CV75 Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 I think you mean "more and more impunity" That's right -- just testing you!
Analytics Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 What is "computer power"? You may break it down into two components: speed and storage capacity. Storage capacity is the component that is growing the fastest. Speed, on the other hand, is really what this thread is all about, and it is indeed meeting some pretty hard limits, such as the cost of production of semiconductors or quantum tunnelling. I may eat my words, but I'm fairly confident that something will stop the growth, and possibly earlier than most of us think.The topic of this thread goes way beyond Moore's law, and when I talk about "computer power", I'm talking about overall computing power, which entails both hardware and software running together. Speed, in terms of Ghz, has already maxed out (in the PC world, at least), but the overall computer power continues to increase in terms of number of cores.I don't think it's fair, and I don't think it makes sense. Your definition is about efficiency, not intelligence. As I said earlier, you are reducing intelligence to a single dimension which doesn't represent human intelligence.It's not about being fair. It's about representing what's going on. Remember that the OP is about computers becoming so "intelligent" that they overcome human kind. I fail to see how this doomsday scenario could take place simply because of more efficient computers.To clarify, the issue isn't a specific doomsday scenario. The issue is the singularity, which has to do with computers becoming not only intelligent, but super-intelligent. The idea isn't that computers are getting really, really efficient at running Lotus 123. The observation is that computer systems are doing more and more things, and they are doing them better, and that that trend will continue. The theory is that in the not-so-distant future, we'll arive at a "singularity" where computers will be so smart, we can't predict the future after that point. Maybe the computers will kill us. Or maybe they'll cure death. Who knows?If you'd like to understand how "more efficient computers" could lead to the singularity, you might want to attend the Exponential Technologies Executive Program at NASA's Singularity University.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 According to TIME magazine, it will be in the year 2045.I have to wait that long?
krose Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 And don't "forget" that the human brain has an unlimited storage capacity... And scientists have no idea how that is possible, since the size of a person's accumulated knowledge is not proportional to that person's brain size.Wait. What?Unlimited capacity? No way.
Jaybear Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 I looking forward to the day that our consciousness can be downloaded into a computer, so that we can truly become immortal. The rest of you can take your chances with God.
Analytics Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 I have to wait that long?Perhaps, perhaps not. That date is based upon when they think the sum-total of computer intelligence will be one-billion times smarter than the sum-total of human intelligence. Maybe Skynet will be ready before then!
Jeff K. Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 I looking forward to the day that our consciousness can be downloaded into a computer, so that we can truly become immortal. The rest of you can take your chances with God.It would go against computer rights to force our brains and cultural paradigms into machinery. Such rights should should be protected and we are remiss when computers are treated as second class systems and citizens.I will quote the movie "Apple Macquire""1100100010001""110010010001111""You had me at 110" Surely such love should be reflected in full rights of all, no matter how artificial the paradigm....
Nathair/|\ Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 There is always the off button.Ps. http://www.imdb.com/...ay/vi329318937/I am reminded of a SF story concerning a super-powerful computer which was asked if there was a God. After ensuring that it's power supply was entirely in it's control, the computer replied, "Now there is."
paulpatter Posted February 16, 2011 Author Posted February 16, 2011 And don't "forget" that the human brain has an unlimited storage capacity... And scientists have no idea how that is possible, since the size of a person's accumulated knowledge is not proportional to that person's brain size.If they have "no idea" how it is possible "that the human brain has an unlimited storage capacity," how do they know that it, in fact, has unlimited storage capacity?Speaking of storage capacity (and this has been proven), the article states the following: "Kurzweil likes to point out that your average cell phone is about a millionth the size of, a millionth the price of, and a thousand times more powerful than the computer he had at MIT 40 years ago. Flip that forward 40 years and what does the world look like? If you really want to figure that out, you have to think very, very far outside the box."
thesometimesaint Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 Nathair:A philosophical idea I've been running around in my for a while now is. When a computer is devised to be truly self aware, would turning it off be murder?
Thunderfire Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 Recently I saw a History Channel show on "Prophets of the End". It was not what I expected.The show brought together experts from diverse fields of science/technology/finance and they discussed what they "see" to be coming. As example, one of the experts was a former VP of a major brokerage house in New York. He spoke of the coming financial crisis which he believes is unavoidable. Another spoke on "AI" and what the computers will be able to do (and the potential harm to us). Others spoke of the coming oil crisis (peak oil), political instability in the world, and radical religions. Yet after one of the experts spoke, ALL of them agreed that what he brought to the group represented the greatest threat to our existence...our water supply.This one expert shared information about how our water supply is dwindling and what we do have is becoming contaminated. Without clean water, we die very quickly. They discussed the reality of this scenario coming much sooner than
thesometimesaint Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 Thunderfire:I watched it with great interest. Sure did present a number of things to think about.
Nathair/|\ Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 Nathair:A philosophical idea I've been running around in my for a while now is. When a computer is devised to be truly self aware, would turning it off be murder?I don't know about turning it off (that I think might be more like anesthesia or sleep), but reformatting the disk almost certainly would be.
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 It's called Singularity and is defined as "The moment when technological change becomes so rapid and profound, it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history" (Time magazine, Feb. 21, 2011). Lev Grossman, writing in the Time article, states that computers are becoming faster faster, and that artificial intelligence will become a reality. His primary source is Raymond Kurzweil, who invented the computer than translates the printed word into speech. Grossman reports: ". . .there's no reason to think computers [will] stop getting more powerful. They [will] keep on developing until they [are] far more intelligent than we are." That means, according to another Singularity researcher, that "Within 30 years, we will have the means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended" (Vernor Vinge, The Coming Technological Singularity). Grossman emphasizes, based on his research, that Singularity isn't science fiction, "no more than a weather forecast is science fiction. . .it's a serious hypothesis about the future of life on earth." It's a fascinating article, one that caused me to reflect on my son's patriarchal blessing--given 20 years ago--that (paraphrasing) "the world will experience an explosion of information, and you will live to see it."In any event, I encourage you to read the article. I'm not saying it's the "gospel truth," but it's certainly worth a serious--if not sobering--look.Yeah, man is too stupid to ever make artificial intelligence, we barely have any intelligence ourselves in almost all cases, we will never be able to make a self realizing machine unless it is be total freak accident.
Jeff K. Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 I am reminded of a SF story concerning a super-powerful computer which was asked if there was a God. After ensuring that it's power supply was entirely in it's control, the computer replied, "Now there is."Frederick Brown wrote it. Great story.
nicolasconnault Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 If they have "no idea" how it is possible "that the human brain has an unlimited storage capacity," how do they know that it, in fact, has unlimited storage capacity?Because we haven't found a limit to it, that's pretty simple. The amount of facts accumulated in a person's brain throughout their life is truly astounding. Even inputs that are not subject to attention are recorded and can be re-used later. Thankfully our brain prevents us from having perfect recall of all that stuff, otherwise we couldn't function properly. Some people actually have a disorder that prevents them from blocking out memories, so they are constantly thinking of everything that has ever happened to them. Enough to drive anyone nuts!
TAO Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 As said guys, it is very possible to program an intelligent AI, however AI lacks one thing we have - instinct. It is virtually impossible to program instinct (which is what morals are based off of), and so building an AI that works like a human is unlikely (you would have to hard-program it, which takes alot of work and study). What I do see however, is AI without instinct becoming rather advance. I think however, at that point, we will realize the potential consequence of our actions, and limit our developing capabilities at a certain point. Or at least I hope so.
paulpatter Posted February 17, 2011 Author Posted February 17, 2011 Because we haven't found a limit to it. . . . Just because "we haven't found [emphasis added] a limit to it" doesn't mean it's unlimited. : The amount of facts accumulated in a person's brain throughout their life is truly astounding. Even inputs that are not subject to attention are recorded and can be re-used later. Thankfully our brain prevents us from having perfect recall of all that stuff, otherwise we couldn't function properly. Some people actually have a disorder that prevents them from blocking out memories, so they are constantly thinking of everything that has ever happened to them. Enough to drive anyone nuts!Yes, I agree. The human brain is astonishing, particularly in the context of memory storage. Note, however, Kurzweil's statement, which I posted earlier: ". . .given the vast increases in computing power and the vast reductions in the cost of same, the quantity of artificial intelligence created will be about a billion times the sum of all the human intelligence that exists today [emphasis added]." That AI, it seems to me, will include almost unimaginable memory storage and recall.Even Kurzweil acknowledges that his predictions seem too fantastic to take seriously; i.e., "When people look at the implications of ongoing exponential growth, it gets harder and harder to accept" (p. 49 of the Time article).
sunstoned Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 As said guys, it is very possible to program an intelligent AI, however AI lacks one thing we have - instinct. It is virtually impossible to program instinct (which is what morals are based off of), and so building an AI that works like a human is unlikely (you would have to hard-program it, which takes alot of work and study). What I do see however, is AI without instinct becoming rather advance. I think however, at that point, we will realize the potential consequence of our actions, and limit our developing capabilities at a certain point. Or at least I hope so.I do hope that you are right. I saw Blade Runner as a kid and it really put the fear into me of all things AI.
TAO Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 I do hope that you are right. I saw Blade Runner as a kid and it really put the fear into me of all things AI.Yes, the thought of complex AI is very intimidating... robot soldiers... robot workers... yah, all of that. We need to develop a better system as a society before we even consider those sorta options.Robot AI must be limited for it's own sake... we don't want it to become like Frankenstein... a slave to loneliness, desire to be like humans but rarely able to be like them, etc. Nor do we want it to replace the jobs that humans do. Nor do we want them to be slaves to humans if they exert some sort of morality. There are alot of things to think about, that there are.
Nathair/|\ Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Frederick Brown wrote it. Great story.You don't happen to recall the title do you? It's been many years since I read it.
nicolasconnault Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Just because "we haven't found [emphasis added] a limit to it" doesn't mean it's unlimited. True, but that still gives us an advantage over machines, since we know their limit Yes, I agree. The human brain is astonishing, particularly in the context of memory storage. Note, however, Kurzweil's statement, which I posted earlier: ". . .given the vast increases in computing power and the vast reductions in the cost of same, the quantity of artificial intelligence created will be about a billion times the sum of all the human intelligence that exists today [emphasis added]." That AI, it seems to me, will include almost unimaginable memory storage and recall.Even Kurzweil acknowledges that his predictions seem too fantastic to take seriously; i.e., "When people look at the implications of ongoing exponential growth, it gets harder and harder to accept" (p. 49 of the Time article).I simply repeat what I have said earlier: if you use the most inclusive definition of human intelligence, you cannot quantify it. Therefore you can't compare aggregated computer power/storage with human intelligence at a global or even at an individual level. I totally agree that computers, in their own league, are growing exponentially, and some of their functions overtake what we can do, but they are still in a league of their own and that league isn't worthy of being called intelligence, at least not in the same sense as human intelligence.
Nofear Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Every year there is a contest held which administers the Turing Test- where computers try to fool humans into thinking they are humans. So far, the computer AI's have all failed to pass a threshold of fooling 33% of human judges -- though they've gotten close.This is a rather interesting article on the topic from The Atlantic, Mind vs. Machine by the winner of the "Most Human Human" award from the 2009 contest.
nicolasconnault Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Every year there is a contest held which administers the Turning Test - where computers try to fool humans into thinking they are humans. So far, the computer AI's have all failed to pass a threshold of fooling 33% of human judges -- though they've gotten close.This is a rather interesting article on the topic from The Atlantic, Mind vs. Machine by the winner of the "Most Human Human" award from the 2009 contest.It's called the Turing test
Nofear Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 It's called the Turing test Yep. Typo on my part -- fixed it.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.