Slashdot Mirror
Ray Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near"
popo writes "The Wall Street Journal has a (publicly accessible) review of "The Singularity is Near" -- a new book by futurist, Ray Kurzweil. By "Singularity", Kurzweil refers not to a collapsed supernova, but instead to an extraordinarily bright future in which technological progress has leapt by such exponentially large bounds that it will be... well, for lack of a better word: 'utopian'. "Mr. Kurzweil... thinking exponentially, imagines a plausible future, not so far away, with extended life-spans (living to 300 will not be unusual), vastly more powerful computers (imagine more computing power in a head-sized device than exists in all the human brains alive today), other miraculous machines (nanotechnology assemblers that can make most anything out of sunlight and dirt) and, thanks to these technologies, enormous increases in wealth (the average person will be capable of feats, like traveling in space, only available to nation-states today)." On one hand its fantastically (even ridiculously) optimistic, but on the other hand, I sure as hell hope he's right." Got mailed a review copy; I'm not finished yet, but I agree - optimistic perhaps, but the future does look pretty interesting.
HULK's Halloween decorations webcam is up!
"singularity" says nothing about "bright future" or "utopia" per sé, but more descripes a point where the ever increasing innovation rate makes predictions impossible.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
an extraordinarily bright future in which technological progress has leapt by such exponentially large bounds that it will be... well, for lack of a better word: 'utopian'.
More's Utopia was a vision of a place where Marxist Socialism actually worked. It had nothing to do with technological progress.
After reading it, you'll clearly see that there is a fine line between genius and madness. And I can't say which side of the line he's on.
End transmission.
He uses the M for his SF stuff and drops it for his more mainstream fiction.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Hmmm, like digital recording technology could be used by people who want to preserve their "intellectual property"? Just wait for the nanotech napsters and emules. When there's a "Mr. Nanoassembler" in every kitchen the concept of wealth itself will be changed to something we cannot understand today.
Why does he assume that it will be used for "good" purposes?
I haven't read Kurtzweil's book, but from TFA it seems that this point is addressed. I suppose that a nanotechnological equivalent of a "firewall" will be created somehow. Perhaps we will have an ultra thin layer that's impervious to any nanomechanism. In the same way that our bodies have immune systems to cope with germs, we will need a system to get rid of rogue nanobots.
Most of the people who disagree with the peak oil thesis tend to rely on "the market" being the holy savior. While it may be true that "the market" will help out, the thesis states that by the time the market does self-correct, many, many people will be thrust out of the middle class due to increasing debt (based, in part, on the housing bubble) with some serious inflation due to higher energy costs.
Others cling towards fission as a way to generate energy until the renewables (including fusion) are up to snuff. I agree with this idea even though I'm generally opposed to nuclear power. The only problem is that our oil consumption, used in the construction of nuclear power plants, is currently involved in a positive feedback loop. That is, getting oil or constructing anything to relieve our dependence on oil currently takes oil (ie, you don't see many solar powered backhoes). The sooner we break that loop the better chance we have to stop the supposed effects of peak oil.
It is my position that unless we realize there is a problem, we're in for a world of hurt within the next 10 years. I won't rehash what is on some of the other peak oil sites (wikipedia's article is a fairly un-biased resource), but I think its fairly obvious that the days of the 30 minute commute are numbered. E-commerce may take a large hit when shipping costs skyrocket due to fuel costs as well.
As described, this sounds just like the singularity Vinge always writes about. I hope he gets credit. I do think there's some sort of singularity coming, but I'm less sure than Kurzweil that we can predict much of what will be on *this* side of it, let alone on the other side.
BTW, for those who (like me) had always pronounced "Vinge" to rhyme with "hinge", according to Vinge himself it rhymes with "dingy".
Ummm... they're the same person. From Wikipedia:
Dave
"But technology will continue to make it more likely."
No it won't. The fact which most head-in-the-clouds techno
pundits forget is that no amount of technology (aside from
some sort of genetic fiddling) can change basic human nature.
These pundits always make the simply assumptions , ie:
poverty = crime
more technology = less poverty
Nice idea, but total bullshit. Despite levels of technology
which to someone from even 200 years ago would seem like magic,
we still have people starving in large parts of the world and
even in the west we have people living on the streets, violence,
wars and so forth.
Technology doesn't change humanity , humanity changes technology.
If you people would RTFB, you'd discover that the Singularity has a history of intellectual discussion going back around two decades. The treatments in science fiction are a part of that, but just reading the SF isn't going to get you much (any more than reading SF will teach you physics, or math, though it might serve to get you interested).
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix/vinge/vinge-s ing.html
http://singinst.org/what-singularity.html
http://www.accelerationwatch.com/
And let's not forget:
http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/search.pl?query=Sin gularity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singula rity
The first person to use the term "Singularity" as applied to futurism was John von Neumann, and he used it to mean a disruptive change in the future brought about by a high level of technology.
The first person to postulate that recursive self-improvement in Artificial Intelligence would rapidly produce "ultraintelligent machines" was the Bayesian statistician I. J. Good. Today this is known as the "hard takeoff" scenario.
The first person to popularize the term "Singularity", referring to the breakdown in our model of the future which occurs subsequent to the (technological) creation of smarter-than-human intelligence, was the mathematician (and sometime SF author, and inventor of cyberspace) Vernor Vinge.
Kurzweil's "Singularity" belongs to the accelerating change crowd that includes John Smart. Their thesis is, first, that history shows a trend for major transitions to happen in shorter and shorter times, and second, that you can graph this on log charts, get reasonably straight lines, and extend the lines to produce useful quantitative predictions. I agree with the qualitative thesis but not the quantitative thesis.
In my opinion, Kurzweil could greatly strengthen many of his arguments by giving up on the attempt to predict when these things will occur, and just saying: "They will happen eventually." I think that it is just as important, and a great deal more probable, to say: "Eventually we will be able to create Artificial Intelligence surpassing human intelligence, and then XYZ will happen, so we better get ABC done first." Than to say: "And this will all happen on October 15th, 2022, between 7 and 7:30 in the morning."
Since I don't care particularly about when someone builds a smarter-than-human intelligence, just what happens after that, and what we need to get done before; and since I don't think that this necessarily needs to make life incomprehensible, so long as we do things right; I belong to the I.J. Good "hard takeoff" crowd. With a strong helping of Vernor Vinge, because I think there's a difference in kind associated with a future that contains mind smarter than human, which we do not get just from talking about flying cars, or space travel, or even nanotechnology.
On Slashdot, someone says "intelligence" and you think of all the computer CEOs with IQs of 120 and the starving professors with IQs of 160, and you think that means intelligence isn't important. But you will not find many excellent CEOs, nor professors, nor soldiers, nor artists, nor musicians, nor rationalists, nor scientists, who are chimpanzees. Intelligence is the foundation of human power, the strength that fuels our other arts. Respect it. When someone talks about enhancing human intelligence or building smarter-than-human AI, pay attention. That is what matters to the future, not political yammering, not our little nation-tribes. In 200 million years nobody's going to give a damn who flew the first flying car or
Planetary death rate: 150,000 lives per day. End the slaughter
I presume that:
I agree 100% about your assessment of his writing, both SF and 'social'. Try out "Whit" or "The Business" for some really well told tales that don't feature exploding planets.
Not A Sig
Correct in principle, but not in the details. Over the last 100 years, life expectancy at age 65 in the US has been increasing at a linear rate of about one month per year. Other industrialized countries may have rates of increase somewhat higher or lower than that. Compared to someone starting to draw Social Security in 1940, today's retiree at age 65 has an expected "years to live" that's only about six years longer, not 15. Studies done in the early years of Social Security included this effect -- the 1940 forecasts of how long people would live in the 1990s were almost exactly correct. A bigger effect on pension economics is the fraction of the population that reaches retirement age. Industrialized countries are safer places than they were 100, or even 50, years ago. Fewer people die in their 40s and 50s. While more people live long enough to claim SS benefits, those same people also make contributions for many more years.
The SS "crisis" in the US is overstated. An interesting place to start is the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's "A 125-Year Picture of the Federal Government's Share of the Economy, 1950 to 2075", which can be found online here. Using today's benefit formulas, SS expenses as a fraction of the national economy are predicted to stabilize at just over 6% of GDP (Figure 2 summarizes this nicely). I claim that we can afford this. According to this study, by 2075, by far the largest single component of the federal budget will be interest on the debt.
There are currently a few Cessna's on eBay with a buy-it-now price less than I paid for my car. A couple for under $20,000.
Almost anyone with a white collar job can afford a Cassna IF it is a priority for them, and they are willing to make do with a cheap car and broadcast TV.
No wonder envy is a cardinal sin. It is so fucking annoying that what Jesus would do is bitchslap you.
That's a common misunderstanding. Farming was better for a society, as it supported higher population densities and therefore larger armies. People who didn't farm got absorbed by those who did, one way or another. That doesn't mean it was a better deal for the individual.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The Blurb:
Lawrence had ordained that Prime Intellect could not, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. But he had not realized how much harm his super-intelligent creation could perceive, or what kind of action might be necessary to prevent it.
Caroline has been pulled from her deathbed into a brave new immortal Paradise where she can have anything she wants, except the sense that her life has meaning.
Now these two souls are headed for a confrontation which will force them to weigh matters of life and death before a machine that can remake -- or destroy -- the entire Universe.
Have you ever read Kurzweil? He has impressive credentials.
If one were to completely solve aging, the "average" longevity would be 2000-3000 years (limited by ones hazard function). If one adds to that nanotechnology based "enhancements" one is probably pushing 10,000 years. Taking uploading into account, ones lifespan could be trillions of years. Ray pushes the envelope but he may have some problems with where the actual limits are.
Jaysyn, The specifics are in the 1st part of the book. When I met him in 1989, it was business, so I didn't know his personal situation. I THINK it is Type II as I recall the onset was after he was an adult. The doctor he wrote the book with is who helped design his treatment plan. Going on the book, it sounds like it worked. UB
I am my own gestalt.
I think what you mean is "That's why there's an ever shrinking need for a lower-class population." If I'm not mistaken, the "lower class" has been expanding while the "middle class" has been shrinking.
Speak truth to power.
Where would we be if humans were satisfied with the here and now?
Utopia.
I think that this is more insightful than funny. If us humans were satisfied with the here and now we would have no reasons to oppress* others for our own advancement.
*I couldn't think of another word.