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.

20 of 970 comments (clear)

  1. Well hurry the hell up then. by Associate · · Score: 5, Funny

    Things have pretty much sucked up to this point.

    --
    Someone hates these cans.
    1. Re:Well hurry the hell up then. by MindStalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, I'd much rather be plowing fields daily and walking by foot in the snow to the store. Oh yea, things may seem suckey, but only in comparison to your wishes. Trust me, utopia will be sucky too, such is the vastness of human desire.

    2. Re:Well hurry the hell up then. by Itchy+Rich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trust me, utopia will be sucky too, such is the vastness of human desire.

      Exactly. Without a significant shift in human cultures any utopia cannot happen, whether we have the technology or not. We could never agree on what utopia should be like, and would fight about it.

    3. Re:Well hurry the hell up then. by LnxAddct · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ray Kurzweil is a reknowned "futurist" who has accurately predicted the future literally hundreds of times. He sometimes is even responsible for it happenning, i.e. he created the first synthetic instruments, first electronic book reader for the blind, the first robot that creates truly original art, a robot that writes poems inspired by other poems ( from what I understand, he really just uses an elegant markov chain), and he is currently one of the industry leaders in Artificial Intelligence research. He owns like 12 corporations and is a millionaire not because he is a crazy lunatic, but because he is often accurate and good at what he does. In addition to the above, he is often paid hefty sums of money to do consulting at Lockheed Martin and some other major companies. This guy is no joke, take what he says seriosuly.
      Regards,
      Steve

  2. WSJ Writer is Glenn Reynolds of InstaPundit Fame by Hulkster · · Score: 5, Informative
    The writer of the WSJ piece was Glenn Reynolds who is identified as "a professor of law at the University of Tennessee but is probably better know for his InstaPundit.Com Blog. Interesting piece - Glenn has been published numerous times in the WSJ and (staying out of politics because people get overly zealous about this), writes some darn good stuff IMHO.

    HULK's Halloween decorations webcam is up!

  3. Optimisim sells... by ankarbass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can sell more copies of a book that talks about how we will all be rich and immortal than you can of one that predicts more of the same.

    --
    Wanted: Clever sig, top $ paid, all offers considered.
  4. The problems of today... by manonthemoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    aren't with the technology. We have "utopian" level technology compared to 80 years ago right now. The problem is with the people.

    Look at Russia. Rampant alcholism, suicide, murder, gansterism, etc. Yet it is perfectly capable of sending off spaceships and creating high level technology.

    I appreciate and welcome all the anticpated advances- but unless we create a worldwide civil society that is robust, honest, and representative; it won't make a dime's worth of difference.

  5. Kurzweil is not an optimist by L.+VeGas · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pessimist: "That glass is half empty."
    Optimist: "That glass is half full."
    Kurzweil: "The self-cloning milk in that glass will replicate thanks to nanobots and end world hunger."

  6. Re:Mega Rich by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unfrortunately this will only be accessible to the super mega ultra rich.

    I really have no idea why people keep holding to this idea. The "super mega ultra rich" are by no means the powerhouse they once were. Today's society instead revolves around the needs of the middle class. If the middle class will be unable to afford it in the near future, the "super mega ultra rich" aren't going to be able to afford it (or even have it available) now.

    Sure, the "super mega ultra rich" can afford nicer stuff than you and I, but they certainly don't have much that you and I don't have. A quick comparison list:

    They have -> We have
    Expensive Sports Car -> Affordable Sports Car
    $3000 Cell Phone -> $0-$500 Cell Phone
    Jet Plane -> Cessna
    Mansion -> Spacious Home
    Ming Vase -> A Vase that you can use

    The world isn't what it was in the time of H.G. Wells. I seriously doubt you'll be seeing the "poor" eating the "rich" anytime soon. :-)

  7. Re:Dear Science by JanneM · · Score: 5, Funny

    Where is my flying car.
    Get on it. I was promised one more than 50 years ago.


    Dear Public,

    We'll deliver you your flying car once you show you can handle the responsibility. They aren't a toy, you know. And your current record with wheeled cars frankly doesn't inspire confidence. Maybe next year.

    All the best,

    Science

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
  8. Kurzweil is dead wrong by jamie · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Ray Kurzweil is dead wrong. I respect his work but his impossibly optimistic projections are misleading. Here's one numerical example. Kurzweil has claimed "human life expectancy" was increasing by "150 days, every year," and that shortly, increases in life expectancy would be beating Nature in the footrace:

    with the revolutions coming in genomics, perdiomics, therapeutic cloning, rational drug design, and the other biotechnology revolutions, within 10 years we'll be adding more than a year, every year, to human life expectancy. So, if you can hang in there for another 10 years, (don't spend all of your time in the French Quarter!), this will be the increase in human life expectancy. We'll get ahead of the power curve and be adding more than a year every year, within a decade.

    The accompanying graph is staggering but only shows five points of data. Its top point shows a life expectancy of 77 years in 1999 or so, which of course is not human life expectancy. Human life expectancy is about 65, ranging from about 43 in poor countries to 79 in the richest country. Kurzweil's statement only applies to the wealthy; in much of Africa, life expectancy fell dramatically during the 1990s.

    And since he's clearly talking about life extension, the reader should be aware that there is no exponential curve at the top of the lifespan. His numbers gained mostly from improvements in child nutrition and antibiotics, and there aren't any continued improvements to be made in those (quite the opposite, actually). If we look at the average continued life expectancy for Americans aged 75, between 1980 and 1985 they gained 0.2 years; 1985-1990, 0.3 years; 1990-1995, 0.1 years; 1995-2000, 0.4 years; 1997-2002, 0.3 years. This is good. But it's not exponential lengthening of lifespan.

    Oh, and the "decade" within which he promised we'd be ahead of the curve is now half over. The above quote is from 2000.

    The main logical error Kurzweil makes is simply that he thinks computers will get smarter because they get faster. Readers who believe the one has anything to do with the other need to go back to Dreyfus' 1972 classic What Computers Can't Do. From there, start reading over the painful history of what is now called "strong A.I.", and what used to be just called "A.I.", to see how necessarily limited our efforts have become. Kurzweil elides over this distinction in the worst way. He starts by saying that computers are now as smart as an insect -- which is unrefutable because nobody can quantify what that means -- and proceeds to predicting that they will be as smart as people once they get n times faster. No, I'm sorry, all that means is that they will be as smart as n insects. Whatever the hell that means.

    Mostly I wouldn't care. Fantasy is fun. Except that Pollyannaish predictions of paradise-yet-to-come persuade people that the problems we create for ourselves are irrelevant. If you think the Rapture or the Singularity is going to make all currently conceivable problems laughable, little things like massive extinction and global warming turn into somebody else's problem. They're not -- and our grandchildren, with their very fast and non-sentient computers, and their non-300-year lifespans, are going to be kind of ticked that you and I spoiled the planet.

  9. Re:Dear Science by Peldor · · Score: 5, Funny

    Screw your jet pack, I want loose alien chicks!

  10. Perhaps Heresy on Slashdot, BUT... by ausoleil · · Score: 5, Insightful
    One only has to go back through ancient issues of Popular Science or Life Magazines to read through promised Utopia through technology. Flying cars, personal atomic power plants, smart homes, etc., were the rule of the day back then, and they all had fleetingly brilliant promise to bring a new "wealth" of leisure.

    It didn't happen.

    Fast forward to the 1970's at the advent of the personal computer revolution and read magazines like "Byte" or similiar. The coming of age of the PC was to free us from mundane tasks, make work easier, give us more leisure time because things were simpler.

    That did not happen either, even if Byte and others were correct in saying that the computer revolution was here to stay.

    There is a truism in regards to technology: when something is made easier to do, more of it is expected to be done.

    Or, if you prefer, back to the PC analogy: PC's have made things like spreadsheets, memos, etc., far easier for the average office worker, but instead of being rewarded with more leisure time, more spreadsheets and memos etc. are expected instead. In other words, instead of making life easier, more work has been created and now we are more or less enslaved to the technology that it is done on.

    History is rife with examples of this: cellphones, for example. Now you cannot get away and work goes with you everywhere, all too often 24/7. Enslaved to the never-ending communication, instead of better, we got more.

    George Santayna said those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. True. And history here will repeat itself. Technology will make things easier, and when they are easier it will be expected that more of it will be done.

    And, as anyone who has sat on a beach with only a cool drink and the waves to contemplate, more work, no matter how "easy" is not Utopia.

  11. Re:Yeah by UttBuggly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Folks, I've met Ray and done business with his KAI company. He is freakin' brilliant...and then some. That's not to say his "utopian future" is any more likely than "Jetson flying cars", but he's certainly NOT a goofball or charlatan. I'm currently reading "Fantastic Voyage", his book about life extension. Having a background in medicine, I can say that the things he and the doctor co-author cite are both plausible and in agreement with current research for the most part. Ray is a diabetic who no longer requires insulin injections; he manages his illness through diet and exercise. This quest to fight his illness led to the book. So from his own experience, the quality if not the length of his life has improved through application of some of the ideas in the book. SOO, I'm not going to dismiss the new book until I've read it...he might be right! :o)

    --
    I am my own gestalt.
  12. Re:Mega Rich by CameraChimera · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What are you on about? Let me guess: you live in a gated community and you and your other nouveau riche friends occasionally take your Cessna down to Mexico for the weekend. While there you stay in a secure resort, safe from any undesirables. In your Calvinist world, decent people are well off and if anyone has to struggle to pay the bills, you're pretty sure it's due to moral failings. And like any decent American, you would never call yourself rich. You're average! Middle class! "I buy vases you can use, not like those RICH folks with their ridiculous Ming vases! HA HA HA!!"

    Wake up. You're upper class. We will eat you.

    *cough* so... yeah, crazy weather lately, eh?

  13. The stuff you have is even more fantastic by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Rewind your brain 15 years and imagine what you'd think if I told you:

    Your computer will be roughly 1,000 faster than what you're using today. You will probably have more than 4,000 times the memory, and a fast hard drive that stores over 100,000 times as much as that floppy you're using. You can buy these supercomputers for less than $500 at Wal-Mart.

    That computer will be hooked into a self-directed network that was designed by the Department of Defense and various universities - along with nearly 400,000,000 other machines. Your connection to this network will be 10,000 times faster than the 300 baud modem you're using. In fact, it will be fast enough to download high-quality sound and video files in better than realtime.

    There will be a good chance that your computer's operating system will have been written by a global team of volunteers, some of them paid by their employers to implement specific parts. Free copies of this system will be available for download over the hyperfast network. You will have free access to the tools required to make your own changes, should you want to.

    You will use this mind-bendingly powerful system to view corporate sponsored, community driven messages boards where people will bitch about having to drive cars that are almost unimaginably luxurious compared to what you have today.

    Remember: in some fields, the singularity has already happened.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:The stuff you have is even more fantastic by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The Intellectual Property/information singularity is happening right now, if anyone cares. At this exact moment. From now on, there will be pre-2000 knowledge, and post-2015 knowledge, or whenever this ends.

      Not just copyrights, either. Patents are getting a shake-down, and remember when people had trademarks instead of google rankings?

      Remember when there were corporations dedicated to providing 'news'? Remember when people who uncovered some secret, global spanning government conspiracy would race to mail it to a trusted person, or a newpaper reporter, and hope they didn't end up dead, instead of just posting it on the net and everyone knowing about it one hundred and twenty seconds later when their RSS feeds updated?

      Remember when there was a lot of information out there, like mapping phone numbers to addresses or the location of secret government installations in the middle of nowhere, and it was hard to find? Remember that? When we knew information existed, yet couldn't immediately find it?

      There used to be buildings you could go to to find out who was the king of England in 1293, and what the capital of Chad is, and who pitched the first recorded no-hitter in MLB. (Edward I, N'Djamena, and Nixey Callahan, which I looked up in less than one minute.) I think they were called 'liberbies' or something. Rememeber when you used to have to go to them?

      If any industry starts spinning wildly for no apparent reason, with pieces flying off left and right, it's probably in the middle of a singularity.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  14. Links, history of Singularity by Eliezer+Yudkowsky · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  15. Re:Mega Rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They have -> You have -> I have
    Expensive Sports Car -> Affordable Sports Car -> A 1984 Ford Ares
    $3000 Cell Phone -> $0-$500 Cell Phone -> $0.35/minute payphone
    Jet Plane -> Cessna -> Sometimes when I'm in my cubical I put out my arms and make airplane noises
    Mansion -> Spacious Home -> Small 1 bedroom apartment next door to noisy @ssholes
    Ming Vase -> A Vase that you can use -> No vase, but no plants so who cares
    Private doctors -> public HMO -> My health plan: don't get sick (thanks to both Clinton and Bush)
    Hot women -> fat women -> blind women
    Electric heat -> Gas heat -> I just have gas
    Gold plated Mozart records -> vynil Beatles records -> police record
    Privacy -> a false sense of security -> run, Forest, run
    Celebrity friends -> friends -> a socket puppet
    Huge income, lots of time off -> modest income, unpaid overtime -> No income, lots of time off
    Sex in a private jacuzzi -> sex in the community pool -> sex at the zoo (and not with other patrons)
    Dashing good looks -> good hegine -> the roaches I live with are disgusted by me
    Vote Republican -> vote Democrat -> Voted for the rabbit to get the tricks
    Plays golf -> plays bowling -> plays with himself
    Bogus diploma from Harvard/Yale because daddy is a major contributor -> diploma from community college -> Ph.D. in mathematics and computer science (yeah kids, stay in school)

  16. Re:Where would we be if humans were satisfied w/ n by Neoncow · · Score: 5, Funny
    Where would we be if humans were satisfied with the here and now?

    Utopia.