Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The comming Post-Human Era

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The comming Post-Human Era

    http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vi...ngularity.html

    The Coming Technological Singularity:
    How to Survive in the Post-Human Era



    Vernor Vinge
    Department of Mathematical Sciences
    San Diego State University


    (c) 1993 by Vernor Vinge
    (This article may be reproduced for noncommercial
    purposes if it is copied in its entirety,
    including this notice.)


    The original version of this article
    was presented at the VISION-21 Symposium
    sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center and
    the Ohio Aerospace Institute, March 30-31, 1993.
    A slightly changed version appeared in the
    Winter 1993 issue of _Whole Earth Review_.



    Abstract


    Within thirty years, we will have the technological
    means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after,
    the human era will be ended.

    Is such progress avoidable? If not to be avoided, can
    events be guided so that we may survive? These questions
    are investigated. Some possible answers (and some further
    dangers) are presented.


    _What is The Singularity?_

    The acceleration of technological progress has been the central
    feature of this century. I argue in this paper that we are on the edge
    of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth. The precise
    cause of this change is the imminent creation by technology of
    entities with greater than human intelligence. There are several means
    by which science may achieve this breakthrough (and this is another
    reason for having confidence that the event will occur):
    o There may be developed computers that are "awake" and
    superhumanly intelligent. (To date, there has been much
    controversy as to whether we can create human equivalence in a
    machine. But if the answer is "yes, we can", then there is little
    doubt that beings more intelligent can be constructed shortly
    thereafter.)
    o Large computer networks (and their associated users) may "wake
    up" as a superhumanly intelligent entity.
    o Computer/human interfaces may become so intimate that users
    may reasonably be considered superhumanly intelligent.
    o Biological science may provide means to improve natural
    human intellect.

    The first three possibilities depend in large part on
    improvements in computer hardware. Progress in computer hardware has
    followed an amazingly steady curve in the last few decades [17]. Based
    largely on this trend, I believe that the creation of greater than
    human intelligence will occur during the next thirty years. (Charles
    Platt [20] has pointed out that AI enthusiasts have been making claims
    like this for the last thirty years. Just so I'm not guilty of a
    relative-time ambiguity, let me more specific: I'll be surprised if
    this event occurs before 2005 or after 2030.)

    What are the consequences of this event? When greater-than-human
    intelligence drives progress, that progress will be much more rapid.
    In fact, there seems no reason why progress itself would not involve
    the creation of still more intelligent entities -- on a still-shorter
    time scale. The best analogy that I see is with the evolutionary past:
    Animals can adapt to problems and make inventions, but often no faster
    than natural selection can do its work -- the world acts as its own
    simulator in the case of natural selection. We humans have the ability
    to internalize the world and conduct "what if's" in our heads; we can
    solve many problems thousands of times faster than natural selection.
    Now, by creating the means to execute those simulations at much higher
    speeds, we are entering a regime as radically different from our human
    past as we humans are from the lower animals.

    From the human point of view this change will be a throwing away
    of all the previous rules, perhaps in the blink of an eye, an
    exponential runaway beyond any hope of control. Developments that
    before were thought might only happen in "a million years" (if ever)
    will likely happen in the next century. (In [5], Greg Bear paints a
    picture of the major changes happening in a matter of hours.)

    I think it's fair to call this event a singularity ("the
    Singularity" for the purposes of this paper). It is a point where our
    old models must be discarded and a new reality rules. As we move
    closer to this point, it will loom vaster and vaster over human
    affairs till the notion becomes a commonplace. Yet when it finally
    happens it may still be a great surprise and a greater unknown. In
    the 1950s there were very few who saw it: Stan Ulam [28] paraphrased
    John von Neumann as saying:

    One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of
    technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the
    appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the
    history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them,
    could not continue.

    Von Neumann even uses the term singularity, though it appears he
    is thinking of normal progress, not the creation of superhuman
    intellect. (For me, the superhumanity is the essence of the
    Singularity. Without that we would get a glut of technical riches,
    never properly absorbed (see [25]).)

    In the 1960s there was recognition of some of the implications of
    superhuman intelligence. I. J. Good wrote [11]:

    Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine
    that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any
    any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of
    these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could
    design even better machines; there would then unquestionably
    be an "intelligence explosion," and the intelligence of man
    would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent
    machine is the _last_ invention that man need ever make,
    provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to
    keep it under control.
    ...
    It is more probable than not that, within the twentieth century,
    an ultraintelligent machine will be built and that it will be
    the last invention that man need make.

    Click here for more http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vi...ngularity.html

  • #2
    That's actually interesting, but I would hope that humans still have the mindpower among them, to never create anything that could destroy the human race. But then again....

    edit: Also, aren't machines only as intellegent as their creator? Like, a calculator is only as smart as the man that programmed it. By this logic then, wouldn't it be impossible for artificial intellegence to surpass Human intellegence?

    I mean, for every chess playing robot, theres always a Bobby Fischer to shoot him down.
    Originally posted by Tone
    Women who smoke cigarettes are sexy, not repulsive. It depends on the number smoked. less is better

    Comment


    • #3
      Vinge is talking about real AI, one that is capable of learning... Not a computer that knows all the rules of chess.

      Comment


      • #4
        read prey

        Comment


        • #5
          intelligence is overrated. for example einsteins relativy theory was not accomplished by his superior intelligence but by a physical test that showed a flaw in the theory. there would have been no way to simulate that. a powerfull AI might have done the formulars faster after the failed test but it would not have seen the need for these formulars before einstein did.

          Intelligence is a simple concept. its producing an output from an input. the key factor is the input and the time you have to calculate a result from it. computers may and will overpower us one day in the time factor but if they experience anything which has not been tought to them they are limited to the same physical world like we are. it doesnt matter how many simulations they can run on a topic if they dont know which one is correct.

          conclusion: to build an intellect that is like ours will always experience the same limits like us. is has to learn, it has to fail, it has to forget...
          but there is a different concept. different from calculating output from an input. you look for input for a given output untill you cover all output values. u can call it brute forcing reality. a system that can calculate an infinite(or close) ammount of chaotic simulations would have true intelligence(and computers could do that one day). it is not limited to the physical world, its perfect, it knows everything. you just have to ask it the right questions and understand the answers.

          Comment


          • #6
            god is the number you cannot count to

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Send
              read prey
              I did that very thing several months back. I have a feeling Michael Crighton will be hailed as the next fucking Nostradamus. I mean look how easy it would be to do the Jurassic Park thing nowadays. And the Prey thing seems an even more a viable idea.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Rudy
                I did that very thing several months back. I have a feeling Michael Crighton will be hailed as the next fucking Nostradamus. I mean look how easy it would be to do the Jurassic Park thing nowadays. And the Prey thing seems an even more a viable idea.
                Or the next George Orwell.
                Originally posted by Tone
                Women who smoke cigarettes are sexy, not repulsive. It depends on the number smoked. less is better

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Squeezer
                  edit: Also, aren't machines only as intellegent as their creator? Like, a calculator is only as smart as the man that programmed it. By this logic then, wouldn't it be impossible for artificial intellegence to surpass Human intellegence?

                  I mean, for every chess playing robot, theres always a Bobby Fischer to shoot him down.
                  Quick, you have 0.01 second to answer. what is 25(6*(2+5^2))

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tone
                    Quick, you have 0.01 second to answer. what is 25(6*(2+5^2))
                    Ok, but given the proper training, and practice, I'm sure the human mind could do that. Like I said, something programmed by humans could never be smarter than humans.

                    Or so I hope.
                    Originally posted by Tone
                    Women who smoke cigarettes are sexy, not repulsive. It depends on the number smoked. less is better

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Send
                      read prey
                      Awesome book.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Squeezer: No human is capable of solving huge mathematical equations quickly. Well, there might be some math savant out there to disprove me for (big number x * big number y), but I've never heard of any math savant doing exponents, etc. and in general computers have always been better at solving big mathematical equations. For example, your computer juggles some huge number of floating point operations a second and no human can do that. Humans may have a great deal of processing power available to them, but they can't use it for brute force mathematics.

                        And BTW, it's entirely possible to make a chess playing robot which is better than a human, because programs calculate positions much more throughly and deeply than humans. It's debatable whether the best anti-computer human chessplayer can take the best chess program, but for sure with increased technology the computers are going to own us all soon.
                        - k2

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          there are many things to think about concerning the future, including things like how a computer could always beat a human in chess, or our bodies could be wired to the Internet, or how technology can make many things even easier in life. but none will be as important or as dramatically changing as the technology that will alter our brain's capacity for pleasure, motivation, and a sense of profound wellbeing.

                          Computer speed has generally doubled every 14 months, and we use the latest tools to create the next tools and thats why technology grows exponentially rather than linear. when our brains are too updated, this will actually add to this effect of exponential growth. if you think the last 100 years compared to the last 1000 is amazing with the compression of how long it takes to advance, just wait for what is next. But again, the main point besides growth is that changing what is normal wellbeing (by greatly increasing it) is most important and really the end goal of everything, and this can be done in the future directly by altering the reward pathways of the brain, by making modifications. a Brave New World
                          Last edited by Tone; 03-28-2005, 11:51 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Tone
                            there are many things to think about concerning the future, including things like how a computer could always beat a human in chess, or our bodies could be wired to the Internet, or how technology can make many things even easier in life. but none will be as important or as dramatically changing as the technology that will alter our brain's capacity for pleasure, motivation, and a sense of profound wellbeing.

                            Computer speed has generally doubled every 14 months, and we use the latest tools to create the next tools and thats why technology grows exponentially rather than linear. when our brains are too updated, this will actually add to this effect of exponential growth. if you think the last 100 years compared to the last 1000 is amazing with the compression of how long it takes to advance, just wait for what is next. But again, the main point besides growth is that changing what is normal wellbeing (by greatly increasing it) is most important and really the end goal of everything, and this can be done in the future directly by altering the reward pathways of the brain, by making modifications. a Brave New World
                            But if you look at the timeline of Invention, you will see that it fluctuates for a few hundred years, then goes into a depression for a while. Who's to say we aren't about to hit a derpression?
                            Originally posted by Tone
                            Women who smoke cigarettes are sexy, not repulsive. It depends on the number smoked. less is better

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Squeezer
                              But if you look at the timeline of Invention, you will see that it fluctuates for a few hundred years, then goes into a depression for a while. Who's to say we aren't about to hit a derpression?
                              dont know because this is the first time that we know of (past 10,000 years or so) that we've had technology. this is a lot different than history and people are a lot different now than anytime in history. any person from the past could time travel to any other time in the past but bring them here and whoa. lets avoid a dark age hopefully

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X