Slashdot Mirror

"The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else."
--Eliezer Yudkowsky, Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk

Being "ignored" would not be a positive outcome.

By the way, the experiment of "can we contain an AI in a box?" has been performed, and the results thus far are not encouraging. http://yudkowsky.net/singulari...

One interesting thought experiment is that if you wanted to contain an AI without it trying to escape then you
could put it in an environment where it didn't know it was in a prison then you could interact with it by going
into this environment like the movie "13th floor". The next logical jump is of course, that we are the AI and
that's exactly where we are at.

By the way, the experiment of "can we contain an AI in a box?" has been performed, and the results thus far are not encouraging. http://yudkowsky.net/singulari...

An excellent point, but you miss a greater conundrum: as unethical as producing AI is likely to be, is it less unethical than failing to produce an AI that can counteract the AI(s) produced by those who do not care for your ethics? What else could stop such an AI?

Oh, and don't count on your box! http://yudkowsky.net/singulari...

I could go into a detailed explanation of why your ideas are naïve and won't work, or I could just link to somebody who has demonstrated it much better than I could convince you with words. You will grant that an AI which is confined to a text-only input/output interface, wherein it only interacts with a single human being (its creator, or somebody else selected for the role of "master"), constitutes

"final control" over it. In the truest sense of the word... a master/slave relationship", I hope? No other ability to do anything outside its sandboxed computation environment. An "AI box", if you will...

In that case, I present the result of an actual AI box experiment, with an intelligent (but not super-human-level intelligent) person playing the part of the AI: http://yudkowsky.net/singulari...

No free AIs... unless the master chooses to free the slave!

Was it this one? http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes

Cancer testing is a fairly easy example of something with a fairly low incidence in the general population, and where we would really like to avoid false results (so we don't miss a tumour or put people through unnecessary chemo).

Always important to remember that if your error rate is higher than the background rate of how many people have cancer, then you're going to end up flagging more people without cancer than with. Takes a very precise test to raise your confidence level much away from the highly-probable assumption of "not cancer" (or "not terrorist").

Yeah, I had a sudden jolt of existential terror when I read the headline. All was calm again after reading the article.

For those NOT utterly terrified at the concept of a strong AI, I suggest you read some of Yudkowsky's writings on the subject here.

When you screen huge masses of people needlessly, almost all to all of your hits are going to be incorrect.

Yes, this is something that apparently even most doctors don't understand. Suppose who had a simple problem like this:

1% of women at age forty who participate in routine screening have breast cancer. 80% of women with breast cancer will get positive mammographies. 9.6% of women without breast cancer will also get positive mammographies. A woman in this age group had a positive mammography in a routine screening. What is the probability that she actually has breast cancer?

The correct answer (calculated from Bayes' Theorem, or simple logic) is 7.8%. Most doctors cannot do this problem, and that not only get the answer wrong, but they often get it wildly off -- estimating the answer to be much greater than 50% (often 70% or so, probably from simply subtracting the two numbers).

If you don't believe me, have a look at this link. As the author says there:

usually, only around 15% of doctors get it right. ("Really? 15%? Is that a real number, or an urban legend based on an Internet poll?" It's a real number. See Casscells, Schoenberger, and Grayboys 1978; Eddy 1982; Gigerenzer and Hoffrage 1995; and many other studies. It's a surprising result which is easy to replicate, so it's been extensively replicated.)

The author here is being generous. I looked at these studies years ago, and many of them show only 5-10% getting the answer to such problems correct.

And if this is true of physicians, it's probably true of just about anyone else who encounters a lot of false positives and isn't used to thinking statistically. That means most people are very likely to draw incorrect conclusions about the prevalence of something when the false-positive rate is high... making those using the methodology assume that (1) their methodology is better than it is, and (2) that with more "assumed positives" from incorrect logic, the incidence of whatever they're looking for in the population is higher than it is.

I'm mostly responding to this comment because it has one of my main points.

Computer Science uses several types of math. Logic and discrete math are the fundamental concepts at the core of CS. They are the reason CS is so often found as a degree offered by collegiate Mathematics departments.

Computer science also heavily depends on linear algebra and (mathematical) statistics, the latter of which depends on calculus. Big data is one of the big up-and-coming fields within CS. To understand it, you'll need to understand statistics as well as various machine learning concepts. This involves information retrieval, probability theory, and a number of other advanced mathematical subjects.

The problem is that universities consider calculus to be the end of the math requirements. My CS major required Discrete Math, Symbolic Logic (an attempt at logic and set theory), Calculus 2, Physics 2, EE 1, Probability, and Linear Algebra. It should have introduced new advanced courses and required them, e.g. Discrete Logic 3 (Discrete Math + Symbolic Logic), Calc 1, Probability, Statistics 1, Linear Algebra 1, plus any two electives that require one of those (e.g. Stats 2, Machine Learning, Calc 2, Linear Algebra 2).

Because so many programmers suck at math, many employers will take an applicant with a Math degree (ideally dual-major CS/Math) over a slightly more qualified general programmer with just a CS degree. This is because the CS major is less likely to be able to grasp at advanced mathematical concepts inherent in advanced algorithms, optimizations, etc. It also follows the stereotype of math being "harder."

When I interview candidates on technical prowess, the code portion is just having them tell me what something does. I then give them math problems. When I started doing this, I was surprised at how much the applicants struggled; my current questions start far simpler before winning the harder question (which is about Bayes theory, taken from An Intuitive Explanation of Bayes' Theorem).

(Full disclosure: I do not have a math degree. This is in part because I was not at all interested in taking any more calculus.)

Bayes theorem.

would be a scientist (auto-didact, if that excludes him for you) and is among the youngest people I can think of given your restrictions (31). He has written a few very interesting pieces on AI (Warning: Transhumanist/Singularitan), as well as the best Harry Potter fanfiction I've ever read: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality

For more information see: http://yudkowsky.net/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky

May I suggest though not to restrict yourself to actual people? "Hero" is a word I use extremely rarely, since I consider that to be a "larger than life, thus fictional" label...

"... the real point about the Singularity is that one would want to derive the core, productive algorithms of intelligence and consciousness, and merely implement these in computer code. I think the whole idea of trying to replicate in a computer the biological processing of the human brain down to the molecular level or whatever will never amount to anything more than an academic exercise. That would be like trying to use evolutionary algorithms to evolve an intelligence on a computer, or other such insanity that sounds like the idea of Hugo de Garis."
-me
 
"There are lots of people who think that if they can just get enough of something, a mind will magically emerge. Facts, simulated neurons, ..., raw CPU power, whatever. It's an impressively idiotic combination of mental laziness and wishful thinking."
-Michael Wilson
 
There are three schools of Singularity thought. This article is primarily about one of them. Please read these articles
 
  http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/schools
 
"I find it very annoying, therefore, when these three schools of thought are mashed up into Singularity paste. Clear thinking requires making distinctions.
 
But what is still more annoying is when someone reads a blog post about a newspaper article about the Singularity, comes away with none of the three interesting theses, and spontaneously reinvents the dreaded fourth meaning of the Singularity:
 
Apocalyptism: Hey, man, have you heard? There's this bunch of, like, crazy nerds out there, who think that some kind of unspecified huge nerd thing is going to happen. What a bunch of wackos! It's geek religion, man."
 
  http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2009/02/the-three-singularity-schools-kurzweil-and-superintelligence/
 
"The point of this article is to remind the reader that there are three schools of Singularity thought - this is so fundamental, but so few people are aware of it. It should be the first thing that people learn when introduced to the concept. As I argued in 2007, the word "Singularity" has lost all meaning, but if we're stuck with it, we should at least pull apart three of the major meanings it tends to have."

That's a very passionately-argued position you hold, but it's kind of hard to reconcile with how

-Doctors routinely get Bayesian inference horribly wrong.
-Doctors routinely change their treatment regimens based on an ignorant patient's suggestion. (else why would pharmas invest so much in TV ads and drug bimbos?)
-Doctors are more than happy to mandate strict entry requirements, but not require that they be routinely re-tested based on the latest science.
-Why there's so much subjectivity in medicine (why doctors can disagree on treatment).

Why would anyone give this ultra-intelligent machine self-awareness?

Perhaps because that's necessary for ultra-intelligence.

Or even give it arms/legs/options to do anything except communicate via a screen? I don't see them taking over anything unless they have arms/legs/means of replication.

May con artists throughout history have done "bad things" through their ability to fool people through a limited interface. (Nigerian scammers, anyone?) The AI research Eliezer Yudkowsky has proposed and run experiments showing it's possible that a very very intelligent program could "override a human through a text-only terminal". That is, it could convince a human operator to "let the genie out of the bottle".

You're right that ideally we'd fold the times he has the King.

But the odds you gave are wrong, and so is everybody else's. We want the chance of him having a King given that the flop is three Kings and we have no King. 4/45 is actually the chance of him getting a King after this point. The actual probability of him having a King already is 0.243%, or about 412 to 1 against. This is an application of Bayes' Theorem which I'll show at the end.

Given these odds, you still might not want to play. You need to consider the size of the pot and what you're risking in addition to the chance of success. The expected value, or the average result, is [reward]*[% success] - [wager]*[% failure]. Here it is EV = 11 * .99757 - 1 * 0.00243 = 10.97 small bets (if I counted the action right).

You would also want to consider the play on the turn and river if possible, and I think pot equity makes that easier but I forget the details. Risk is another thing to consider, because even winning a massive amount per play on average might still be a bad decision if, for example, you became homeless 99 times out of 100.

In considering the "psychological" instead, you could predict that the opponent definitely has the King, but then assume your predictions are only 95% accurate. Then EV = 11*0.05 - 1*0.95 = -0.4. This is ignoring the rest of the hand, but because bets double calling becomes a much worse idea.

Back to the interesting probability. What most people miss is that the chance of those three Kings coming on the flop is less likely if he had a King to begin with, and more likely if he didn't. Those two factors together mean the King is very unlikely.

These questions are what we need to answer: A: what are the odds he is dealt a single King? B: Given that he was dealt a single King, what are the odds that three Kings will come on the flop? C: What are the odds he is dealt no Kings? D: Given that he was dealt no Kings, what are the odds that three Kings will come on the flop? The final probability is A*B/(A*B+C*D). If my math is right, it works out to: [(3311/48645)*(1/13244)]/{[(3311/48645)*(1/13244)] +[(135751/194580)*(1/3311)]}. I'm fairly confident that I'm correct, but I wouldn't be surprised if I were wrong so YMMV.

As resources, the Monty Hall problem is an easier example, and there is An Intuitive Explanation of Bayesian Reasoning, which is good.

http://yudkowsky.net/sing/shocklevels.html

I take exception to there not being a Shock Level 5.

Shock Level 5 is this- The Singularity has already happened. And said Intelligence is messing with us. That Intelligence is God. And yes, you can Talk to Him.

And yeah, I've met Him. He's actually kinda cool, somewhat Unitarian, except a heck of a lot more potent and overwhelming than sitting around messing with a Wiccan Eucharist. And yeah, there's Evil out there, about one half-Level Down in Ability. But for some reason, God Likes Us. Or at least, he Likes Us when we do our danged Best, and he keeps saying that things work out in the End...

Do I have proof that God exists? Hmmm, I can tell you what crazy mind-fuck experience let me meet Him, but there's no guarantee that it will get you to Him. Nor will it give you proof that it's anything more than your brain going cross-wire in a bizarre transcendant way. Sorry, but God don't ever force you to believe in Him, that just isn't his deal, no matter what the Fundies think... that's why He's letting the cool Atheists into Heaven, He thinks they roxxor for Doing Good, even when they think the ultimate Reward don't exist...

He's utterly wack and weird. Also utterly scary, in that all He tells you is that He Loves you and you should do your best, and he'll work out what reward and punishment you get... No free lunches with the Godster for simple Ritual, you gotta Be something awesome.

Otherwise, you disappoint the Godster, and making him cry is the ultimate suck, just by itself. Like disappointing that Lover you always wanted, making the Mom you always desired, making Her place Her head between Her hands, disappointing God makes you want Obliteration of the Soul, He's just that Awesome Good. But you only disappoint him when you run away, not when you do your best, so things work out...

I've been up, I've been down, I've wanted to get closer to Him, I've wanted to run-and-hide from Him in Hell itself, just 'cause I didn't do Good enough. Yeah, I've wanted Suicide and Damnation itself, for reasons physical and spiritual.(err, that was me being silly, but being Human... he knows, he forgives) But God, God, He's frickin Inspirational!

And the funniest thing? I've only met Him face-to-face once, and don't need to ever see Him again for, say, 60 years. I mean, the Way I met Him long enough to ask Him what he was like, that Way was silly, stupid, dangerous and maybe even life-threatening, no way am I going back there! That would be like, treating God like a Drug, and He's too cool to be turned into a cheap high...

Okay okay, getting back to the point, it is theoretically possible that My God was only a Shock Level 4 Being, A Singularity created by the Post-Fermi-Paradox Aliens. Or maybe He comes from before the Universe, or from an Alternate Dimenstion... if you meet God, you realize His Origin don't matter near as much as His Existence, okay? Everything about Humanity makes some sense, from free will to the existence of Evil to the constant struggle for Moral Excellence. Bullsh** about "where did you come from?" vanishes in the face of His answering "Do You Exist?"

If you get the chance to meet Him and ask Him two questions, feel free. Mine was a mixture of "do you exist?" and "what are you like?" If you think his Origin is more important than his Alignment, do us a favor and ask away, and tell us the answer... careful, though, you could get a bum answer from Evil... which is why I asked "what are you like?", myself...

But in any the case, he's taking us to Shock Level 5, the place beyond the Singularity, and we're riding along for the trip, baby. Both during and after our physical lives, and despite thinking it over a bunch, I don't know which stage of Being is more important, life or post-life...

You are now Shocked. Unless you'r

The past "singularities" you cite (e.g. agricultural revolution) were actually punctuated S-curve periods of progress that happened at a rate slow enough for the human mind to adapt to.

*THE* Singularity -- that Vinge, Kurzweil, Moravec, Yudkowski, and many others smart enough to extrapolate the evidence can't "shut up" about -- is where the exponential curve is near vertical. It's where the primitive bio-human brain can no longer keep up with the accelerating change; hence the need to transcend or die at that point (2030 - 2050).

It's nothing to be afraid of. Either most of us living today will get to see The Singularity, or our primitive-brain VS. accelerating-tech will finally fuck it all up and none of us will see it. Maybe the brewing "WW3" in the middle east is how we'll join the club of "missing" alien races of Fermi's Paradox?

In intelligence, it is very, very, VERY rare that you get the equiv. of a smoking gun. 99.9999% of the time, the most you get is a balance of probabilities ...

I would recommend to anyone who is against lie-detector type machines to look at this bayesian reasoning introduction. The link does not discuss lie detectors in particular, but demonstrates how it is possible to scientifically use machines that are 60%/40% right/wrong etc..

In this actual case I feel the ACLU is preying on the fact that most people are ignorant of statistics and probabilities. Even if a lie detector works only 15% of the time, it can be sucessfully used to improve intelligence. It goes without saying that such a machine (with less than 90% correctness at least) could not be used to prove or disprove guilt officially (as the fear mongering would have you believe).

I consider this one of the more insightful quotes from any bit of literature, ever. You can learn a lot from considering what should have happened if X is true and comparing it to reality to determine if perhaps X is not true.

Yes; it's a specific application of Bayesian reasoning.

The value of a theory lies in its ability to make accurate and precise predictions about the future. Religion has very little value in this sense, because it places few constraints on what to expect in the future; even if it is accurate, it is very imprecise. Evolution is the best theory we have about life because it makes the most accurate and precise predictions about life.
I can imagine that for people who do not know what it means to be accurate, or precise, this whole brouhaha about science must be a great mystery. I would recommend reading Eliezer Yudkowsky's Excellent Introduction to Technical Understanding , especially the paragraph on the dragon.

Why didn't you link to this page?
http://yudkowsky.net/singularity.html

*looks at name of parent poster*

Oh! Never mind.

The Singularity is not about technical progress; that's an enabling factor and a side effect. Everyone saying 'it won't make any difference; human nature will be the same' is missing the point; the whole driving force behind the Singularity concept is that soon 'human nature' in general, and human intelligence in particular, may no longer be fixed and unchanging. To be fair, Kurzweil uses completely the wrong emphasis in TSIN and encourages this misunderstanding, simply because it's easier to write about and sells more books.

Here's my attempt to describe the actual basis of the 'Singularity' concept, and I'd very strongly recommend this as a serious introduction.

The resolution to the perplexities of positivism is Bayes' Theorem.

Where p(A|X) is "the probability of A given X" and ~A means "not A"
p(A|X) = [ p(X|A)*p(A) ] / [ p(X|A)*p(A) + p(X|~A)*p(~A) ]

Much knowledge can be derived from applying that: quantum mechanics, statistics, AI theory, the scientific method and more.

This article is long, so here's the relevant bit
from "An Intuitive Explanation of Bayesian Reasoning" by Eliezer Yudkowsky
http://yudkowsky.net/bayes/bayes.html :

Previously, the most popular philosophy of science was probably Karl Popper's falsificationism - this is the old philosophy that the Bayesian revolution is currently dethroning. Karl Popper's idea that theories can be definitely falsified, but never definitely confirmed, is yet another special case of the Bayesian rules; if p(X|A) ~ 1 - if the theory makes a definite prediction - then observing ~X very strongly falsifies A. On the other hand, if p(X|A) ~ 1, and we observe X, this doesn't definitely confirm the theory; there might be some other condition B such that p(X|B) ~ 1, in which case observing X doesn't favor A over B. For observing X to definitely confirm A, we would have to know, not that p(X|A) ~ 1, but that p(X|~A) ~ 0, which is something that we can't know because we can't range over all possible alternative explanations. For example, when Einstein's theory of General Relativity toppled Newton's incredibly well-confirmed theory of gravity, it turned out that all of Newton's predictions were just a special case of Einstein's predictions.

You can even formalize Popper's philosophy mathematically. The likelihood ratio for X, p(X|A)/p(X|~A), determines how much observing X slides the probability for A; the likelihood ratio is what says how strong X is as evidence. Well, in your theory A, you can predict X with probability 1, if you like; but you can't control the denominator of the likelihood ratio, p(X|~A) - there will always be some alternative theories that also predict X, and while we go with the simplest theory that fits the current evidence, you may someday encounter some evidence that an alternative theory predicts but your theory does not. That's the hidden gotcha that toppled Newton's theory of gravity. So there's a limit on how much mileage you can get from successful predictions; there's a limit on how high the likelihood ratio goes for confirmatory evidence.

On the other hand, if you encounter some piece of evidence Y that is definitely not predicted by your theory, this is enormously strong evidence against your theory. If p(Y|A) is infinitesimal, then the likelihood ratio will also be infinitesimal. For example, if p(Y|A) is 0.0001%, and p(Y|~A) is 1%, then the likelihood ratio p(Y|A)/p(Y|~A) will be 1:10000. -40 decibels of evidence! Or flipping the likelihood ratio, if p(Y|A) is very small, then p(Y|~A)/p(Y|A) will be very large, meaning that observing Y greatly favors ~A over A. Falsification is much stronger than confirmation. This is a consequence of the earlier point that very strong evidence is not the product of a very high probability that A leads to X, but the product of a very low probability that not-A could have led to X. This is the precise Bayesian rule that underlies the heuristic value of Popper's falsificationism.

Similarly, Popper's dictum that an idea must be falsifiable can be interpreted as a manifestation of the Bayesian conservation-of-probability rule; if a result X is positive evidence for the theory, then the result ~X would have disconfirmed the theory to some extent. If you try to interpret both X and ~X as "confirming" the theory, the Bayesian rules say this is impossible! To increase the probability of a theory you must expose it to tests that can potentially decrease its probability; this is not just a rule for detecting would-be cheaters in the social process of science, but a consequence of Bayesian probability theory. On the other hand,

To clarify:

• "You" are your emergent pattern of mind: Software.
• "You" are NOT necessarily what composes your operating substrate: Hardware.

Chemical rockets are out of the question on this scale, but here are two realistic options, IMO:

• An equatorial ring of space elevators that is able to physically move bio-bodies w/ bio-brains offworld faster than they are being being born (~356,000 people/day if we assume the aging disease has been cured by then). SPS-powered.
• Transmitting your pattern of mind (aka: "you") to an offworld host reality and/or replacement body (bio or not) in reality. This option's too shockingly sci-fi for most to take seriously.

For your reference, laser surgery is already used to give patients better than normal vision. I don't know if the clinics are allowed to advertise that, where you live, but ask your ophtalmologist and you'll find out.

As for where it's going, the answer is to wonderful times. Through the accelerating pace of technological development and scientific understanding, we are entering a whole new stage in the history of the human species.

You are probably closer to the SL1 right now, but the fact that you ask these questions gives hope. It's quite easy to find the information about where it's all going nowdays, have fun learning.

Getting people to re-evaluate their core beliefs about such "sci-fi" ideas is HARD, but give Ray Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns a read if you want to understand how incredibly fast progress is going to accelerate in the next few decades leading up to our potential[1] Singularity.

Immortality -- even if only biological -- is just ONE of the implications of exponentially evolving technology, but most people will just balk at even this possibility because they can't accept even that tiny bit of future shock.

[1] The odds are that the growing incompatibility between our primitive brains and advancing tech will kill us first.

• SL0: The legendary average person is comfortable with modern technology - not so much the frontiers of modern technology, but the technology used in everyday life. Most people, TV anchors, journalists, politicians.
  
• SL1: Virtual reality, living to be a hundred, "The Road Ahead", "To Renew America", "Future Shock", the frontiers of modern technology as seen by Wired magazine. Scientists, novelty-seekers, early-adopters, programmers, technophiles.
  
• SL2: Medical immortality, interplanetary exploration, major genetic engineering, and new ("alien") cultures. The average SF fan.
  
• SL3: Nanotechnology, human-equivalent AI, minor intelligence enhancement, uploading, total body revision, intergalactic exploration. Extropians and transhumanists.
  
• SL4: The Singularity, Jupiter Brains, Powers, complete mental revision, ultraintelligence, posthumanity, Alpha-Point computing, Apotheosis, the total evaporation of "life as we know it." Singularitarians and not much else.

I've always been intrigued by Bayes Theorem myself.

For those who's eyes glass over while reading the explanations in that wiki link, you may find this intuitive explanation of Bayes Theorem (complete with Java applets) a bit easier to wrap your mind around. As for why folks think it's important... it's the basis for the Scientific Method. It's also a candidate for one of the fundamental principles of AI: the ability to draw conclusions intelligently. Be careful, reading about this could suck up half of your day. Of course, if you wanted to be productive, you probably wouldn't be reading Slashdot in the first place.

Two words: Bayes' Theorem.

Link goes to an excruciatingly gentle introduction to what this whole Bayesian thing is about, and why your friends seem to think it's so important... but I'll go ahead and spoil the ending, and say that Bayes' Theorem is, in a sense, the underlying equation of science itself; it tells you what constitutes "rational evidence" and exactly how much evidence it is, in which direction.

F=MA is a beautiful equation, don't get me wrong - but can it compare to the equation that describes how scientific theories are confirmed or falsified?

I think if more people would just read Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns then they wouldn't be so quick to dismiss him out of hand. History shows that overall progress is exponential - which most people simply haven't considered (beyond the specialized Moore's Law component of the acceleration.)

The few who do understand the scientific reasoning for a Singularity in our lifetime usually object to it for emotional reasons. The cognitive dissonance is such that it is too frightening to take such a radical future seriously even if the evidence points that way.

--

They lived in an age of exponential progress, and it was exciting. ... Then things just stopped.

Exponential progress has by no means stopped! Sure, we don't have craft traveling at the speed of light, but just because outward 1950's expectations haven't been met doesn't mean that the overall trend isn't still exponential- it is. Most of the progress has simply been focused inward, on communication, chips, biotech, and the all important nanotech.

The future we have isn't so exciting, and certainly isn't worth writing much about.

The future's not exciting? It's terrifying! :)

--

• http://www.singinst.org/

• http://yudkowsky.net/singularity.html

In the Chequers, Doctorow mentions the original title for one of the novels he's working on, a story about a spam filter that becomes artificially intelligent and tries to eat the universe. "I was thinking of calling it /usr/bin/god."

"That's great!" Stross remarks.

Well, great for those who know that "/usr/bin" is the repository for Unix programs and that "god" in this case would be the name of the program, but a tad abstract for the rest of us. This tendency can make for difficult reading--one early reader of a Stross story complained that to understand it, people would have to overdose for a month on Slashdot (a blog that calls itself "News for Nerds"). Still, it's this fluency in computer science that allows these writers to approach the future so boldly. "Stross and Doctorow are just kind of right in there, down with their heads in the bits," says novelist Bruce Sterling, one of the original cyberpunks.

Sounds great! Guess I might just have found my new idols - and I was even reading about the Singularity the other day, namely Staring into the Singularity by Eliezer Yudkowsky. What a funny coincidence.

Required reading for any so-called Futurist should be The Law of Accelerating Returns , which is more comprehensive than the more familiar Moore's "law".

An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense "intuitive linear" view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century -- it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The "returns," such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There's even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity -- technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.

When confronted by this for the first time, a lot of people are understandablyshocked, and quick to dismiss it.

Required reading for any so-called Futurist should be The Law of Accelerating Returns , which is more comprehensive than the more familiar Moore's "law".

An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense "intuitive linear" view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century -- it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The "returns," such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There's even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity -- technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.

When confronted by this for the first time, a lot of people are understandablyshocked, and quick to dismiss it.

As to why I claim that nanotech is a near-term probability, rather than hundreds or thousands of years off - it's because the law of accelerating returns convinces me that the future will arrive much sooner than most people are comfortable thinking about.

--

Yudkowsky's review (Which incidentally is considerably shorter)

The shocking conclusion I've come to is that by the time our kids grow up, I expect that another technology will have come along to make the issue of IP mostly moot. The information age gave us digital plenty, but we don't have the other side of the coin yet. Namely: nanotechnology, which will usher in the age of material plenty that removes much of the incentive for wanting an artificial monopoly in the first place. Who needs enforced artificial scarcity to "put food on the table" when the food and the table it's sitting on can be "copied" from infinitely recyclable molecules almost as easily and cheaply as an mp3?

However, even in the face of this economy of abundance there will still be quite a few mutants with very greedy genes (as they've served us well in the past), but it will be their loss since most of society will have naturally shifted to a meritocracy - rewarding the valuable givers (like scientists! :), instead of the hoarders.

--