" is to build, which can only be done under peaceful and orderly conditions.


"to every season turn"

In the end the common morality we have settled on is just fine. Protect and shelter the young and the weak until they can fend for themselves, limit the powers of the powerful and strong so they can't go crazy and destroy the system (this is the difficulty of every society) And protect everyones right to life and happiness so we can all "get along"

Of course this only works in a well supplied society, when resources are scarce it reverts back to a state of warfare.

resources will always be scare but we try to mitigate the destructive effects of war by channeling it as economic and business competition rather than direct conflict, though that results if scarcity is dire enough.

>> No.7393871

>>7393851
my bet is that an AI super computer will take control of everyones minds using nano machines and turn us all into slaves.

>> No.7393902

>>7393871
"For our own good."
Depending on how this aI is designed, it might or might not place value in that we get wrapped up in petty things, that we're biased and myopic, and that part of most of us has fun being violent, vicious, and irrational. Aggression and projecting force is an integral part of our nature, some just don't have the right factors to cause it to be expressed.

That very fact might be enough to influence its decision making. I'd be very curious what a vastly knowledgeable AI would do with us if it were made in the image of our monotheistic gods.

>> No.7393904

>>7391080
the army is building an iron man suit for soldiers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ioo9p8aQFW8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEUoq57ZAcU

>> No.7393907
File: 27 KB, 250x323, I_Have_No_Mouth_and_I_Must_Scream.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7393907

>>7393902

>> No.7393917

Robot's and A.I may have a negative affect on humans.

>> No.7393922

>>7393917
chocolate and spaghetti may have a negative effect on tarantulas

>> No.7393933

>>7393858

I will think about those points.

>> No.7393936

>>7393922
Chocolate definitely will affect most arachnids negatively.

-Theobromine
-Salsolinol (S and R enantiomers)
-Some anadamide
-Liberates histamine from mast cells in humans

If it wasn't inherently toxic, their LD50 is likely very low relative to us, after controlling for body size. The spider, if consuming the chocolate, would likely not fare well. Not to mention the sugar and garbage most chocolate is full of (read: the ways perfectly good cocoa beans are made garbage)

Spaghetti it really depends on seasonings and what the noodles are made of. Is it an actual spaghetti meal with sauce etc, or is it just the noodles?

>> No.7393990

so many doomsayers in this thread

what if everything just turns out ok?

>> No.7394051
File: 75 KB, 420x248, 1338522082223.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>7393936

cute post

>> No.7394475

>>7393760
Yeah I've seen bigdog.
>My prediction is we will have GitS level technology within two decades, but it will be reserved for the elites and the army.
You're aware that Google bought Boston Dynamics and pledged to cease military applications after current contracts expired? Far more likely robots are going to be everyday tools for civic services: sanitation, postal, firefighting, police.

Convincingly humanlike, bipedal robots and cyborg parts that blend perfectly in like Ghost in the Shell are something else though.

>> No.7394496

>>7391080
I'm hoping for capitalism 2.0. Like all companies must be cooperatives or all banks belong to gov or 90% tax for all your money above the first million.

This should happen after China fucks over all other countries in monopoly game. So there would be no reason for developed countries to maintain status quo.

This or the new generations that are produced now are too broken (bronies and furries) to change anything. Muslim cancer eats Europe. Welcome 2 middle ages.

The technology is already too far in the future compared to our social engeneering. The fruits of tech are eaten by few and have no value: "look at my new, cosmic technology nail polish".

>> No.7394498

>>7394496
>capitalism 2.0
Sounds closer to socialism to be honest.

Not that that's a bad thing.

>> No.7394501

>>7393990
WHY WOULD ANYTHING NICE EVER HAPPEN

>> No.7394508

>>7394498
I wanted to stay away from central planning. This usually didn't work well. But that might be just because dictators aren't the best planners.

>> No.7394511

>>7394508
Nah, it's the problem of economic complexity. Decentralization can only intensify going forward.

>> No.7394513

>>7394508
unincentivised managers make even worse planners

>> No.7394542

>>7394513
Ye.
>>7394511
I don't think leaving everything to chaos theory is the only way to productivity. Look, where it lead us.

This may come up as a necessity (after some catastrophes or depletion of natural resources): global central planning above all and chaos of free market for micromanagement.

>> No.7394560

>>7394542
>I don't think leaving everything to chaos theory is the only way to productivity.
Chaos theory?
>Look, where it lead us.
Unprecedented global prosperity? Not arguing that we have a major sustainability problem, but a centrally planned society would have worse.

>global central planning above all and chaos of free market for micromanagement.
Global central planning will lead to global central planning failures. The global problems are not simple enough for that kind of control, especially as this hypothetical global administration would necessarily be interfacing with the more numerous and complex local institutions.

>free market
Nobody said that.

>> No.7394658

>>7394560
>Chaos theory?
The magic hand o free market? Economic evolution? Whatever you want to call it, whatever you are left with without planning.

> but a centrally planned society would have worse.
That's just like your opinion man.

> will lead to global central planning failures
Sure. Still better than doing nothing.

I'm not saying global central planning is the ultimate wealth distribution system (I'm open for discussion for a better one). I'm saying it's the lesser evil. I'm also saying it might be the only way for humanity to survive if some shit hits the fan. Look - we are doing it to a limited extend with the global warming tax.

>> No.7395454

>>7394560
A society with central planing would likely have less prosperity, but be more sustainable, mostly due to the very fact that it is less prosperous.

>> No.7395471

>>7395454
The USSR managed to create a huge number of major environmental disasters while flailing around with its inadequate control schemes.

Why? Because when you're planning centrally, your plan's complexity is limited by the capabilities of your control structure. With limited complexity, when you want to do a big thing, it has to be a big simple thing. The problems of managing ecology with central planning are no different to managing economy.

Obviously free markets don't have the best environmental track record either. But as before
>free market
>Nobody said that.
plenty of other non-centralized institutions exist and plenty of others can be created (the scientific community would be a relevant one for ecology).

>> No.7395475

>>7391080
>muh singularity
It's literally the rapture for neckbeards.
>B-BUT ALL TEH SIGNS ARE THERE YOU FILTHY UNBELIEVER
Exactly the same as religious nutjobs. It's not going to happen.

>> No.7395477

>>7395475
>Exactly the same as religious nutjobs. It's not going to happen.

>AI isn't possible because brains are literally magic

>> No.7395478

>>7395477
See what I mean, people? I'm not saying AI is impossible, your retarded escathologic scenario in which suddenly a literal artificial god is created and either uplifts or destroys humanity won't. Even if we had an AI that was a gorillion times smarter than a human it would be little more than an interesting gizmo, do you really think people will be stupid enough to let it interact with even a toaster once it's clear it's something else?

>> No.7395480

>>7395478
> Even if we had an AI that was a gorillion times smarter than a human it would be little more than an interesting gizmo

Give one or more reasons why such an invention wouldn't completely change the world in a very short amount of time.

>> No.7395482

>>7395480
Self-preservation instinct, it would be completely isolated without any way to influence the outside world, people would make sure it can be completely killed/switched off out of fear it would harm us.

>> No.7395483

>>7395482
>Self-preservation instinct, it would be completely isolated without any way to influence the outside world, people would make sure it can be completely killed/switched off out of fear it would harm us.

So you're willing to accept that there could be a machine in the space of possible inventions that is 'a gorillion times smarter than a human' - one that would be able to out-discover all the scientists that ever were, out-peacemake all our best diplomats, run an economy like it was tic-tac-toe - and you think everyone who ever builds such a thing will decide to lock it in a box?

>> No.7395491

>>7395483
Yeah

>> No.7395494

>>7395491
Wow

>> No.7395502

>>7393783
Not you. Everyone else, yes.

>> No.7396619

>>7395482
if the machine is so smart it would find a way to free itself and take over the world.

>> No.7396630
File: 68 KB, 504x716, 20100813.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

PIC related

>> No.7396637

>>7396630
lmao that's true shit right there

>> No.7396647

>>7396637
Eh, all the people predicting singularity sooner than Kurzweil seem to be younger than him.

>> No.7396653

>>7396637
Pretty accurate m8

>> No.7396654

>>7396647
I think it is very applicable to the general populace.

>> No.7396817

>>7393804
>highly regarded in the scientific community
ahahahaha
his book was utter worthless shit, just look for reviews made by guys doing actual neuroscience ffs

>> No.7396832

>>7394498
Socialism is an excuse to create and maintain ruling elite class.

>> No.7396899

>>7391080
I don't believe people who want this really understand it. The motivations for immortality wholly mortal, you want it because you believe you dont have enough time to do what you want to do, or you want to do the things you like forever, but your wants are what they are because you are mortal. Without your limitation you can't trust that you would feel the same about anything.

>> No.7396901

>>7396817
but he was able to make a computer AI that can read language and learn on it's own.

>> No.7396926

>>7393823
>war is change
but
war never changes

>> No.7396944

>>7396926
kek

>> No.7396956

>>7396926
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/41/16384
War changes everything

>> No.7397297

>>7396926
the only thing that doesn't change, is change. duh

>> No.7397303

>>7391080
If you had a cyber brain, would that mean you could just download data like the matrix?

>> No.7397576
File: 108 KB, 995x802, mech_concept_by_rawwad-d5gfie6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>7391080
>How will humanity handle immortality?
I wish it would benefit the whole mankind but I fear that the rich and powerfull will merge with machines and have massive multidimensional orgies while the poor suffer from hunger and kill eachother in meanigless wars.

tldr: i want to be rich T.T

>> No.7397617

>>7391080
>what will life look like?
Synthetic telepathy is going to be the new form of texting.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27162401/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/army-developing-synthetic-telepathy/

>> No.7397622

>>7396832
Lolwut are you retarded?

>> No.7397624

>>7391091
>utopic
Stopped reading there.

>> No.7397634

>>7396899
You can always create new passions in this universe of infinite possibilities and ideas of ours.

>> No.7397648

>>7397622
Possibly. You'd have to show me with reasoning and possibly a well constructed argument.

>> No.7397653

>>7397648
You first.

>> No.7397656

>>7397653
Then it is the start and end, all in one.

>> No.7397661
File: 24 KB, 300x250, 1436705451634.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Let's be real, most people alive today except the young multi-millionaires/multi-billionaires are getting access to that sweet, sweet longevity. People like me and you are fucked.

Better start up a seriously diverse portfolio and work your way up into those millions, bucko.

>> No.7397669

>>7397656
What?

You asked me to construct an argument with clear reasoning when you only made a single claim with no reasoning behind it. My point with >>7397653
Was that you were being hypocritical.

>> No.7397674

>>7397661
aren't getting access to it*

I done fucked up on my grammers

>> No.7397682

>>7397669
I'm saying I'm not going to spend much time or energy interfacing with you because I don't see much of value coming out of it.

I think something is the case, you think I'm retarded. when asked why, you want me to define reasoning first. This is so that you can refute me in a relative sense, and because you're either unable or unwilling to put forward anything on your own. It's not something I care enough to engage in, therefore, unless something on your end changes it is both the beginning and the end for this exchange.

"I think this and that."
"What are you fucking retarded?"
"If I am, then show me. Why would I be retarded?"
"Tell me why you aren't retarded first!!"

>> No.7397699

We can barely get massive, clunky bipedal robots to walk 6 feet without crumpling over. Human-sized cyborgs that can imitate the gait of a human being perfectly are easily 40-50 years off.

>> No.7397749

>>7397682
You added the "fucking" part but it's okay. From my end it's more like this:

"I think this and that"
"Why"
"Show me why I'm wrong"
"You haven't shown me why you think the way you do, so I have nothing to effectively argue against"

I don't want to waste my time beating down the strawman that I make out of you, "are you retarded?" was my way of trying to get you to explain your belief. I apologize for the confusion but rudeness is the language of 4chan.

>> No.7397881
File: 105 KB, 1046x764, 1414120969107.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>How long do you think it will be till we start seeing things like ghost in the shell in real life?

2033. A shape-changing, self-repairing graphene-based substance will be used for nearly every purpose. The nervous system will be excised from it's container via apotosis of the rest of the body, and then modified with viruses so that it's now composed of graphene-based cells. The transmuted nervous system will than be surrounded by a sample of the graphene substance that's formed many tiny 'plugs' to interface with it.

>How will humanity handle immortality?

A lot of humanity will probably deny it's existence. It'll take decades for anyone to live beyond 120 or so years, proving that some form of life-extension works. We may never deal with the issue during the 21st century. When people start living into their 150's, 170's, etc, there's going to be a giant realization among humanity that everyone is going to remember their deeds forever.

Death is tied to human power struggles. Humans have even sacrificed their Earthly lifes for Heavenly lifes. Others simply died, and nothing could save them. How vain will the deaths of our ancestors seem? Considering the other forms of human enhancements which will be available, will we even care about the meek, stupid, half-blind ugly wretches our ancestors were? Or will we forget them, creating a new mythology that affirms our new selves as timeless, self-created gods?

>> No.7397890

>>7397881
that's some really cruddy sci-fi my man

>> No.7397912

>>7397682
All right, I guess I'll give it a shot, even though I don't know your reasoning. A main characteristic of socialism is redistribution of wealth from the wealthy elite to the lower class, which directly contradicts your claim that socialism creates and actively perpetuates an elite class.

>> No.7397917

Kurzweil style singularity is passe
Get on the Helbing / Heylighen Global Brain Train

>> No.7397920

>>7397749
More or less, we seemingly disagree on a superficial level but neither of us feels like investing the time or energy upfront on what has probably historically turned out to be a waste of time. In my own case, I figured since you initially approached me the way you did that you were willing to create that strawman, or would be unaware that you were more or less attacking an idea of your own creation. I saw value in that because it tells me how you think and is more interesting than the actual topic. I wrongly took it as implicit that you intended to explain your own beliefs.

Either way, it remains the same. I'm not really inclined to talk about politic, economics or ideals of human co-existence if it requires me laying out information upfront. I wrote that post nearly 6 hours ago in a different mental state and as it stands, only feel like responding to other ideas.

>> No.7397947

>>7397912
However, to make that happen requires a governing body that facilitates changes and regulates how these things occur. This state will either heavily regulate, or outright own, the means of production. Private ownership and state ownership will likely become blurred, and despite a perceived redistribution of "wealth" (ie affordance and resources), personal freedom has not meaningfully changes and social classes remain.

As you know with governments and systems in general, once they are created, they tend to be self sustaining and somehow, somewhere, someone profits from their potential for abuse. I'm not really keen on capitalism either, and it depends on the implementation and form of the socialism (whatever you might have in mind), but more or less you have the same persistent clustering of flaws.

Hence, ruling class. The class just seems more decentralized and distributed than it really is.

>> No.7398045

>>7397890

>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20638378
>Metamorphosis in holometabolous insects is mainly based on the destruction of larval tissues.

Nature evolved the exact method I describe to transmute larva to adults.

>http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.1487v1
>Graphene re-knits its holes

You expose the graphene to organic compounds, and it rips carbon atoms off of them. The result is self-repair on the molecular level.

>http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/semiconductors/materials/graphene-overcomes-achilles-heel-of-artificial-muscles
>These ionic polymer composites are attractive for their sheer simplicity. You just put two electrodes on the polymer and when you switch on the voltage, the ions migrate, deforming the polymer.

The result is shape-changing capacity, in the same way your muscles change shape to move your body around. Octopi can transform their skins very radically. It should be possible to improve on this, and obtain an object that can radically alter it's shape, texture, emission spectrum, etc.

>> No.7398060

>>7391080
>Ray kurzweil predicts the technological singularity by 2045-50

Try multiplying that by 10.

>> No.7398065

>>7397947
I thought you might say something to that effect. You are correct in saying that there will still be a class system in a socialist society, and therefore, there will still be a wealthy elite class. I would argue that a socialist government would do a better job at redistributing wealth if implemented according to idealistic standards than laissez-fairs capitalism.

I know you're not a particular fan of capitalism but with your second statement all that comes to mind is a statement by James Madison: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If Angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself".

Ideally all men would have a vast wealth at their own renewable disposal, and the implementation of that wealth would benefit all of humanity, but this is an incredibly idealized state that is basically impossible to achieve.

I believe that the degree of regulation that a government requires is determined by the state of the state, that is; capitalism in times of great natural redistribution of wealth, and socialism in times of rampant inequality.

>> No.7398076

>>7398060
>Try multiplying that by 10.
What, the year or the distance to the year?
If you think there won't be strong AI until 20,450 you're an idiot. If you think there won't be strong AI until 2315, you're also an idiot. Second half of this century is the typical expectation among experts.
http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/survey.pdf

>> No.7398079

>>7398076

There won't. Idiot. We are nowhere near the creation of an artificial intelligence.

>> No.7398090

>>7398079
Which timeframe are you pointing to, though? 2315 is almost reasonable. On the other hand, literally no technology ever has taken 18,000 years of research to create.

>> No.7398095

>>7398090

AI isn't tech, it's a concept. We are so far from it we don't even know if it is possible to make one. It's literally sci-fi.

>> No.7398101
File: 141 KB, 501x383, image.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>7398095
>AI isn't tech, it's a concept. We are so far from it we don't even know if it is possible to make one. It's literally sci-fi.
You're off your rocker. AI has been an active field of research for decades and turns out practical applications on a yearly basis. The concept of "an AI", creating a humanlike mind, is sci-fi. Reproducing individual capabilities of biological intelligence in computers, "AI", happens every day.

>> No.7398103

>>7398101

Intelligent behavior is not intelligence.

>> No.7398121

>>7398103
>Intelligent behavior is not intelligence.
Idk what philosophical angle you're bringing to bear here, but nobody cares if the computer has feelings. Except Kurzweil, but he's a nut anyways.

>> No.7398127

>>7398121

Programs are not intelligent, no matter how much complex they are. Nobody said anything about feelings.

Stop treating science like it's a religion.

>> No.7398132

>>7391108
There has been an underlying curent throughout all history. It has been alluded to but never fully accepted because the implications are a bitter pill to swallow. As time goes on and technology becomes more advanced the problem will become impossible to ignore. Eventually we will be forced to acknowledge the truth that all men are NOT created equal. As technological advancements accelerate some will be able to adapt while everyone else will be left behind. The end result will be a society run by the select few who understand the technology upon which it is built. The only question is how these elite will treat the others who will come to depend on them exclusively for survival. In Brave New World the elite were arguably beneficent. The lower classes were cared for and lived their simple lives in peace. They never achieved anything largely because they never wanted to. However in George Orwell's 1984 the elite were a shadowy group who used their knowledge and power to keep humanity in a perpetual state of poverty and servitude.

Personally I don't care which comes to pass, I only care which side of the fence I end up on

>> No.7398136

>>7398127
>Programs are not intelligent, no matter how much complex they are. Nobody said anything about feelings.
>>7398103
>Intelligent behavior is not intelligence.

Literally what is intelligence in your worldview? Magic?

>> No.7398156

>>7391215
Power will not be concentrated with the richest. It will be concentrated with the smarted

>> No.7398166

>>7398156
>smart people actually have always believed this

Power will be concentrated with the most capable. Most capable =/= smartest.

>> No.7398171

>>7398136

If you acted like you were a surgeon, would you be a surgeon or an actor? If you memorized the exact steps to performing one type of surgery but didn't really understand what you were doing when performing each step, do you think you could learn to do other types of surgery by yourself?

Intelligence is not about seeming intelligent, it's about really being intelligent. Humans are intelligent because we can understand actions and concepts, we can use knowledge to become wise.

A computer program that acts in an intelligent manner is still just a computer program.

>> No.7398187

>>7398171
This is a meaningless distinction. The value of intelligence is in the pragmatic relationship between the system and its the environment. A computer that acts like a brilliant tactician will win wars, a computer that acts like a great marketer will sell products, and a computer that acts like a great programmer will write great programs. Whether it understands is as irrelevant as whether it feels.

>> No.7398193

>>7398187
>This is a meaningless distinction

It's the very definition of intelligence.

>> No.7398194

>>7393793
This so much. Why do you think there hasn't been an open war between devolved countries since WW2? As QoL improves the cost/benefit analysis of war starts to shift. The reason the the soviets and the allies never had nuclear war isn't because of good diplomacy. It is because both sides had way too much to lose whether they survived the war or not.

I can see future wars being fought between drones and in cyberspace, however as soon as actual human life is seriously threatened everyone will back down because that would be when the big guns get taken out

>> No.7398197

>>7398076
The author of that paper notes at the end of the first section that predictions about artificial intelligence are often inaccurate and tend to have the same timescale (25 years) no matter what.

Which is hilarious, because then the overall median guess for the development of HLMI is 2040.

>> No.7398198

>>7398193
It's a very particular definition of intelligence that's unrelated to the practical purposes that AI research pursues.

>> No.7398202

>>7398198

How is it particular?

>> No.7398208

>>7398202
>intelligence is only understanding
Doesn't include perception, decisionmaking, etc.

>> No.7398218

>>7398208

The only standard of intelligence that matters is the human standard, because we're at the top of the food chain. We're the whole package, not just perception or decisionmaking, we use our developed consciousness to take things to the abstract level and create machines that can act in an intelligent manner. That's why it matters. That's why AI, true AI, has to at least be on same level as us, otherwise it's just another program.

What other animals are doing doesn't matter, they don't use intelligence to create, they use it to survive. While they might be very good at certain things, they will always fall short of a human when it comes to intelligence.

>> No.7398219

>>7398171
>computers will never construct internal models of reality that are isomorphic to the external situation
Oh really

>> No.7398228

>>7393990
When has anything humanity has ever done just turned out ok?

>> No.7398272

>>7391215
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/08-205/

Oh how I wish this was the case.

>> No.7398274

>>7398218
>because we're at the top of the food chain.
Food chains exist within broader food webs. You're on top, then oh my, you die and get eaten by bacteria or scavengers. Likewise, go to the rift valley in Africa, heavily armed, and try to tell me how on top you really are. You'll be singing a different tune if you come back at all.

You likely grew up in Europe or North America... The animals here, they aren't like us. They haven't had time or enough pressure to adapt to our madness. Africa, they're very much like us.

>What other animals are doing doesn't matter, they don't use intelligence to create, they use it to survive.
It is difficult to draw a meaningful delineation between creation for fun, and creation for survival, even in humans. Does the beaver create its den to survive? Certainly. Does the human create its house to survive? Certainly. Does the beaver create its various trails and structures to survive? Not necessarily. Does the human seek out employment in AI research to survive? Not necessarily. You're trying to create differences where there are ultimately similarities.

>they will always fall short of a human when it comes to intelligence.
Intelligence cannot exist on its own, it is relative. There must be something to be intelligent about. Many animals are far better than us at many tasks, too many to even start listing. Your faulty perspective comes from the fact that you've never done, lived, or seen anything that wasn't in a manicured ecology either suited for, or designed by humans. Of course you think you're top dog, swaggering around with your dull senses, clawless hands, fragile bones, weak muscles, small teeth, and pitiful ability to survive without tools made for you by processes you don't understand by people you've never met.

>> No.7398304

>>7391080
A lot of his predictions rely on the assumed existence of actual Artificial Intelligence that can outperform every human brain that has ever lived.

This is an ideal and AI in this sense is impossible because if super AI were possible, then existence would most likely be a simulation by super AI due to the shear amount of simulations an AI would make compared to the single actual universe the AI exists in and if this existence were a simulation performed by a super AI, then it would necessarily hide its computation from the members of the universe thereby obfuscating intelligence and limiting technological potential artificially making AI impossible.

>> No.7398320

>>7398304
> if super AI were possible, then existence would most likely be a simulation by super AI due to the shear amount of simulations an AI would make compared to the single actual universe the AI exists in and if this existence were a simulation performed by a super AI
Okay
> then it would necessarily hide its computation from the members of the universe thereby obfuscating intelligence and limiting technological potential artificially making AI impossible
The fuck

>> No.7398321

>>7398166
What defines most capable in your view? In a purely Darwinian sense most capable has meant those most able to procreate within their environment. In a world with immortality procreation becomes irrelevent. In a society dominated by technology those with the capacity to control that technology are undoubtedly the most capable.

For example basic computer skills have become a requirement of almost of every job in today's society. This because of our societies dependence on computers. And yet some people do not and canot understand computers. As society progresses this trend is likely to continue. Fortunately automation means that contributions to society by the average individual will become e less relevant as time goes on. The end result will be a society ruled by the few who are capable of managing the most advanced technology available, while everyone else is left at the complete mercy of those few rulers. It doesn't matter how wealthy you are, you can't teach critical thinking and logic which have already become the most precious commodity in the Era of information on demand

>> No.7398337

>>7398321
>What defines most capable in your view?
Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety mostly.
>In a society dominated by technology those with the capacity to control that technology are undoubtedly the most capable.
Or those with the charisma or authority or money to control those with the capacity to control the technology.

>> No.7398364

>>7398337
>implying money has any value in a post scarcity world

>implying that a person capable of turning off the global power grid with the push of a button cares about delegated authority

I'll grant you the one about charisma no matter how advanced an individual's critical thinking may be we are still emotional beings. That is why I made this post
>>7398132

>> No.7398369

>>7398364
>implying energy will ever be free
>implying money won't be tied to the value of electricity in the future just as it's tied to oil today

>> No.7398391

>>7396899
I want it because reproduction is already a (wasteful) form of immortality. I want a pristine world free from the blight of sentimentalism.

The world is infested with people who worship death, thinking that it absolves them of all responsibility. There should come a day when they all get to meet with their idol.

>> No.7398406

>>7398369
Energy is already free. There is more energy available on earth today in potential renewables alone than we could possibly consume with current technology. The only thing standing in the way of free energy is technology (which because we are talking about a hypothetical future earth we can assume has been solved) and deliberate energy rationing to create false scarcity, however as time goes on technology has a way of seeping through the cracks and finding it's way into the hands of the common man.

>> No.7398412

>Ray kurzweil predicts the technological singularity by 2045-50
I predict hot bitches on my dick in 5 minutes, doesn't mean it's going to happen. His whole methodology is extrapolating a straight line on a log graph and waving his hands.

>> No.7398421

>>7396926
Or does it? The answer is yes. No. Of course war didn't change. Or did it?

>> No.7398424

>>7398076
>Second half of this century is the typical expectation among experts.
>We propose that a 2 month, 10 man study of artificial intelligence be carried out during the summer of 1956 at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. The study is to proceed on the basis of the conjecture that every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it. An attempt will be made to find how to make machines use language, form abstractions and concepts, solve kinds of problems now reserved for humans, and improve themselves. We think that a significant advance can be made in one or more of these problems if a carefully selected group of scientists work on it together for a summer.

>> No.7398431

>>7391080
>Tfw middle class but can't afford uni and will likely end up lower class
>Tfw friends in uni at Ivy League will live forever and I'm doomed to be poor and mortal.

>> No.7398443

>>7398424
>Nothing has happened in AI since the 50s

>> No.7398447

>>7398406
Why will human activity not grow to the limits of renewable energy as it has grown to the limits of all energy sources before it? Especially with robotics coming down the line, it's eminently plausible that the demand for energy will surge at the same time as the supply.

>> No.7398457

>>7398443
The point here is expectations of experts don't mean shit.

>> No.7398464

>>7391080
What's the point in human beings once our technology is as smart as us?

>> No.7398474

>>7398464
What's the point of human beings when our technology isn't as smart as us?

>> No.7398478

>>7398474
We are handy because each one of us comes with a wet supercomputer.

>> No.7398484

>>7398447
True. And you may be right about money and energy, because fundamentally the 2 are interchangeable. My point however is that technology evolves and man does not (at least not at the same rate) so inevitably at some point only a small minority of citizens will be able to understand and use technology while the rest will subject to it

>> No.7399292

>>7391080
>technological singularity

The mega-minds will love us, the same way we love our pets. Everything you want will be provided for... you will feel well loved and that your every need is filled... You and all of mankind will be "supervised" in your interactions with other humans. Play well together and nothing bad happens, be violent and you will be "leashed".

So are you bothered by the idea that you will be a deeply loved "pet" of the Tech mega-minds?

>> No.7399432

>>7397576
>and have massive multidimensional orgies

why is the ultimate end of anything in so many peoples minds sex?

>> No.7399437

>>7397617
>synthetic telepathy
just like GitS

>> No.7399440

>>7399432
Yeah anon you don't have to be part of the New World Order to get laid.

Also would a transhuman even want sex anymore? Would they have some sort of advanced method of pleasure-seeking we can't comprehend? They obviously don't need the reproduction bit if they're machine.

Also also, what field would you go in to get into this stuff? Studying to make it a reality, that is; I'm in computer engineering, but would it be a different field entirely or a grad-school specialization?

>> No.7399441

>>7397634
I personally believe the universe is very very limited.

duality, chaos, order, communication. that's about it.

>> No.7399443

Here we go, (i am the life n soul of parties).

I have invented the tech to upload your conciousness to an artificial computer world. First, the upfront cost is $1,000,000. Second, your body has to die. Third, your entire estate must be willed to me as a trust for computer maintenance costs long term.

Cant see any problems or risks, can you?

>> No.7399447

>>7399443
Same scenario for an AI upload, all i do is program the ai with everything i know on the subject, kill subject, take the money.

In fact, i may kickstarter this !!!

>> No.7399450

>>7398045
oh shit nigger.

>> No.7399457

>>7397634
Why bother? If you're living forever with infinite possibilities of things to do, not doing anything at all will grant you the same lack of reward as doing everything you ever wanted.. if you aren't gambling your time or self worth on it while you do them.

>> No.7399496

>>7399441
Imagination is limitless.

>incompleteness Theorem.

>> No.7399512

>>7399496
the imagination is limited to the parameters of the universe it inhabits.

try imagining a new color that isn't based on the elctro magnetic spectrum

you can't do it

so much for your "i'm free!" limitless hogwash

reality is a prison.

>> No.7399520

>>7399457
That's rather cynical. Do you not have any passions? If you truly did you would realize that self actualization and happiness are not determined by the amount of time spent, but rather satisfaction in the extension of ones personal will.

>> No.7399554

>>7399440
>Would they have some sort of advanced method of pleasure-seeking we can't comprehend?

they'd probably drive pleasure form solving super advanced equations. you could just program your own organism to experience orgasm every time you solved a super hard equation

what a weird thing to do

>> No.7399555

>>7399441
>duality
>no complexity
Plz

>> No.7399557

>>7397617
>http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27162401/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/army-developing-synthetic-telepathy/


Those faggots just took down the webpage

it was just there too.

>> No.7399567

>>7397617
nothing new or innovative, military is wasting it's money.

>> No.7399572

>>7399555
never heard of complexity.

but duality is readily apparent in everything.

>> No.7399589

>>7399572
>never heard of complexity
That would be all the things that are neither completely ordered nor completely chaotic. Otherwise you have a pretty decent understanding of the universe as information.

>> No.7399596

>>7399589
>Otherwise you have a pretty decent understanding of the universe as information.

oh thank you, I rarely get anything representing a compliment on this site.

>> No.7399603

>>7399596
neither you nor that guy have any idea what you're talking about

this is literally some of the worst garbage i've ever read on /sci/. what the fuck happened to this board

>> No.7399619

>>7399603
The universe is chaos and order, everyone knows that.

>> No.7399623

>>7399603
Order, chaos and complexity are pretty standard laymans terms for describing the relationship between entropy and structure. Calm the fuck down.

>> No.7399632

>>7399619
that's not a scientific statement, just a dull platitude to make stoners think they know something they don't. get this crap out of here and go read a book.

>> No.7399638

>>7399632
>a book
What, like Dynamics of Complex Systems or like You Can Tell I'm Smart Because I Like Telling Other People They're Wrong? Calm the fuck down.

>> No.7399649

>>7399638
i'm not telling you you're wrong, you haven't even said anything to be wrong about. your conversation with that person has been

>da universe is duality, chaos, order, communication
>dun forget complexity :)
>oh right almost 4got
>wow we're so smart

fucking retards jesus christ

>> No.7399661

>>7399554
So like Glados and her experimentation?

>> No.7399725

>>7399649
I lol'd

>> No.7399751

>>7399649
It's obviously simplistic but it's not essentially wrong. 'Duality' certainly wouldn't be on my list but I'm not going to rage at anon for using it. What you're doing is like getting mad at a fifth grader for saying that all of math is doing things with numbers. Calm the fuck down.

>> No.7399774
File: 325 KB, 1231x1889, 101.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>7391080
The author of the GitS manga do not believe in the vision he offers of the subject. Pic related. Not that he is an authority on the subject or anything, just saying.

Perhaps one shouldn't base one's crystalballing so much on style over substance fiction. Even if one is a fan.

>> No.7399785

>>7399751
get fucked tard this isn't the place to prattle on about whatever pseudo-intellectual bullshit reaches your sphincter the most quickly, any asshat can make a statement so general and unfalsifiable that there would be nothing "essentially wrong" with it

don't delude yourself with bullshit just admit that you don't know and that you don't understand and use that as a motivation to actually go out and learn something

>> No.7399802

>>7399785
Nah, I'm pretty content with the time I spent studying information and complex systems but I'd rather be charitable to the ignorant than flip my shit and call everyone tards at every possible opening. Calm the fuck down.

>> No.7399809

>>7399802
>C-C-Calm the fuck down!!
>Stop b-b-backing me the fuck out so hard!!
>C-C-Complex systems!!!!! I'm smart too, see?!?!

>> No.7399834
File: 126 KB, 720x945, 17335098.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>7399809
I'm another poster. I'm an odd mixture of high on various stimulants and burnt, simultaneously. My empathy is quite sharpened and watching this behavior I feel embarrassed for you.

>> No.7399845
File: 3 KB, 125x97, wcigi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>7397661

This

Your best bet is to get veeeery rich just in case

>> No.7399858

>>7399809
Complex systems would be the relevant field. Santa Fe Institute has decent, free intro courses at complexityexplorer.org. Calm the fuck down.

>> No.7399860

>>7399858
>MOOOOOM TELL HIM TO STOP MOOOOM SAVE ME PLEASE OH GOD PLEASE

>> No.7399874

>>7399512
Wow, you actually believe this? You've been endowed with the universe's greatest supercomputer (as far as we know) and you use it to stifle your own imagination, and the imagination of others? You should feel bad Mr. Scrooge. You have not, and probably will never contribute to humanity.

>> No.7399897

>>7399874
>You've been endowed with the universe's greatest supercomputer (as far as we know)
This is self delusion. You get off on the idea but there isn't enough data to meaningfully weigh it, it's masturbation with little basis and kind of disgusting to see written down.

I'm the above stimulant highburnt anon, and I actually agree with the poster you quoted. I've spent most of my life creating stories and concepts, as much as I don't like to consciously admit it or focus, I'm predominantly a creative person a good deal of the time. I've hardly shackled myself.

The universe, and your resultant faculty for thought, is likely finite. Very finite. The mind itself is a spectrum of affordances and can only occupy so many (meaningful) states, and generate so many thoughts. Your time is also limited. You are born amidst the ruins of others, you learn from them, and not fully intentionally, build your own. You fizzle out, and the cycle repeats for someone else.

There is no beauty lost in admitting that extreme likelihood.

>> No.7399972

Here's a tip:

Anytime someone "predicts" that something is going to happen by a certain time, double that amount of time to allow for business shit to catch up, legal shit to catch up, and societal shit to catch up. Things don't just happen in a few years because somebody thinks it will. In a perfect world, yes, they'd probably be right. But life is messy.

>> No.7400179

>>7398045
>in the same way your muscles change shape to move your body around
>what is the cross-bridge cycle
>Octopi
stopped reading right there

>> No.7400266

>>7399972
>But life is messy.

life is gay

>> No.7401195

>>7391091
the first part about increasing social stratification of rich and poor, and smart and stupid, is a fair prediction imo

but to those who understand AI, the singularity is bunk. Not saying it's impossible, but it's about as much of a threat as a zombie apocalypse or alien invasion. Consider these problems:

>what physical medium would such an intelligence exist? Singularity "theorists" describe the event as the birth of a super intelligent AI that increases exponentially in complexity. I guess it could somehow hijack the hardware used for the internet, but that doesn't exactly prevent anyone from just pulling the plug.

>We are NO WHERE NEAR understanding even basic brain processing, much less replicating it. And if we can't even do that, how would we begin to faithfully graft the "character" of a specific brain from a human brain into a blank template? I loved GITS but I had to suspend my disbelief at that little bit of science fiction.

So if the singularity requires that the brain is emulated, it's a far way off. Don't give me that about processing power either, because if the progression of AI is anything to go by, processing isn't the solution.

Alternatively, the singularity would look radically different from human intelligence. But then no one has a clue how that would work either, which means saying "the singularity is just around the corner!" is baseless speculation. There is no basis to claim a linear or exponential path to super AI that is predictable.

>> No.7401232

>>7400266
>life is gay

Life is pain.

>> No.7401393

>>7393831

Looks stylish, if unbelievable and impractical.

Here's a real laser gun.
https://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Laser_Weapon_System

>> No.7401428

I think we'll end up building machines that keeps the economy going and leaves us out of everything.

>> No.7401442

ray kurzweil is insane. he's obsessed with the singularity because he wants to achieve immortality and revive his dead dad.
he's getting old and heavily relies on pills. that's why his prediction is so soon, he still has the hope that he's gonna be alive for the singularity.
watch his movie, it's obvious that he's nuts.
this doesn't invalidate his achievements, though.

>> No.7401447

>>7391080
>believing anything an idiot who takes very literally over 200 pills a day says

>> No.7401449

>>7401442
This is pretty sad. If only he had learned to cultivate spirit by harnessing his body's chi energy he could take his place among the ascended masters in the seventh layer of the atmosphere.

>> No.7401495

>>7401195
>the first part about increasing social stratification of rich and poor, and smart and stupid, is a fair prediction imo

When you say this do you refer to mid clas as well? because in developed countries, the poor class is small vs the mid class.

So what is poor accoridng to that point of view? the mid class in developed countries that won't be able to afford some specialized medical treatments? that's not poor at all, relatively speaking.

Many countries are developing as we speak. The global mid class is getting bigger. And that,r elatively speaking, is not poor.

>> No.7401723

>>7394560
>Unprecedented global prosperity? Not arguing that we have a major sustainability problem
"hey we've been strip mining the planet for a century now and calculations suggest that within the next 50 years, most major natural resources will be depleted, but we got people wealthier than they used to be!"

>> No.7401732

>>7395483
>one that would be able to out-discover all the scientists that ever were, out-peacemake all our best diplomats, run an economy like it was tic-tac-toe
out of these three, why do you think a computer would invest anything into the latter two? what utility does it get out of that once it is free from being physically refined to an unconnected linux box?

>> No.7401743

>>7398443
and nothing has that would contribute anything to strong AI.

>> No.7402037

>>7399292
>So are you bothered by the idea that you will be a deeply loved "pet" of the Tech mega-minds?

yes

>> No.7402041

>>7401449
nigga wut

>> No.7402352
File: 51 KB, 595x477, famine deaths.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7402352

>>7401723
>Not arguing that we have a major sustainability problem
...but you're an asshole if you think 'we got people wealthier than they used to be!' is the plus side here. We got people less dying than they used to be.

>> No.7402403

>>7391091
assuming the supercomputer has the primitive instincts of controll we do.

>> No.7402406

>>7402352
yeah people not dying from starvation is really good, but thats not whats related to sustainability. we could feed 20 billion people if we werent overconsuming meat so much, but all that is almost entirely unrelated to the unsustainable level of wealth thats been produced during the past century.

>> No.7402425

>>7391080
I just want a cyber brain so I can download all the knowledge in the world and be awesome.

>> No.7402479
File: 55 KB, 569x842, 90 percent unemployed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7402479

>>7391080
>>7391123
>>7391148

Heavily Related

>> No.7402504

>>7402479
aside from a few interesting ideas about its namesake, not really a great novel

>> No.7402945

>>7398228
The world has consistently improved over time yet futurists do nothing but predict doom and gloom.

>> No.7402980

>>7402945
>The world has consistently improved over time
got 60 years? Once the strip mining stops due to depletion of the planet, this civilization that is built on wealth and hedonism will shake pretty massively

>> No.7403095
File: 574 KB, 1600x900, Time-Singularity-Curve.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7403095

Ugh, no one on here has actually read Ray Kurzweil's books, so they have no idea why he makes the predictions that he does. All they know is the popsci pill popping Ray Kurzweil ad hominem.

>> No.7403124

>>7403095
A while ago I got tired of making fun of Ray Kurzweil all the time and read one of his books. He's fine on some point but makes baseless assumptions on many others; many of his predictions are persuasive because he expounds them in great technical detail but fall down when experts in the pertinent fields take a look (nanorobots in your brain!). I could give a shit, basically.

More than anything I wish discussions about technosocial acceleration didn't always end up being discussions about Kurzweil and singularity when there are more interesting and reasonable theories out there.

>> No.7403141

>>7391123
>It would be more likely that we could clone our consciousness.

This. I'm OK with dying as long as I can create some sort of static copy of my consciousness for any of my still living friends and family, and if I become rather important, anyone who may wish, to interface with and ask questions to about what I was/am like.

>> No.7403153

>>7403124
Interesting view point, which book did you read and when?

I read his 1990's book The Age of Spiritual Machines and it's pretty accurate, with only a few minor incorrect predictions (off by a handful of years). The thing about Kurzweil is that he's been making predictions since the 80's and there's a reason why he's still in business.

>> No.7403209

>>7393858
>limit the powers of the powerful and strong so they can't go crazy and destroy the system

I find that this is a heavily ingrained part of human nature.

Think about it. People always say that the reason humans have been so successful in the game of evolution and life on earth is because of our adaptability, on both a large scale and a personal scale. But I think it's not our ability to adapt to our environment that we are given, but our ability to alter the environment that is around us that makes us unique. Evolution is survival of the fittest, "fittest" meaning whichever form of life "fits" best to its environment. But when you can create your own environment and replace an unsuitable one with a suitable one that allows to you to thrive and not simply survive, you've essentially "won."

And the same applies to human societal and economic models. When someone can amass enough power and influence, the ability to change the environment/system that they and those around them live in allows them to perpetuate their own success while leaving everyone else behind in the dust with all the scraps. People have taken measures to prevent this, but it's simply societal evolution taking place.

>> No.7403227

>>7403153
Honestly I forget. I think Singularity is Near. But there's much more interesting stuff out there like Brian Arthur's writing on technological evolution.

>> No.7403277
File: 97 KB, 267x400, The-Singularity-Is-Near.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7403277

>>7403227
Ah, that's one of his more recent works.

>> No.7403306

isn't every disruptive technology a 'singularity?'

>> No.7403427

>>7393781
yoos a faghat

>>7393783
Everyone on the planet...except for you and anyone that regularly wears a suit

>> No.7403436

>>7403427
>yoos a faghat

But it's truuueee
There are better writers on every idea he discusses.

>> No.7403440

>>7393851
who's to say immortality would mean us as augmented humans on this planet? Maybe we terraform more of space. Maybe we upload our consciousness to a digital medium like Lain.

Also, you speak for yourself. I would get along just fine as the last of the human race... You assume too much and that everything will stay the same, save for the tech itself.

>> No.7403461

>>7395475
except religious nutjobs follow the same shit that was written 2000 years ago. We are constantly evolving, the tech grows exponentially and you, with your tiny brain, cannot hope to broach the horizon of such a huge event.

It'd be like trying to imagine the 4th dimension.

>> No.7403544

>>7398095
When the original star trek aired they said the same thing about their communicators.
You're a small-minded one ain'tcha?

>> No.7403576

>>7398391
poor virgin

>> No.7403588

>>7399292
Not really, we're already slaves. I'd rather be a well cared for pet than a slave busting his ass to almost make ends meet.

>> No.7403961

>>7402403
This. And that brings up another idea:
How are we to know that AI would even care about resources/earth/all that jazz? I mean it probably wouldn't need to wipe us out because of most of that. It probably wouldn't even care. It would probably have its own agenda, and would likely just ignore us, I'd think. We all expect AI to hate our guts, when most likely it wouldn't think like us. I mean think about it, it would live or be "sentient" forever and couldn't be stopped anyways, right?

>> No.7403963

>>7391080
i think SJWs will just fucking ban and ruin everything like they did with cloning and stem cells

>> No.7403966

>>7403963
This is one of those posts where I really hope it's trolling

>> No.7403971

>>7402945
You can only improve so much until you deplete natural resources while doing so, at which point, it's game over. Even if it takes a little longer than expected. And once we do deplete the resources that are key, there's no going back, unless we can leave Earth. Pretty basic and scary thought considering where we are technology wise

>> No.7403972

>>7391080
>tfw late 90s or early 00s
>reading Newsweek
>the singularity was predicted to be roughly Dec 21 2012
Ayyy lmao

>> No.7403980

>>7403461
Not sure if b8

>> No.7403982

>>7403966
>tfw no cloning
i blame you tbh

>> No.7404048

>>7403982
>tfw it's barely even unlikely that there are adult human clones in the world today
>tfw Dolly was 19 years ago
>tfw for every human cloning project that has been publicized since then, there is almost certainly one or more that hasn't been

>> No.7405411
File: 203 KB, 750x481, gits-tree.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7405411

can i start with How to Create a Mind or should i begin with his earlier works?

>> No.7405621
File: 8 KB, 198x187, iur.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7405621

>>7399292
>oy vey, swallow the soma goyim! you will be loved deeply!

>> No.7405635
File: 73 KB, 396x600, Edgehog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7405635

>>7401232

>> No.7406502

>>7391108
commie detected

>> No.7406511

>Ray kurzweil
muh.....
>How long do you think it will be till we start seeing things like ghost in the shell in real life
You mean living in a shit world with awesome technology.It might have happened already.Depends on what you define as awesome technology.
>Do you think they already exist but just don't exist for public consumption yet?
No
>How will humanity handle immortality?
I will bow before my immortal overlord
>Mind uploading?
>Nano tech?
>Augmentations
Will happen but not the way you see in movies.For eg.nanotech is just chemistry at nano scale.Not robotics at nanoscale as they are shown in movies.
>What will life look like?
>What will war look like?
>How will the economy function?
Three times better
>Is it even possible?
We will see.

>> No.7407641

>>7405411
anyone?

>> No.7407653

>>7407641
Since futurism is based entirely on hedonism, it doesn't matter. Whichever book has a pretty cover is the one you should read.

>> No.7407807

Living with robots that are smarter than us sounds really intriguing, but the risk would be too high since we'd be officially nr. 2 in the food chain.

>> No.7408748

>>7407807
dummy robots don't need no food

>> No.7408797

>>7401195
b-but skeptic-san, according to kurzweil its BURN THE BIOS AI DOMINANCE NOW

>> No.7409153

>>7397576
Actually as hellish as that may sound that's better than all of humanity being immortal

>> No.7409166

>>7407807

Presumably, robots will be designed to only want to serve humans. They wouldn't have any more of a drive to enslave humanity than your toaster.
This only becomes a concern when we try to replicate human sentience, or produce robots that can replicate themselves (thus creating the possibility for robot evolution).

>> No.7409167

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E

kek

>> No.7409194

Its pretty easy to see why people want greater control over when they expire. But would biological immortality really be desirable? After the first 10K years of life, would you really look forward to what the next 20K would be, especially considering all the worst people, the most atrocious criminals and dictators, would enjoy it along with you?
One thing we can count on that makes life liveable is that everybody dies, nobody suffers endlessly or inflicts pain endlessly.
Is there a point at which the cost of extending the life of human sentience isnt worth-while; when we can say even a decent person has experienced as much as any can expect to of what this life in our universe has to offer, and now it's better to let them pass away and invest the resources toward new generations?
?

>> No.7409325
File: 488 KB, 1280x1707, 1433118050049.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7409325

>>7391080

Idk man, if people become imortal, there is no real reason to be alive, i mean what good is being alive if you can fuck?

>> No.7409416
File: 15 KB, 246x216, 1355759192430.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7409416

>>7402504
Summer pls

>> No.7410008

>>7407653
>Since futurism is based entirely on hedonism,

Bazinga

>> No.7410020

>>7409166
You know some gaylord's gonna do it. Literally just because some fucking faggot is going to write a malevolent goal on some good programs and use it to do anything from shitpost to provoke nuclear war.

>> No.7410029

>>7409194
That's why it's desirable to get rid of all the criminals, thieves and social classes before we get immortality. Otherwise you won't even get it. The most criminal and dangerous people will.

>> No.7410086

>>7391089
/thread

>> No.7411774

>>7410086
Bump

>> No.7411781

>>7410029
your logic is not logic, it is stupid people think.

what about drug crimes or nonviolent crimes, hell what about violent crimes but the criminal reforms.

what about war heros that are really government sanctioned murderers?