The Technological Singularity

Praefect

Praefect

Sparkles
MBTI
Infj
Enneagram
type 9
I find the concept fascinating. Ray Kurzweil focuses on it a lot too, in fact he just recently contributed to the founding of the Singularity University.

http://singularityu.org/

There is a good documentary called technocalypse that you should check out if you haven't already. I think it is on video.google.com.
 
Heh, I laughed my ass off about that last year. Its preposterous and bases the "line" on certain things meaning exactly what they need to be to make the line look as it does. Data manipulations for sensationalism.
 
I will have to give those links a look.
 
DoveAlexa said:
Heh, I laughed my ass off about that last year. Its preposterous and bases the "line" on certain things meaning exactly what they need to be to make the line look as it does. Data manipulations for sensationalism.
Click to expand...

Well, it focuses on data processing in most cases. The primary question now is developing an autonomous system that can interpret the data.

From cars that can drive themselves to computer systems that are making basic interpretations/inferences of information on the web, these are quite measurable.

There are metrics being assigned to how much data the brain processes, I am sure those figures aren't 100% accurate, but we are getting closer to understanding. Neurology has made a LOT of progress in the past 10 years, even if most people aren't aware of it. There are actually single neurons being integrated into electronic circuits now, some have been used to keep a virtual plane stabilized.

Neural networks are the key to AI and its future implications. As to whether a point exists where AI can truly outsmart human intelligence, only time will tell, and that could be the point of no return if it did occur.
 
Well if it is really intelligence and not just better and better computations to make complex decisions that are all pre-programmed piece by piece into it.

Also, as far as the line I was talking about, they also weighted the "speed" of technilogical process starting sometime in the 1800's I believe, and they basicly picked and chose what milestones were worthy enough to base the speed on. It also assumed that the speed increase we appeared to be on based by the picking and choosing method of determining speed would never ebb or faulter. The Ancients discovered all sorts of feats of engineering and even had indoor plumbing, and they never created bigger and bigger catapults till they destroyed the world. We never built bigger and bigger nukes till one day the biggest one destroyed the world, and its not looking like thats even going to be a things anymore, and I sure as hell don't see us poofing into existance a big mega-brain that shall make us all "obsolete" (which would assume that a computer brain would value anything that way and wouldn't just fade into ennui upon knowing everything ever) and then we are all promptly enslaved/destroyed/turned into pets.

tldr; It's all just another doomsday/utopia-is-nigh thing. Weren't we all suppose to be flying hovercars by now anyways? Where are the moon bases?
 
For data over the centuries, there have been plenty of lost discoveries that may have otherwise increased the rate of data collection. The dark ages was a clear disruption in the flow and ebb of data collection and kind of throws a wrench into any stead stream of growth.

The theory of the rate of information over many years without clear historical evidence makes for a shaky foundation of any prediction, but I don't really see that as a foundation.

The basic idea that we have processing power now that is taking over more and more intellectual tasks is present, clear, and observable. That is the foundation.

The theory of whether and when that processing power will reach the same capacity as the human mind is the theory of the singularity, at least in my opinion.
 
I don't know what you all are talking about but I am pretty sure it involves Skynet.
 
Wyote said:
I don't know what you all are talking about but I am pretty sure it involves Skynet.
Click to expand...

Yea, I can't help but think about that. LOL
 
I really don't know much about AI in general, but from what I understand the idea is to move away from deductively stating how to process data and rather use neural networks to design a framework for enhanced learning. What that AI actually learns is a big question.

What flaws occur in a learning process is going to be a big determination in how things pan out. I believe flaws in inference/learning in humans is one thing that really makes us human, and also makes us seem so irrational, along with a slew of neurological factors that back why we have problems processing information at times.
 
Yeah that's anther flaw, believing that giving a computer human intellects, it'll automatically be "better" at it. Pure logic does not equal intellectual perfection either. (No matter what the T's may think ;P)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top