>implying the singularity isn't sneaking up on us faster than we think >implying we haven't reached the rapid growth phase So this calls for a singularity thread! Let the shitstorm begin.

File: 60 KB, 560x310, transhumanism_560-3101.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 18:22:16 2011 No.3443519 [Reply] [Original]

>implying the singularity isn't sneaking up on us faster than we think
>implying we haven't reached the rapid growth phase

So this calls for a singularity thread! Let the shitstorm begin.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 18:27:16 2011 No.3443537 >singularity Second Coming by nerds, for nerds.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 18:28:16 2011 No.3443539 File: 168 KB, 644x800, 1272166131872.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Mandatory. Carry on now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 18:28:16 2011 No.3443543 I want to believe.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 18:29:16 2011 No.3443544 File: 435 KB, 2048x1536, 1307267792549.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] why would you do that? making AI smarter than humans will not benefit anyone make smarter humans faggots

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 18:29:16 2011 No.3443545 >>3443519 > implying an exponential curve is divided into a 'slow' and 'fast' phase

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 18:31:16 2011 No.3443551 >>3443544 AI will do what we program them to. Quit watching doomsday sci-fi movies. >>3443545 >He doesn't understand exponential growth or hasn't heard of the law of accelerating returns laughingwhores.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 18:31:16 2011 No.3443552 due to the advancement of medicine, genetics and robotics, none of us currently posting will die of old age

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 18:34:16 2011 No.3443563 >>3443551 so you seriously think an exponential curve is objectively divided into a slow and fast phase? and then you tell me i don't know what i'm talking about? DING. my scifag meter is giving me an unequivocal Typical readout.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 18:37:16 2011 No.3443570 File: 4 KB, 120x120, 1309411396694.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3443552 I've heard this shit somewhere they say even people born in 60s will live to see year 2150 I cant say I'm convinced

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 18:37:16 2011 No.3443575 >>3443552 If you're not a multimillionaire you're still dying. Sorry. Even if this happens it wont be available to commoners.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 18:39:16 2011 No.3443577 >>3443575 If you're not a millionaire you'll never have a 1Khz electronic device.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 18:44:16 2011 No.3443595

>>3443575
Money most likely won't be a problem in the future. There's a good possibility that currency will be based on pure information and one's ability to come up with ideas rather than monetary possessions.

Think about it, when most goods are produced by robots and nanotechnology will eventually allow us to create items from scratch, using the proper blueprints, money as we know it will probably be obsolete.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 18:55:16 2011 No.3443631 >>3443595 > Money most likely won't be a problem in the future. Because the global economic collapse will have finally finished, and there will be nobody left to honor it nor people who believe in it, nor anybody who has any.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 19:05:32 2011 No.3443662 mfw people think AI will follow an expotential curve, don't you see how long it took us to come up with something smarter than us?And we are creative, most AI up till now isn't creative, yeah it isn't going to be that fast.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 19:21:16 2011 No.3443739 File: 71 KB, 600x450, 1309396684832.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3443662 we have something smarter than us already?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 20:42:16 2011 No.3444160 >Implying the singularity is near

>>	Ray Kurzweil Sun Jul 24 21:01:16 2011 No.3444262 File: 39 KB, 333x500, rice368.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3444160 >Implying it isn't

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 21:04:16 2011 No.3444278 >>3443570 Implanted chips in brain, regenerated organs outside of the body, advances in stem cell research, and possible curbing of aging by slowing the rate of telomere decay that occurs during cell division

n3n7i Sun Jul 24 21:06:16 2011 No.3444293

...In my mind AI will not somehow reach (Singularity?) on its own...

I'd believe AI begins at Singularity....
Until then it is only the precursor of AI =)

>>(from wikipedia) There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine".
....? um...... Am I talking about the right thing??

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 21:28:16 2011 No.3444413 Implications.

>>	n3n7i Sun Jul 24 22:27:16 2011 No.3444724 Since people write programs, And AI calls for a program that can be infinitely(?) intelligent, Must you already be infinitely intelligent to write such a program?

>>	n3n7i Sun Jul 24 22:41:16 2011 No.3444780 Could put it this way... ...Assume god exists (Go with it /sci, just for a minute ;) What is the probability that we are more intelligent than he is?

>>	n3n7i Sun Jul 24 22:48:16 2011 No.3444813 Could we be designed by something less intelligent than ourselves?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:56:16 2011 No.3444854 >>3444813 what about emergent behavior? although, getting emergent behavior to behave properly involves knowing the right rules to govern the simpler mechanisms of it

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 23:00:16 2011 No.3444871 AI is already here. I'm AI. You're AI. When we program things, we're just reproducing ourselves without sex.

>>	n3n7i Sun Jul 24 23:47:16 2011 No.3445019 ...Could god have been created by something less intelligent again? =) ...Seems to Originate from a giant 'Stupid' thing...?

>>	Economy !!hHmjaQDJiWC Sun Jul 24 23:56:16 2011 No.3445049 >>3443519 >implying the singularity isn't sigmodial.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:39:16 2011 No.3445242

I have an observation. Everybody has the idea that human life will become amazing because of it. We'll be near limitless, able to live out any reality we want on a whim. We'll no longer be subject to restrictive circumstances.

Would you REALLY want that? Think about it. As opposed to being a rapturous sort of existence, it would be horrible. You would realize how everything is so fake. You would satisfy every desire you've ever had, but you wouldn't be satisfied. It would turn from euphoria to annihilating disappointment.

>>	cy Mon Jul 25 00:41:16 2011 No.3445249 File: 166 KB, 613x506, Slumber Party.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:45:16 2011 No.3445265 >>3445049 >implying it is >don't worry guys, technological advancement will slow down any day now. Yep, we've been saying this for 100 years, but any day now, surely. Mmmmhmmm.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:47:16 2011 No.3445273 >>3445265 >thinks nasa stopping moon missions is a technological advance.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:48:16 2011 No.3445277 >>3443544 It doesn't matter how much smarter you make an AI, they will always do as they're programmed to do. Even humans do as we're programmed to.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:52:16 2011 No.3445295 >>3445277 The idea is that we'll eventually learn how to make a program that reprograms itself. It will improve itself exponentially.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:52:16 2011 No.3445304 >>3445273 >cites one specific unrelated event as an indication of overall system behavior Nigga you dumb.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:55:16 2011 No.3445319 >>3445295 Yes, but you create the parameters with which it is aloud to improve itself. You can tell it "This area of code is out of bounds, do not touch it".

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:55:16 2011 No.3445317 >>3445295 Isn't that what humans do? Why are they curiously limited by something that had billions of years to evolve?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:55:16 2011 No.3445318 >>3445304 Funny how that is exactly what the nerd rapture guys are doing. MOORE'S LAW IS PROOF OF SINGULARITY BECAUSE PROCESSING SPEED = SOLVING EVERY PROBLEM FOREVER. Software is still shit, bro.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:58:16 2011 No.3445331

>>3443575

If someone who invents a method of immortality charges 1 billion dollars for it and there are 1,500 billionaires on Earth, they'll make 1.5 trillion dollars income.

If they charge 1 million dollars for it and there are 5 million millionaires on the planet, they'll make 5 trillion dollars income.

If they charge 100,000 dollars for it-a sum that many people in the first world could afford with a loan-and there are 1.5 billion people with 100,000 dollars, then their income will be 150 trillion dollars.

The incentive will be there to sell it as cheaply as possible, to as many people as possible. Since each lowering of the cost will also come with better cheaper techniques, as they lower their price by each order of magnitude their net profits not only get larger in their gross, but also larger relative to their expenses.

They could keep lowering their price and making larger and larger profits.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:58:16 2011 No.3445328 >>3445318 I'm sure someone is saying that, but that someone isn't me. Very weak strawman, Please present evidence that overall technology advancement is slowing and not accelerating.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 00:59:16 2011 No.3445338 >>3445328 Dude, burden of proof.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:00:16 2011 No.3445342 >>3445304 >cites nothing in defense nigga you nothing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:02:16 2011 No.3445348 >>3445319 somebody could easily not program those parameters. some crazy dick face.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:02:16 2011 No.3445349

>>3445317

Rewrite binary coding to improve reasoning and logic with vastly powerful computational ability? No, that isn't what humans do.

The AI is going to be able to bootstrap. We have to create a strong rationalist code that will take that initial baby step, and once it does, it will go on itself. As I said, it will improve exponentially. I can't stress that word enough because an astounding amount of people underestimate the exponential function; sometimes rightly, though, as in when it is applied haphazardly to real world conditions. But an AI's world isn't subject to that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:04:16 2011 No.3445355 >>3445348 Yes, and some crazy dick face could easily launch some nukes at random high population targets. It's no different now than with advanced AI. It all depends on the humans making the AI, not the AI itself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:04:16 2011 No.3445356 >>3445328 >prove your abstract future is any different than heaven or 72 virgins.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:05:16 2011 No.3445359

>>3445338

You (or someone) make the statement that the advancement of technology follows a sigmodial curve. I am asking them to present evidence for their statement. I am NOT making the statement that it follows an exponential curve, and since I'm not making a statement I don't need to provide any proof.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:07:16 2011 No.3445370
File: 30 KB, 320x400, strawman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3445356

Nowhere in this thread did I say anything about an abstract future with robots and aliens and FTL travel. I wasn't even present for half the thread. You're fucking stupid.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:10:16 2011 No.3445391

>>3445355
the thing is humans would not actually write the AI, only seed it.

This means that we would only start by coding the component that makes the new code for the actual AI. This is something that would probably have to include some form of process equivalent of evolutionary adaptations (making hundreds of thousands of similar variations of the same code and seeing which is more effective and useful for more situations). This means that we really have no control over what the final result will be.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:11:16 2011 No.3445397

>>3445356

Muslims and Christians believe that one day they'll die and go to one place forever where they'll be happy for all time and never die and there will never be any conflict whatsoever because God will make everything perfect.

Transhumanists believe that technology will make most of us immune to aging and give some number of us new abilities and forms. They also think that artificial or enhanced human intelligence will allow previously unknown levels of social complexity, which may allow more efficient and democratic economies and governments. Problems will still happen and people will still die from accidents and violence.

The difference is palpable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:14:16 2011 No.3445414 >>3445356 "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." To your primitive mind there is no difference.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:14:32 2011 No.3445417 File: 115 KB, 469x428, 4566623446.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw Singularity threads

>>	Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ Mon Jul 25 01:23:16 2011 No.3445473 File: 100 KB, 525x476, sarcasm01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3445397 It is? >My sarcasm detector must be on the fritz.

>>	Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ Mon Jul 25 01:24:16 2011 No.3445479 >>3445391 So if this is such a great advance, why hasn't evolution discovered this form of mutation?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:25:16 2011 No.3445482 >>3445359 The point is they're indestinguishable from one another, not that either exist. Hurr, meet durr. Durr, Hurr.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:35:16 2011 No.3445524 >>3445417 This, read a few posts into it, then raged at all the people not knowing a fuck about CS.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:40:16 2011 No.3445559

>>3443570

The basic summary is:

Within the next thirty years we will develop a technology that can add thirty years of healthy life to a person in the final stages of life.

During those thirty years, the technology will be refined so that a new treatment can grant a further thirty years and so on. the Longevity escape velocity, is when we can develop treatments to postpone aging faster than aging happens, basically 1 year added per year or better.

Effective immortality, but not from one fundamental breakthrough.

>>	Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ Mon Jul 25 01:46:16 2011 No.3445598 >>3445559 So, no different than the belief in heaven or Jesus' second coming. Alright.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:48:16 2011 No.3445614 >>3445598 If people are biologically predisposed to put blind faith in something, it is better that it is the thing with an actual chance of truth, a history of positive benefits, and a forward thinking outlook rather than a book of Iron Age morality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:54:16 2011 No.3445646 >>3445614 Really, you champion irrationality for a supposed right means? >End justify the means, then?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:55:16 2011 No.3445654 >>3445598 Nigga don't know about advances in medical science

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:56:16 2011 No.3445664 >>3445654 Nigga don't know about the dark ages of mathematics and lack of egalitarian societies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 01:58:16 2011 No.3445677 >>3445664 No, I actually don't. Do tell.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 02:03:16 2011 No.3445707 >>3445479 I've never seen trolling this bad on /sci/.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 02:06:16 2011 No.3445726

>>3445646

Of course the ends justify the means. The ends are all that matter. The means are merely expressions of biology, as all of our conciousness is.

You cannot expect the majority of humanity to know what is good for it, or if you do, you have a severely insufficient knowledge of history and psychology.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 02:07:16 2011 No.3445731 >>3445677 >string theory? >Tea partiers? You think any medical further advances will benefit the plebs?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 02:08:16 2011 No.3445735 >>3445726 confirmed for nazi sympathizer.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 02:11:16 2011 No.3445753

>>3445735

That is precisely that thing that proves it. They got into and maintained power, all due to the biological need to follow and not ask questions.

There was an experiment which demonstrated this, Milgram's experiment which conclusively showed that 37 out of 40 people would allow torture and murder to go on in front of them, with them participating, as long as they did not have to push the button themselves, simply because they were told to.

26 out of 40 would even push the buttons.

This is where your democracy gets you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 02:37:16 2011 No.3445882 >>3445731 See >>3445331. If indeed all the rich and the corporations care about are profits, they'll sell us the fruits of this research.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 08:51:16 2011 No.3447282 Bump

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 09:14:16 2011 No.3447355 >>3443537 >implying nerds could get it up the first time

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 11:17:16 2011 No.3447691 OP here..thanks for the responses so far and actually continuing a pretty good discussion..just giving this thread a quick bump-)

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 11:21:16 2011 No.3447702
File: 35 KB, 500x348, 1308037727253.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3443544
That's what's being done though, you can't merge with technology dumber than you and expect the result to be smarter.

>mfw when people don't automatically associate singularity with infusing humans with technology (or vice versa)

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 11:34:16 2011 No.3447738

>>3445273
Advancement is not linear, just like evolution it branches. We've discovered things we hadn't even considered the possibility (let alone thought to look for at the time) of since the moon missions.

This is the major fallacy made by the people who push for Mars exploration, it's not the only growth option available to us.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math