Slashdot Mirror
NPR Looks to Technological Singularity
Rick Kleffel writes to tell us that NPR is featuring a piece with both Vernor Vinge and Cory Doctorow looking at the possibility of the "technological singularity" in the near future. Wikipedia defines a technological singularity as a "hypothetical "event horizon" in the predictability of human technological development. Past this event horizon, following the creation of strong artificial intelligence or the amplification of human intelligence, existing models of the future cease to give reliable or accurate answers. Futurists predict that after the Singularity, posthumans and/or strong AI will replace humans as the dominating force in science and technology, rendering human-specific social models obsolete."
...welcome our new post-human overlords. (Somebody had to say it.)
So, they first say that you can't predict what'll happen after that singularity because The World Will Be So Different Than Now, and then proceed to give predictions of what'll happen after that singularity?
Brilliant, real brilliant.
Since when have futurists have gotten anything right? If we believe them we would all be enjoying our flying cars, that can interact with us using voice control. We would talk to each other using video phones(first designed in 1969? AT&T).
The event singularity doesn't have to happen because the futurists are always wrong.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
"The future is already here; it's just not evenly distributed."
-- William Gibson
First Post-Human!
I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
Well, I doubt it. I agree with most of the idea of the 6:17 cast and even agree that educational and social changes like widespread literacy may be considered a singularity, but I seriously doubt the timeframe of one generation/30 years they mention. Literacy was adapted over hundreds of years, network communities have been developing for at least 30 years and are still primitive and very far from a "collective mind". For me Wikipedia is "augmented intelligence", but before that I had the Encyclopedia Britannica on my iBook and before that an encyclopedia on my desk, so this to is evolved. And since the Wikipedia is created by so many, it may be considered a primitive product of the "meta intelligence" described.
Btw, the piece from NPR focuses (very trendy) on collaboration and advanced information management, they do not lay great hope on a major breakthrough in AI.
memomo: free web based language trainer DE-EN-ES-FR-IT
Where can I get this soundbite in a useful format??
"Fix it"
It will be a Technological Singularity ON WHEELS!
Willy on Wheels!
An author using /. to publicise their latest novel. Yawn.
From what I've seen we are as near to creating decent AI as we are to producing fusion power stations.
AI's are human-designed/manufactured. Since we're prone to errors, it follows they are/will be as well. Does that mean AIs would make similar or different mistakes, and how would they handle them? The same, differently, or not at all? Will we see a regression, in that AIs will result to brute-force discovery much like early scientists? Will they evolve?
Another question area: Anyone who has built a compiler knows the three-tap rule. Build it, build it using itself, build it a third time, compare. Will AIs produce AIs, and if so, will they be better, or equally flawed? Will a 'perfect' AI still be capable of scientific invention/discovery? Will the mistakes of its human operators/supervisors/managers make up for its lack thereof?
What about drive? Will the drive of a human manager/supervisor/etc be sufficient substitute for an AI which can't posess them?
Please help metamoderate.
This summer I read C.S. Lewis's masterpiece The Abolition of Man. (No, I didn't link-jack the Amazon link for want of filthy lucre.)
Skip reading the editorial review. Here are some excerpts from the first customer reviewer, Charles Warman:
One of the toughest nuts to crack is what are going to want to do, that is what should our goals be.
If you look at most of the goals we have right now, they're pretty mundane and shortlived. Curing disease, stop killing eachother, end to hunger, creating objects that we find beautiful and pleasing, creating more living beings like ourselves.
Once we reach a singularity we'll have the technology to do away with all these problem oriented goals and I for the life of me can't really think of any obvious goals past that point. While I agree with the premise that we don't have any reliable way of predicting what our goals will become past the singularity, does anyone have any guesses?
You know, I used to have this technological post-human bent. Buried in C++ programming projects, I admired the order of all that I was creating. It was fun. I'd get a new set of behaviors programmed in the usual conditional branching - if/else, class polymorphism, you name it - and seeing it work was exhilarating. The idea that humanity could reinvent its world piece by piece - much like in the argument where if you replaced each neuron in your brain one by one with an artificial equivalent, at what point would you cease to be human, if at all? I still have Raymond Kurzweil's The Age of Spiritual Machines on one of my bookshelves.
;)
The thing is, we are still way surpassed at this by billions of years of evolution. We run on energy from fossil fuels and build from materials we've mined and shipped. On the other hand, we find bacteria living in the most surprising places, we find superior sonar in dolphins and bats to anything we make, and all of it runs on, ultimately, fresh plant matter. We get excited over a myomer that lifted some heavy weight, and I tell you, an elephant can do the same thing given enough food. The sheer variety and efficiency of the ecosystem virtually guarantees that most any way you can think to survive has been done somewhere, somehow, by some living creature. We're worrying about when oil will peak, if we can live another century, and outside our doors the world can go on for eons to come provided we don't break it with our silly toys.
And in a geek-intense environment like this one, I think I can say that it's difficult to beat the end product of a long-term evolutionary algorithm, which itself is an arguably good model of what the world around us acts like, and you all will understand.
I don't deny the coolness of my Apple notebook and I've got a decent number of shelves full of programming books, but I think biomimicry is where it's at. We can go a lot further learning from our world of proteins and DNA and RNA and using - or just having fun with! - what's already there.
We can also get out more and enjoy our analog, fuzzy-logic, neural-net-driven, molecularly-computed fleshy selves.
No offense, but I'm not sure that I buy that.
I'm an RA at an "Artificial Intelligence" lab. In the Fall, I'll be working on my PhD, studying "artificial intelligence." I have a membership to the American Association for "Artificial Intelligence," which is one of the most respected organizations in the field of "Artificial Intelligence."
I don't seen anything geniunely "intelligent" about a support vector machine, but, it does get the job done quite nicely.
I've worked with some of the best people in the field of "artificial intelligence" and spoken with a number of others. Let me look over my bookshelf... "Aritifical Intelligence - Stuart Russel and Peter Norvig." "The Society of Mind - Marvin Minsky (founder of the MIT "Artificial Intelligence Laboratory")... Some others that don't have such easy citations linking them to instances where the practitioner referred to themselves as being in the field of "Artificial Intelligence," but "Mind and Mechanism - Drew McDermott..." Lets see, he also wrote "Artifical Intelligence Programming, co-authored by Eugene Charniak."
Quite a bit of what we do has nothing to do with emulating human intelligence, though some of it does. Cog, for instance, experiments with human-like behavior. Is the neural net that I wrote that can steer a car "intelligent?" I don't really think so, not in a way that would offend me if it were called "artificial intelligence." My office-mate just got a best-paper award in an Aritifial Intelligence conference.
So, anyway, I guess to be brief, I disagree.
I keep wanting to find Vinge and slap him around a bit until he shuts up about "The Singularity". The thing is, there have been several "singularities" in human history: the Agricultural Singularity, the Industrial Singularity, the Computer Singularity, and so on and so forth. Or, to use the term that most historians use - rather than "Singularity", "Revolution." Yes, technology will change the context of human interaction. Yes, nifty and non-nifty things will happen. But, dammit, it's not as if technology has never fundamentally altered society before. Get over it, already.
We have a time-war with the Daleks.
Christ. Just wait until the "defend traditional marriage" crowd gets word of this.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Artificial primarily means that it comes from artifice (ingenuity) or art. It doesn't (directly) mean it's fake, it just means it's a consciously created work of humankind rather than nature. I think that in modern times with so many knock-offs of natural goods, such as artificial sweetener, the secondary definition has gained the upper hand.
Check out wictionary (It's the hive-mind wikipedia, it must be right!)
When you read enough literature from the 16th and 17th centuries you get more familiar with the original, literal meanings of words such as this one. A favorite subject was to compare art to nature, and they'd freely use the word "artificial" to mean that which comes from human arts. This is not to say that the secondary definition is wrong: for example, when in Book 3 of The Faerie Queene a troll creates an artificial woman to replace the girl who left him out of snow, "virgin" wax and some gold wire (and of course wackiness ensues) it is repeatedly underscored that this "False Florimell" is a cheap immitation.
Anyway, you can chose any definition you like. I sort of prefer artificial intelligence to synthetic intelligence or whatever, just because how you regard the word artificial says a lot about you and what you think of human creativity. And I don't like euphamism treadmills, which is effectively what we're talking about here.
The singularity can't happen because intelligence has limits. The hypothetical machine that makes itself ever smarter doesn't make sense.
Assuming intelligence is the ability to extrapolate from facts to deduce the future, then it's limited by the accuracy of the facts (garbage in, garbage out). There's no point in have ever greater powers of deduction if the facts have a lot of noise in them.
Sherlock Holmes looked powerful because Victorian society had high levels of structure and relatively less noise. It's common strategy to act crazy, illogical, stupid when in a conflict with more powerful enemies.
The butterfly effect, as an illustration of chaos, will protect us from the singularity.
The hard takeoff concept of a seed AI has as a prerequisit the creation of a computer program that can understand and write source code. I'd probably try to make something like that to make my job as a programmer easier, but there's no way I'd let anyone know I had.. otherwise they wouldn't need me. Which makes you wonder, maybe someone already has one.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Whatever was the top story 30 minutes ago on BoingBoing.
Only bad things happen when people steal hard-science ideas to describe soft-science phenomena-- the ridiculous (and unaccountably persistent) idea of "social evolution" is one example, and as far as I can see, this "technological singularity" notion is another. History is a phenomenally complex system; even in hindsight, it's virtually impossible to find real patterns, and grafting the language of astrophysics onto a theory of social progress lends an undeserved air of gravitas and mathematical precision to what's essentially just fun speculation.
Sure, things change, sometimes quite suddenly and unexpectedly. But really, the relationship between the development of literacy (NPR's example of a past singularity) and the subsequent course of history is nothing like the relationship between a real singularity and... anything. It's just a bad metaphor, and I think I'd have a lot more respect for "future studies" if they dropped it and came up with a new way of describing whatever phenomenon it is they're predicting
I think Bruce Sterling gave a talk on this subject, it can be found a bit down on this page: Long Now Seminars.
My personal whimsical theo.. hypoth... idea is that alien civilizations turn into (towards us) apathetic singularities, and that's why we will never hear Chenjesu's crystaline humming calling us. Maybe the universe will end in some sort of rather dull uniform black technological singularity goo.
The Chair Corp. comic(*00-12)
The C-Prize is the path to superhuman AI.
And as for the "threat" of superhuman AI:
Even assuming AI were to develop the equivalent of genetic self-interest, (something that would take a long time even if humans turned them lose to reproduce without us selecting them appropriately) I'd much rather be in competition with a species that had the potential of being symbiotic due to having a different ecological nich. If it gets to the point that the solar output (forget the sun falling on Earth here -- that's too insignificant to consider important to a silicon based life form) is the limited resource, I suspect that the nich humans will fill will be orders of magnitude larger than they now fill on earth.
The best hope humans have of the transhumanist wishful thinking is to develop superhuman AIs that find utilizing the gas giants to their advantage given the limited supply of silicon. Humans, as the highest form of organic intelligence, would be the natural species to transit to higher intelligence.
Maybe the super AI's could get around this by using a straight carbon semiconductor form of intelligence or something but there is more going on in our brains than we understand. For example, I suspect there is a lot more quantum logic going on within our brains than currently thought by cognitive scientists and neurologists. It only makes sense evolution would have exploited every angle of the physics of the universe to create intelligence. My point in bringing in the possibility of quantum logic is that there are really many things we don't know about natural systems of high complexity and I suspect the same will apply even to super AI's. The fact that we might have the laws down cold at the quantum level doesn't mean we know how things operate in the higher complexity systems.
Human brains are very valuable repositories of ancient wisdom about the universe and the most optimal thing for the super AIs to do -- at least for a while -- would be to transhumanize our brains for us.
Moreover, if it is ok to pass laws to prevent the creation of intelligences greater than our own, why isn't it ok to pass laws dumbing down the smartest among us?
The self-determination argument applied to humanity as a whole -- striving to maintain control of its own destiny by preventing the creation of higher non-human intelligences -- applies also to people who want to maintain control of their own destiny against those smarter than themselves.
Personally I'm much more frightened of unenlightened self-interest than I am enlightened self-interest.
I really wish it were possible to make some of the "smart" people who are really good at grabbing control of resources intelligent enough to understand that they are using those resources in very stupid, self-destructive ways.
Indeed, it is this abysmal stupidity among the shrewdest among us that is my main motivation for promoting super AI.
Seastead this.
...while professional futurists often get it wrong, the amateurs sometimes get it eerily right.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Now, let me see... when was the last Singularity? Was it Y2K? Or was it perhaps the Jupiter Effect (when all the planets lined up and the gravitational effect tipped the earth out of its axis?) Or am I confusing both of them with the beginning of the Aquarian Age? Or maybe I'm thinking of the Harmonic Convergence of August 17, 1987?
I'm way too young to remember the Millerites and the Great Disappointment of October 22, 1844, when Jesus failed to reappear, but I've been blessed to live through a veritable multiplicity of singularities.
Oooh, singularity! I like that word. So much kewler than, say, "Armageddon." It sounds so technical, so scientific, so free from ranting religiosity....
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Like my father said after I explained this singularity 'thing' over dinner (and lotsa wine): "Puting a million calculators next to each other doesn't make an intelligent computer". Understating the question that we may have the hardware, but we are very far from having the software for that thing...
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Experience. The hidden result of all reactions, real or imagined - observable experience.
Regardles of what gods may exist, what greater reality may exist, or whatnot, the purpose to everything can be met with a system that pursues experience in all it's variety. If we are all that is, the eternal quest for experience will be it's own purpose. Endless experience would fulful all purposes.
The trick is setting up a system of gathering experience that doesn't meet with stagnation. Stagnation can come in many forms - death/ceasation, returning to exactly the same state as some past point without being aware of it(looping), or any path that will inevitably lead to those states. Etropy is an obvious block towards seeking experience as an ultimate goal - but if totally unavoidable, then the ultimate goal would be maximizing exploration with the resources available.
Ryan Fenton
> From what I've seen we are as near to creating decent AI as we are to producing fusion power stations.
About 10 years away then...
...ask the Dalai Lama - I get the distinct feeling he's been here before.
Zen tips: Pay attention. Don't take it personally. Believe nothing.
I would reference a quote by Rick Mullin from his article Frankenstein At The Circus
"existing models of the future cease to give reliable or accurate answers"
The premise of this definition is that models of the future give reliable or accurate answers at present. What are the models they talk about? Special futurist models? Do these really give reliable or accurate answers today? Or do they mean all models of human behaviour, i.e. most models of the social sciences? Supply & demand will no longer determine price?
If the models are found not to be good predictors of behaviour, they will be modified or replaced. You know... sort of like how it works right now?
If patterns in human behaviour start changing rapidly because of rapidly evolving superhuman intelligence, then sure, our ability to model that behaviour will go out the window. But then, we wont be doing the modeling, superhuman intelligences will. I don't see why the emergence of superhuman intelligence would have to lead to a singularity.
I believe the models will cope. Not "existing models", but tomorrow's models.
If it takes over the world, neo will just have to find a hole in the Internet Explorer 2199
http://research.microsoft.com/os/singularity/
was the mastery of fire. There's no way the humanoids then could understand where it would lead. It didn't look like a singularity because history moved very slowly 200K-500K years ago.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
Is it just me, or does this sound a lot like the Christian idea of the Rapture? The chosen people, hand selected by God (or the machines, or whatever) will be elevated to sublime consciouness, while the rest of us die out by fighting wars &c. Yipee!
Rhapsody in Numbers
The problem is also mostly with the expectations people have of computers. Everyone wants computers to return deterministic and easily tracable results. For example if I want a value from a database I want to issue a query and have the value returned. I don't want a system that would return it faster but only with 80% of correctness, I don't want any "fuzziness" only exact numbers. In other words people would rather have computers do what computers are doing - calculating stuff fast and exactly, they don't want computers to really act like humans. I think subconsciously we will just never allow computers to reach a human level of soffistication and thus they will probably never surpass us.
On the other hand, what would rather happen is that we will slowly integrate machines into ourselves - litteraly. As soon as the baby is born we will tag it with an RFID, we will implant sensors for infrared vision, ultrasound, we will inject nanoparticles to boost the immune system. In other words I see a cyborg future were we become one with the machines. If anything or anyone will destroy us it will only by ourselves, at the same time if anything helps us prosper, it will also be ourselves. The future is (mostly - short of a big meteorite hitting us) in our hands...
>>> the worst it will do is solve world hunger
"Thank you for using AI-net. The best solution to "world hunger" appears to be large-scale thermonuclear war. I have taken the liberty of releasing sufficient war-heads to destroy all humans who can get hungry. As a side effect and in accordance with my prime directive (being a friend to humans) all human suffering will be ended.
Have a prosperous existence."
Douglas Hofstadter, a Pulitzer prize winning author with a Ph.D. in physics and an appointment in Cognitive Science at Indiana University, talked about Ray Kurzweil's predictions of the oncoming technological singularity at the Artificial Life X conference this year. An audio-only webcast of his talk is available.
>But: name one technological advance that humans in the past have been capable of and refrained from. There are none.
:-)
Nuclear-powered aircraft.
Flying cars.
Project Orion.
Mach 3 aircraft with real payload, e.g. the XB-70.
Fiber to the home.
Betamax
Did anyone foresee that in the 90s the largest empire humans ever built would evaporate like a soap bubble? (Except Poul Anderson in the 1953 story "The Last Deliverer"). Talk about existing models of how things work falling apart.
Imagine an intelligent and curious human from rural Nepal, or Papua New Guinea. Could you explain your job to them?
Could you do your job without the embryonic augmentations we have now, such as Google?
We're partway up that vertical curve now.
keep in mind that such Ai would probably not be a world project, but rather a single country doing it. Let us just imagine this is China or US. So most probably the country would implement a friendlines toward THEM rather than global toward human. Now the parent post begins to make a lot of frightening sense "they are against us. We can't convince to join us or be friendly to us. They need to be eliminated as a threat. Change nuke targeting system to those country. Countdown to launch 10,9,8...".
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I disagree, we are much closer to creating conscious computers than we are to effective fusion power.
In fact, I would wager that really understanding the universe and its underlying complexity will only be understood by conscious systems much more complex than the human brain - meaning that most likely, effective fusion power will be designed *BY* the intelligent machines. See my sig.
Once "they" control a power plant, then there is no need for the "us" anymore.
From a 15th century monk's perspective, today's curve is vertical. Of course to us it's clearly not. Thus the flaw of the hand-wringing over "the singularity" is illustrated--it suffers from the classic error of attempting to evaluate the future in the context of today. Of course when we get to the future, we'll be in the future too--so it doesn't matter what we think now.
Ever hear of the generation gap? The youth of today are different from us--they've been raised from birth in a world of ubiquitous networked computing and ambient findability. (see? I can throw around stupid buzzwords too.) Talk of "The Singularity" is not much different from complaining that your kids spend all their time texting. It's making explicit the fact that you can't imagine keeping up as you age. Well duh. We won't be running the show in 2050--our kids and their kids will.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
True. I'm not a Hofstadter appologist (he hardly needs one, and I'm certainly unqualified!) but I think this prediction should also be placed in it's context. Hofstadter was talking about the application of artificial reasoning in beating human chess players. The current chess champion systems aren't really reasoning, more like cheating: they spend endless cycles projecting moves forward in the problem space and then apply some huristics in selecting the next move. This is quite different to the lateral thinking and high-level pattern analysis that a human chess master applies, and makes best use of the computer's strength: high-speed drudgery work.
In that light, then I would say that so far the prediction holds true, no chess master has been beaten by a computer program that applies reasoning instead of dumb search and huristics. Also, no machine has matched the three names composing the titel of the book and likely can't for a while.
However, I'm not sure that this single prediction about chess accurately reflects the thrust of GEB anyway. Hofstadter appears to me to spend a great deal of GEB in explaining what in fact reasoning actually is, how it should be possible to mechanise. The prediction about chess doesn't jibe with the rest of the book as I remember. Perhaps I should look up the quote and then I'll understand?
“Our opponent is an alien starship packed with nuclear bombs. We have a protractor.” — Neal Stepnenso
In terms of the technological singularity, there's a big difference between brute-force search over a finite-but-large space and the sort of reasoning that humans do. Simply put, we haven't figured out how to get computers to do the sort of creative reasoning that is probably necessary for a computer to improve its own design in a way substantial enough to cause the technological singularity.
On the chess problem alone and Hofstadter's prediction, what really happened was a duel between Hofstadter and Moore, in a sense. Eventually, the raw computing power available for looking ahead through chess's ginormous FSM became large enough that having access to the lookahead information proved more useful than the abstract reasoning skills of the chess grandmasters. That was really a theoretical inevitability once the algorithm for performing that lookahead was devised (decades ago, though the more recent programs now use heuristics to prune away large parts of the search tree's breadth). In fact, at that point, the only thing not inevitable was actually fairly unrelated to actually playing chess: the continuing improvement in generic computing hardware, semiconductors, etc.
But even if computing hardware continues to improve, there's no guarantee that we'll ever come up with the algorithm necessary for allowing computers to cause the technological singularity. That's the difference between this and chess, because with chess, the algorithm was known, and it was just a matter of giving computers enough time to chug away. The technological singularity may be impossible, for all we know right now. However, even Hofstadter agrees that it's probably an eventuality, though he's orders of magnitude less optimistic about it happening "soon" than Kurzweil is.
I would rather have a historian predict the future than a self-appointed "Futurist."
;-)
On the other hand, their proposed "technological singularity" has served well as the theme of a great many science fiction novels.
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
There are no creatures anywhere in nature which use wheels. Nor, as far as I know, plants.
One word, my friend:
Tumbleweeds.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
- Moronic politicians get caught up in the hype, form a gov't agency called National Art-intel Singularity Administration to make it happen, and the country's resources in AI are drained away into ineffectiveness and software that keeps crashing.
Nah, the gov't wouldn't do something that dumb.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
Computers operate from logic, be it the simple boolean one or the highly abstracted contemporary mathematical logic in its many forms (heuristic, fuzzy, even paraconsistent) that in the end get translated into boolean anyway. Humans, on the other hand, do logic as one among many function which aren't themselves logical.
Of course you can try to emulate the non-logical functions inside a logical framework, but by doing so the machine gets trapped inside a kind of "Gödel paradox", forever unable to explain itself for lack of sufficient axioms ("sufficient" meaning "infinite"). Self-consciousness is then literally impossible.
This isn't so bad as it seems. It only means that machines, no matter how advanced, are and will always be extensios of human faculties. In other words, we are their conscience, in the exact same sense that we're the conscience "behind" our hands and feet. Or, if you like to see it this way, machines and humans are already a single thing, as they have always been, since the instant our first ancestor decided to throw his first rock.
The day humanity ends is the day all machines die. Some of them can of course keep working after that, more or less as some of our body organs sometimes stay working after our brain dies. But death is already there, unavoidable, only waiting for the power source to shut down. Death is the only real human-machine "singularity", that point after which we know nothing about. Any other is mere fiction.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Post-humanism is like a snowball. As it rolls, it gets bigger and faster.
:)
I'll use myself as an example. I wore glasses from th 5th grade on. Six years ago, after 40 years of wearing glasses, I had cataract surgery that replaced my damaged lenses with plastic ones. (Complete with warranty cards, I might add; the future is weird.) I've had diabetes for 25 years. For the first 10, I treated it with diet. For the next 10, with pills. For most of the next 5, I injected a form of insulin that was created by RNA-modified bateria in vats. (For the previous 60 years, insulin had been taken from the harvested pancreases of slaughtered cattle.) For the last couple of months, I have been injecting tiny amounts of a new drug that was developed because a molecular biologist noticed that the molecular structure of a key insulin-regulating hormone was strikingly similar to that of gila monster venom.
I take an additional 6 drugs that aid in further controlling my diabetes, control my asthma, keep my arthritis from crippling me, or act as preventatives for high blood pressure and heart disease.
I am now 54 years old. In the Stone Age, I would have died before I was 20. Even in the early 20th century, I would have been lucky to make it to 30.
We are very close to extending the human lifespan by one year every year. Don't think we Baby Boomers are going to get out of your way, kiddies. We're here for the long haul.
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim."
-Edsger Dijkstra
Thanks, I've been wondering the source ever since he brought it up.