[ 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: 26 KB, 307x307, ray_kurzweil.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6402683 No.6402683[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What does /sci/ think of this Ray Kurzweil's predicitons about technology?

>> No.6402692

I'm reading "The Singularity Is Near"

>> No.6402711

>>6402692
How is it so far. I downloaded it, but I have midterms and stuff so I can't read it right now.

>> No.6402713

>>6402683

It's bullshit.

>> No.6402722

>>6402711
I haven't read much, but its pretty interesting

>> No.6402739

>>6402713
Lot's of people think that. I am on the fence as to whether or not it is complete horse shit.

>>6402722
Agreed.

>> No.6402771

I think he is right to some extent.
There will come a point where computer simulation/modeling, combined with analytic AI will cause a rapid exponential growth in technology. However, I don't think there will be a 'singularity' of computers becoming conscious and taking over, or whatever it is those singularityfags believe.

>> No.6402789

>>6402771
Do you think AI would displace human intelligence in the workplace?

>> No.6402853

>>6402789
No more than computers did when they were first introduced into the workplace.

>> No.6402872

>>6402853
Computers cannot do the same tasks as humans. That's not a good comparison.

>> No.6402876

>>6402771

you are making assumptions that AI will ever get to that point.

>> No.6402893

>>6402872
>Computers cannot do the same tasks as humans.
Neither will AI.
Sure it might replace some jobs, but there will always be jobs AI can't do.

It's the same thing with robots in the manufacturing industry.

>> No.6402930

>>6402893
>Sure it might replace some jobs, but there will always be jobs AI can't do.
Says who? There is no reason to believe there would be any jobs that a superhuman intelligent AI could do.

You're comparing dissimilar things like computers and AI.

As for robots in manufacturing, manufacturing employment is declining but productivity is going up, meaning that the robots are really cable of replacing humans.

>> No.6402986

Nose knows.

>> No.6403004

>>6402986
Fuck off back to /pol/.

>>>/pol/

>> No.6403025

>>6402930
>There is no reason to believe there would be any jobs that a superhuman intelligent AI could do.
If the AI because that intelligent, to the point where they could do anything a human could do, then the singularityfags would be right and the AI would take over the worlds computers through the internet, and there would be nothing we could do to stop it.

>> No.6403029

>>6402986
11

>> No.6403031

>>6403025
became*
not because

>> No.6403035

>>6403025
I don't know. I think an intelligence explostion is implausible. AI research has been painfully slow thus far.

>> No.6403066

>>6403035
>AI research has been painfully slow thus far.
I think that is mainly because until recently we haven't had the computing power available.
Now that quantum computers are on the horizon, and conventional computers are still increasing in speed exponentially, I think AI will arrive a lot faster than people expect.

Also, I've noticed a lot of AI companies popping up. Google recently purchased one iirc. I would expect a major breakthrough by the end of the decade if not sooner.

>> No.6403104

>>6403066
while AI systems will continue to advance, I seriously doubt that they will ever come close to behaving like the human brain.

>> No.6403216

>>6403104
>behaving like the human brain

What does this even mean? Who cares if they "behave" the same way if they can do all of the same tasks like language, math, and socialization.

>> No.6403232

I doubt A.I. would surface in a non-controlled environment. I would genuinely be afraid of nanites though.

>> No.6403237

>>6403104
So do I. Which is why I doubt they will ever completely replace the need for humans in the workplace.

>> No.6405046

>>6402683
>>>/x/
There is no evidence for the singularity nor transhumanist immortality.
>inb4 moores law

>> No.6405098

I don't think quantum computers are needed to have some strong AI. I think the only shortcoming is the software.

>> No.6405244
File: 25 KB, 363x363, baba v.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6405244

I don't see why people find it so far-fetched. It's not just that computers are faster, smaller, cheaper. Programs are being made smarter, and data is increasingly becoming more available and more digestible. Supermarkets are more efficient with self-checkouts, online stores are more profitable with less employees than their brick-and-mortar counterparts, and truck-drivers are on the list of workers about to be displaced by robots. What worries me is not just that there are people who deny the rise of machines. What worries me is that the people concerned with the risks are just making movies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Sxs4uXn7xA

>> No.6405268

>>6405046
>no evidence for thing we haven't invented yet
well golly gee wilikers!

>> No.6405279

>>6402683
The part about exponential growth hasn't come true, and it won't with our current computer technology. The increase in processing speed has been slowing down because we've been running into physical constants like the speed of light and electron tunneling. Maybe if quantum computing gets started it will be different, but we won't see a singularity based on computers we have now.