Slashdot Mirror


IEEE Special Report On the Singularity

jbcarr83 writes "The IEEE Spectrum is running a special issue on the technological singularity as envisioned by Vernor Vinge and others. Articles on both sides of the will it/won't it divide appear, though most take the it will approach. I found Richard A.L. Jones' contribution, 'Rupturing The Nanotech Rapture,' to be of particular interest. He puts forward some very sound objections to nanomachines of the Drexler variety."

84 of 483 comments (clear)

  1. I for one welcome our by BPPG · · Score: 4, Funny

    aw, I just can't do it.

    --
    What's the value of information that you don't know?
    1. Re:I for one welcome our by spun · · Score: 5, Funny

      I for one welcome our apathetic first posting overlords, and remind them that as a trusted slashdot personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground overlord welcoming centers.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:I for one welcome our by JebusIsLord · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just think, when The Time comes, AIs will compete over first posts within picoseconds of eachother. New memes will be invented, spread and forgotten in milliseconds, and dupes will (hopefully) finally be a thing of the past.

      --
      Jeremy
    3. Re:I for one welcome our by Surt · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nahhh ... they'll be duping so fast the dupes will eventually achieve sentience and reproductive ability of their own, and live forever. Eventually, the entire universe will be filled with nothing but dupes.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:I for one welcome our by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What? Our singular overlords? Our eschatonic overlords.

      Is it just me, or does all this poorly-reasoned "singularity" crap have a religious feel to it?

    5. Re:I for one welcome our by JebusIsLord · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't think it is poorly reasoned, but it does definitely have a religious feel to it - in a good way! It gives us God-is-dead scientific-types something to strive for (enlightenment, immortality) with an actual basis in fact.

      If you assume that:

      * Technology will continue to improve exponentially (it is right now - see Moore's law)
      * The brain is a fully deterministic computer.

      Then it is a fair assumption that we will eventually design a superbrain. The superbrain will design a super-duper brain, and the chain reaction (singularity) will be upon us. I can't wait!

      --
      Jeremy
    6. Re:I for one welcome our by fm6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Technology will continue to improve exponentially (it is right now - see Moore's law) Dude, Moore's "law" will cease to apply in just a few years. It's not a law of nature, it's an observation that chip fab facilities double their resolution every 18 months. But you can only take that so far. Soon, quantum tunneling will make it impossible to print circuits any finer.

      Understand, I'm not claiming that progress in creating smaller and cheaper circuits will suddenly come to a halt. There's too much economic demand for that to happen. But development will have to switch to new technologies, and progress almost certainly will be slower.

      Every kind of growth has limits. If it didn't bacteria would still be the most conspicuous life form on the planet. Science and technology are no different. They're dependent on natural resources, an educated pool of skilled workers, and a lot of other factors.

      Then it is a fair assumption that we will eventually design a superbrain. The superbrain will design a super-duper brain, and the chain reaction (singularity) will be upon us. I can't wait! Again with the silly curve drawing. "Smarter" isn't something you can make just by packing in enough circuits. People don't even know what "smarter" is. Probably they'll figure it out eventually. But it's already clear that "smarter" is more complicated than any technology we'll see in the next century or so.
    7. Re:I for one welcome our by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Somewhere in the article(s) it mentions that exponential increases in intelligence would probably equate to exponential increases in resources. There are physical limits to intelligence that we'll run into sooner or later--there will be a point where we can't shrink that transistor, or find another part that is smaller that does the same task.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    8. Re:I for one welcome our by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dude, Moore's "law" will cease to apply in just a few years. It's not a law of nature, it's an observation that chip fab facilities double their resolution every 18 months. But you can only take that so far. Soon, quantum tunneling will make it impossible to print circuits any finer.

      When relays reached max density, tubes appeared. Tubes were shrunk, and at about the time when they couldn't get a lot smaller, transistors appeared. Those shrunk for a while, then IC's appeared. IC's have been shrinking for a while, with various technologies, each able to go smaller than before, driving that change. Now IC's are within reach of maximum density in the 2D zone, but the 3rd dimension beckons, especially to low-power (hence low heat) technologies. Two layers gives a doubling in the same 2d space; four does it again... that's probably good for quite a few doublings before the 3rd dimension becomes unwieldy. In the meantime, can we anticipate what might come next? Biologicals are one possibility; look at the brain. 3d and fits in a funny shape. Brains come in all sizes, and who is to say that the one we have is either the best design or the largest or the fastest? What if materials that work 2x as fast as our neurons are found? Look at the recent development of memristors; how many people saw that coming? Not many! And they're not even in hardware yet. They have the potential to spike memory density up, power down, speed up, and more... because they aren't transistors at all. And they're small. In fact, the smaller they are, the better they seem to work. There's a limit in there somewhere, but still, how cool is that?

      Furthermore, Moore's law is just one aspect of technology; we are also experiencing doublings along many other paths (see Ray Kurzweil's observations for details on that) and some of them aren't about materials or hardware, they're about knowledge leveraging next steps. For instance, in the late 1970's, we had microprocessors that were very capable, but we didn't have many kinds of software. If we had it at the time, we could have done more, earlier... nothing but knowledge. But instead, many of these software technologies didn't show up for years. Yet we could take one of those microprocessors (a 6809 or a z80, for instance) and program all *manner* of cool things on them today, were it called for. And build them huge memory spaces, too. To put it another way, with what I know after 40 years of programming, if I could go back in time to 1979, what I now know how to do with microprocessors would make me a very rich man. Technology has come a long way regardless of Moore's law. Technology multiplies itself.

      Honestly, there is nothing that falls so flat on my ears as doomlike predictions of technology reaching an unbreachable wall. Not going to happen. What's going to happen is technology will continue to double. The consequences of that are shrouded in mystery, but the one thing that is clear is that there will be extremely significant consequences.

      Here's an observation for you: When you have projects that are pendant upon technologies that are experiencing doublings in a particular time period, those projects will typically get 1/2 of the total work done in the last time period.

      For example, four time periods of doublings: 1 - 2 4 8 16... a total factor of 31, of which 16 occurred in the last period. It is because of this that projects like the human genome project look stalled at first; half of the work required to get them done will occur in the last doubling period (about a year in that case.) I suspect that's exactly what we're looking at with fusion as well; we're just not far enough up the curve yet.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    9. Re:I for one welcome our by careysub · · Score: 4, Informative

      I am reminded of an article published in Analog around 1970 showing the exponential curve of the speed of human travel. It plotted very nicely: horse, locomotive, aeroplane, rocket. At the time human speed had recently hit a new high: the Apollo moon missions with humans traveling at 11.09 km/sec (Apollo 10 in 1969 was the fastest). The author projected we would be traveling close to the speed of light and be prepared to colonize the galaxy before 2000.

      Almost 40 years later the fastest any human has ever travelled is (drum roll) 11.09 km/sec on Apollo 10. It looks like, with luck, humans may again travel about as fast in another 20 years.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    10. Re:I for one welcome our by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 2, Insightful

      * Technology will continue to improve exponentially (it is right now - see Moore's law)

      However this will not and cannot continue ag nausium because eventually the laws of thermodynamics catch up with you.

      * The brain is a fully deterministic computer.
      This is an unproven article of faith and contrary to a lot of evidence which would appear the brain uses at least some semi chaotic processes. Most natural system do.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    11. Re:I for one welcome our by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All natural systems are deterministic. Those who believe otherwise just want to belive that the soul is a real thing. :)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:I for one welcome our by wurp · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree that melting the planet into grey goo is unlikely to happen on any short scale in the forseeable future.

      In terms of what we do that is better than nature:
      * reproducing sound & video
      * travel long distances
      * travel at great speeds
      * convert sunlight, air & water into calories (nitrogen fertilizer; caveat: we use semi-natural plants to do it)
      * blow shit up
      * survive a variety of harsh environments (cold, heat, vacuum, high pressure)
      * build shelter

      And some things we do that afaik nature (at least, other living things) just doesn't do:
      * produce massive energy densities (fission & fusion)
      * heat & cool our environments (really probably belongs under "harsh environments", above)
      * simulation

      Of course, since man and his technologies are really part of the natural world, this gets ambiguous - by "doing it better than nature", I mean doing it better than any other comparable animal does it with their technology & physiology.

    13. Re:I for one welcome our by spun · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nature reproduces sound and video in our heads pretty damn well.

      As for long distance travel, many animals are capable of traveling much further without refueling/maintenance than any machine (outside of a space craft) can.

      We do 'great speeds' better than nature, given.

      Any process based on plant energy conversion can not beat the efficiency of plants themselves. However, plants convert less than 1% of sunlight into usable energy. With PV, we have them beat by an order of magnitude in efficiency. As far as total calories converted per year, plants have us beat, though.

      Blow shit up: given, but some animals do use explosives (bombardier beetles) or mechanical shock-waves (mantis shrimp ) to attack or defend.

      Survive a variety of harsh environments: not even close. Nature has us beat, hands down. Just look at extremophiles.

      Build shelter, debatable.

      Massive energy densities, given.

      Heat and cool our environment. Bees and termites do this in very sophisticated ways.

      Simulation. Not even close, nature has us beat. Oh, what, you think that's actually reality you are witnessing inside your own head?

      No, it's the most sophisticated simulation ever built. Or rather, two simulations, an expressive one and a predictive one. The first is built up out of raw sense data, the second creates the same type of output stream, but based on predictions not sense data. The two streams are compared up to sixty times per second, and when they don't match, the experienced is raised up to conscious awareness.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    14. Re:I for one welcome our by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      Somewhere in the article(s) it mentions that exponential increases in intelligence would probably equate to exponential increases in resources. We'll soon be needing more coffee than the arable land of the world can produce just to wake our smart-phones up in the morning!
      --
      which is totally what she said
    15. Re:I for one welcome our by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      Those who believe otherwise just want to belive that the soul is a real thing. I just spent real money on a James Brown album, you insensitive clod!
      --
      which is totally what she said
    16. Re:I for one welcome our by Durf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Smarter" isn't something you can make just by packing in enough circuits. People don't even know what "smarter" is. Probably they'll figure it out eventually. But it's already clear that "smarter" is more complicated than any technology we'll see in the next century or so.

      Thank you for that. As a translator I have to chuckle when each year companies come out with new machine translation technologies or software that are "even closer to replacing human translators than ever!" They aren't.

      It's possible to make machines faster and filled with more brute computing force, but that means they will be able to do the same things, faster and more at once. Unless we get down the entirely new business of studying how our brains actually work and reproducing those processes, instead of dabbling around with complex arrays of on/off circuits, we won't truly get closer to machines that can do the job of actual thinking for us.

      The day may come when computers replace human translators like me. But that day will also see the replacement of airplane pilots, surgeons, software creators, soldiers, you name it. All that's left for humans is to engage in pure artistic pursuits . . . and hope that at least a few of us are still interested in growing crops so we have something to eat.

  2. The singularity already happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We're all living virtualized lives of our lives prior to the singularity happening. It's an infinite loop, but our only way of dealing with it.

    1. Re:The singularity already happened by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://www.simulation-argument.com/classic.html That's what you're thinking of. And honestly, it does make some sense, but I'm not sure if replacing God with unbounded recursion is much more pleasing.

    2. Re:The singularity already happened by UID30 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I read a paper a few years back (somewhere webby, but i can't remember where) that came to the conclusion ... "If it is at all possible to build a virtual system with enough detail to describe our universe, then it is probable we are in one already."

      As I remember, the conversation threads then devolved into whether or not it would be possible for one of those virtual systems to, within the simulation, build a virtual simulation with the same resolution ... giving rise to 1st, 2nd, 3rd,... and n-th tier simulations. ... which inevitably gave rise to the old post, "You're very clever, young man, very clever, but it's turtles all the way down!"

      --
      "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte
    3. Re:The singularity already happened by Surt · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is not possible to build such a simulation given our current knowledge of the laws of the universe. So whoever built this simulation ensured that it would not just devolve into turtles.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:The singularity already happened by John+Bayko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I read an excellent short story on that subject here: I don't know, Timmy, being God is a big responsibility

    5. Re:The singularity already happened by naoursla · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You don't need unbounded recursion. If simulated universe A is simulating universe B then it makes sense for the machine running A to optimize computation by running B directly on the physical hardware. We are all running directly under the root node.

      I suspect the root doesn't have locality enforcement (which can be observed by measuring the upper limit on the speed of light) or entropy like we do . Imagine how powerful a computer could be if its elements could communicate instantaneously over light years of distance.

    6. Re:The singularity already happened by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      However, musn't there be a first post-human civilization? Probably, but all you'll see on /. is first-post human civilisation
      --
      which is totally what she said
  3. At laaaasstt !!! by unity100 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now all i need to do is to harness the power of this singularity using the nanotech rupture to build my army of Vernor Vingor nanomachines !!!

  4. The what? by Hatta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Singularity, that's the thing at the center of a black hole right? What's that got to do with nanotech and AI?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:The what? by BPPG · · Score: 5, Informative

      Singularity, that's the thing at the center of a black hole right? What's that got to do with nanotech and AI?

      Mankind has been progressing technologically in steps that seem to get closer and closer together. The theory is that at some point, technological advances will begin to happen all at once, with the emergence of things like sentient AI and usable quantum engineering. Basically, technological transcendence.

      It's a pretty silly idea, but everyone has their own vision of nirvana.

      --
      What's the value of information that you don't know?
    2. Re:The what? by bistromath007 · · Score: 5, Funny

      People who consider the singularity something to be worried about missed the point and/or watch too many movies. A technological singularity is not a world-ending scenario. It's the first step on the road to divinity.

    3. Re:The what? by ushering05401 · · Score: 4, Informative

      IIRC the term singularity can refer to anyplace that predictive systems appear break down.

      I was listening to a talk on hypercanes quite some time ago, and the lecturer was using the term singularity to describe the point beyond which the weather system became self-sustaining, a situation for which the predictive equations could not account. Once the predictive systems are expanded the 'singularity' is 'pushed back' to the point where the systems break down again.

    4. Re:The what? by maxume · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The real entertainment begins when we figure out that we are already living in the singularity, and that it is going to end soon. That is, a plateau is at least as likely an outcome of a hockey stick graph as a singularity. Hard physical limits and all that noise.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:The what? by Lord+Lode · · Score: 3, Informative

      Look it up on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity It's the point where machines will be able to evolve technology faster than human thinking can. So, it's the point where we are no longer the most significant sentient race on this planet.

    6. Re:The what? by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 2, Informative

      In this context it refers to a technological singularity as posited by Vernor Vinge, Eric Drexler et. al.: An accelerating feedback loop of technology leading to better, faster technology is cycling down towards zero time between improvements at which point progress will literally leap forward faster than we can imagine - a singularity in technology.

      Most singulitarians expect the first human-equivalent AIs circa 2025 and the singularity circa 2045.

    7. Re:The what? by bunratty · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think you're missing the point of the singularity. Mankind has progressed at a rate limited by his brain, which is determined by genetics. Our brains have a bounded capacity and rate of operation, and our brain can evolve at only a very slow rate. Therefore, our rate of advancement has been bounded.

      On the other hand, if we develop beings with an artificial intelligence equal to the smartest scientists, they could potentially develop a second generation that would be improved. That generation could operate more quickly and be smarter, and develop a third generation even more quickly. Essentially, the limit to our rate of advancement would be removed, and that would cause technological advances to happen very quickly. In a short period of time, we could find ourselves surrounded by beings that seem like gods to us. I think it's less a matter of whether it will happen, and more a matter of when and how it will happen.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    8. Re:The what? by ushering05401 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      According to Kurzweil's vision the move to intelligent mass following the singularity will be relatively swift as all of the existing computational power will be dedicated to bridging the divides between the intelligence and the medium.

      It is suggested that once the intelligence and the medium are one, then force will simply be an expression of 'thought,' and could only be instructive, and not destructive.

      Just a thought, and not my own at that.

    9. Re:The what? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Believe what you want, but I sincerely doubt anything like that will happen when corporate interests keep stiffling innovation.

      We're still stuck with primitive programming languages, defective (by design?) platforms, unimplementable document formats (OOXML anyone?), carbon-based power plants, software patents....

      There CANNOT be any singularity. The chilling effect of Mankind's stupidity is a factor too great to ignore.

    10. Re:The what? by UncleTogie · · Score: 2

      A computer that can solve problems using methods similar to ours will improve itself and reach scientific breakthroughs at a rate far faster than we can understand them.

      ...So what happens when it determines that the biggest problem with this planet is the ugly bags of mostly water...?

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    11. Re:The what? by Bazer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Nature doesn't like singularities" That's a quote I often heard form my physics professor. We're physically bound to hit a wall.

    12. Re:The what? by Chris+Daniel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ray Kurzweil, in his book The Singularity Is Near (the only book I've read on the topic), sets the date for around 2045. He makes further predictions for things before that; here's a nice list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Kurzweil#Future_Predictions

      --
      Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
    13. Re:The what? by slashname3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you have hit on something. We are getting close to a resource issue that will impact the continued increase in technology and knowledge. We are now operating on a global scale. Where previously we operated on a more local scale involving hundreds of square miles at most we now are drawing on resources all over the planet. This singularity will eventually stagnate and implode if we are not able to obtain additional resources. And at this point the only new resources that we can tap are going to be off planet.

      So if this singularity is to occur we are going to have to achieve routine space flight with commercial interests that will bring back massive resources to this planet.

      If that does not happen then we are going to hit the plateau you mention and most likely start a decline as we struggle with the reduction in resources that will be available to sustain the current level that we have achieved.

      This will happen due to a multitude of factors including environmental activism (preventing us from tapping remaining resources), governmental buffoonery (wasting of resources on bread and circuses to keep those elected in office), complacency by the masses, and NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) types.

    14. Re:The what? by Goaway · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other hand, if we develop beings with an artificial intelligence equal to the smartest scientists, they could potentially develop a second generation that would be improved. That generation could operate more quickly and be smarter, and develop a third generation even more quickly. This is withing the realm of possibility, although it represents a very narrow and simplified view of what intelligence is.

      Essentially, the limit to our rate of advancement would be removed, and that would cause technological advances to happen very quickly. In a short period of time, we could find ourselves surrounded by beings that seem like gods to us. However, this in no way follows from the earlier assumptions. This is the essential mistake made by all proponents of the "singularity".

      You are assuming that each generation of intelligences can not only create an intelligence smarter than themselves, but one that is as much smarter than themselves as they are smarter than their predecessors. That is definitely not something which is guaranteed to be true, and I would go so far as to say it is most likely false.

      It doesn't matter if your infinite series is always strictly increasing, it's not necessarily going to get to infinity.

      For instance, say you manage to create an intelligence twice as intelligent as you. This one puts all its intelligence into creating another intelligence, and manages to create one which is 2.5 times as intelligent as you. That one manages 2.75. And so on, until you top out at three times. No runaway evolution happens, because intelligence turns out to be really hard.
    15. Re:The what? by lgw · · Score: 3, Informative

      The term "singularity" for the center bit of a black hole was stolen from the existing definition of "the point at which the model fails", because it was the point at which the model fails. The usage in TFA is proper.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    16. Re:The what? by lgw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Exponential growth is nevertheless unsustainable:

      * Assume the Earth can sustain 1000 times as many people as it does now.

      * Assume the solar system can sustain 1000 times that many people (Dyson sphere, whatever, who knows).

      * Assume the nearby galaxy is fantasticly rich in resources, with a system that can support this same high population every 100 cubic light years.

      * Assume that we can colonize all systems within the light cone of "now" - that is, we have the resources of every system we can reach at the speed of light.

      These assumpions are all remarkable optimistic, and yet we'd reach the limit of exponential growth quickly: at a 2% annual rate of population growth, we'd hit the wall within 2000 years, having consumed all possible resources within a sphere 4000 light years across.

      Exponential growth of anything is never sustainable, long term.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  5. hmmm. by apodyopsis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lets imagine you can upload your mind into a machine.

    It will not be you. It will be a copy. You will still be the one that dies afterwards.

    It would be you if a progressive upgrade path could be found from biochemical to mechanical/electrical system.

    The copy however will believe that he is is you as he will have no memory of his existence after the "transfer" unlike poor flesh you in the xerox machine.

    Who has legal rights until/after fleshy death?

    Even then the copy will be subject to mechanical breakdowns, loss of sensation, and other issues interacting with the real world.

    Would they want to interact with normal world? Would they prefer a virtual world?

    As a society I feel that we are nowhere near ready for such questions, and in any case I strongly suspect individual sanity would not survive transfer.

    For a good fictional account of this (there are many) I still hold the Gateway books by Frederick Pohl - and the death of Robinette Broadhead and the society of electronic people stored after death.

    In the book, to interact with us really slow and boring humans he creates an electronic avatar and animates it whilst having a fun time in virtual fantasy world, checking on it every while to see if anything interesting has been said and instructing it on what to say next.

    1. Re:hmmm. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lets imagine you can upload your mind into a machine. It will not be you. It will be a copy. You will still be the one that dies afterwards. That is, sir, a very hotly debated point :-)
      When you copy a linux binary, it is a linux binary, as well as a copy of it. This whole thing touch at the essence of what "being" means. If you were to instantly copy yourself right now, you would have one instance of you thinking "Well, the copy is not me !" and another one thinking "Whee, I am the digital one, I am the one who get immortality, yay !"
      Thinking of people as instanciable things require a little time to adapt to the idea.
      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    2. Re:hmmm. by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Would they want to interact with normal world? Would they prefer a virtual world?

      Surely that's not even a serious question. If I could choose between hanging out with you meatsicles, or living in a perfect copy of meatspace but with a flawless copy of the flawless Alyson Hannigan oiled up and duct-taped to a water-bed, it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when and how much.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    3. Re:hmmm. by Bazman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So tell me, when you go to sleep at night, or perhaps go under general anaesthetic in hospital, what wakes up? Is it you, or is it a copy of you? And importantly, how could you tell?

    4. Re:hmmm. by Nursie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >That is, sir, a very hotly debated point :-)

      Why?

      Consciousnous will not be split across the two new instances, and if a non-destructive reading has taken place there is no magic that will make your consciousness jump to the computer. You, in meatspace, will still have a continuous existance and you, in meatspace, are not suddenly immortal.

      It would be like giving birth perhaps, you spawn off a part of yourself. To me it would feel utterly futile. Where's the benefit to me (by which I mean my internal monlogue, my continuous experience of life), other than in terms of vanity?

    5. Re:hmmm. by hawkinspeter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doesn't this highlight the fallacy of a continuous "you"? Consciousness is inherently discontinuous, so the idea of a an intrinsic "you" apart from a series of sensory inputs (internal and external) is fallacious.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    6. Re:hmmm. by naoursla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am a different person now than I was ten years ago. That person from ten years ago is dead.

      In fact, every moment of the day I die and am recreated again as a slightly different individual.

      I am the phoenix and you can too!

    7. Re:hmmm. by Bugs42 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sorry, sir, but for the heinous crime of going against /. group-think and preferring Alyson Hannigan to Natalie Portman, I'm gonna have to ask you for your geek card. Turn it in along with any hot grits in your possession. What's that? You don't have any hot grits? Oh, you're gonna get it now.... execution by BPC (Ballmer Propelled Chair)

      --
      Programmer: an ingenious device that converts caffeine into code.
    8. Re:hmmm. by lysse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But if I meet another entity who originated as an exact copy of me, I will still recognise that the entity is not me, and the entity will recognise that I am not it. Self-consciousness is non-transferable by definition; we become self-conscious not with any positive realisation of our own individuality, but with the dawning awareness of our own isolation from others - it isn't "I am nobody else", it's "Nobody else is me". Exact duplication doesn't alter that.

      Moreover, even if we are merely the sum of our accumulated memories and the connections we make between them, and even if duplication of that is possible, then as soon as the duplicate is made, the two entities will begin to diverge - their experiences are no longer completely identical. It won't take very long before they are recognisable as two different individuals - particularly if they come into contact with one another.

  6. An infinite loop? Please no! by StefanJ · · Score: 3, Funny

    I do not want to experience that hideous sixth grade First Thanksgiving play again.

  7. Light Speed Rule by arthurpaliden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Although new developments are happening faster and faster, the energy to generate them (money) is getting greater and greater. So to get to a point where developments happen concurrently or very very close together will require vase amouts of money. Probably more than is currently available.

    1. Re:Light Speed Rule by vertinox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Although new developments are happening faster and faster, the energy to generate them (money) is getting greater and greater.

      Short term. Thats what inflation does on its own.

      Long term. Technology actually saves costs and increases productivity. A single scientist today with a desktop computer and the internet is more productive than 100 in 1908 with slide rules and a large library.

      If nothing else, those scientists in 1908 had to deal with the time in looking up materials in their reference sources, do very complex calculations by hand, and if they needed to correspond with their peers they had to deal with the postal service and transatlantic journeys if their letters needed to reach their friends across the pond.

      So while the costs appear to increase (probaly due to inflation and energy costs) productivity increases just as fast if not faster.

      And speaking of energy crisis... I believe the current crisis will actually benefit alternative technologies and actually force companies to really consider more efficient ways of using and eventually creating their own energy.

      Imagine if you would a world were solar cells or so efficient you don't need to even have to bother with a real power grid. In reality, I don't think the singularity will be created by a bunch of nerds with fancy algorithms but by corporations who create technologies out of competitive necessity.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  8. Re:Faith in the Singularity by bunratty · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  9. nothing to worry about by Surt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not going to happen. We're approaching atomic level composition already. Even with quark composition, the computing capacity of the fastest thing that can be built won't go up that much. Computers will never be more than a 10^15 times faster than they are today. Even quantum computing doesn't solve the NP problem.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    1. Re:nothing to worry about by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lol, there will be no massive changes in the world when ordinary desktop computers are capable of processing on the order of ten septillion operations per second...

    2. Re:nothing to worry about by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That failing only applies to modern methods of circuit building. Just like tubes had a limitation, but when it was hit, technology didn't stop.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:nothing to worry about by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Funny

      Computers will never be more than a 10^15 times faster than they are today. And still not able to run Crysis at full detail.
  10. Re:Faith in the Singularity by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's a reason it's also called the Rapture of the Nerds :)

    Minor nitpick: Futurists make a distinction between "strongly" and "weakly" Godlike AI. Strongly Godlike AI refers to an intelligence that is for all meaningful purposes God - effectively unbounded control over space and time. Weakly Godlike AI refers to a being that intellectually transcends us in ways we can't imagine, but is still bound by the laws of the universe. Most talk about the Singularity focuses on a weakly Godlike scenario.

  11. Re:Faith in the Singularity by zShutter · · Score: 2, Informative

    Christianity and the belief in a technological singularity are not mutually exclusive.

  12. Just-like-human intelligence by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think that is a bigger challenge than most of fans of any sort of singularity think. Yes, in the big scheme of things could be pretty close, but that "close" could be centuries from now.

    Think that in most classic sci-fi books we already should have humanoid bots walking between us, colonized most of the solar system planets (even visited and returned from other stars/galaxies), sent manned probes to jupiter, have flying cars and/or MrFusion (and not as exceptions, but as something that everyone have), etc. There are some "practical" issues that delayed a bit that, wasnt found a way to travel safely faster than light, antigravity wasnt discovered, duplicators just arent there, neither teletransporting (with flies in it or not), even getting a full grown clone with my memory and concience is a little hard to get.

    Worse than that, between the practical issues arent just technical ones. Economy, ethical, social, safety issues are as good stopping reaching some utopical sci-fi society as FTL travel.

    In this category falls any kind of machine that talks and in fact think like a human, including handling contexts and perceiving reality like human. Is something very common in movies and sci-fi stories, but afaik is still a bit far on time.

    1. Re:Just-like-human intelligence by Hatta · · Score: 3, Interesting

      AI won't ever be "just like" human intelligence for much the same reason that artificial flight won't ever be just like avian flight. AI would have to be designed exactly like a human brain, taking into account eons of evolutionary kludges. It doesn't make sense to do this, when a simpler design will work better in many ways.

      Of course, people will complain that it's not real intelligence if it can't be mistaken for a human. To them I say, a plane can not be mistaken for a bird, does it not really fly?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  13. Skip the AI part by servognome · · Score: 4, Funny

    On the other hand, if we develop beings with an artificial intelligence equal to the smartest scientists, they could potentially develop a second generation that would be improved.
    The scientists could just get laid, have kids and accomplish the same thing :)
    --
    D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  14. Re:Faith in the Singularity by Unoti · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We become GODS!!!!

    I already am a god compared to someone living 200 years ago. I'm not afraid of infection. My children and wife survived the childbirth process easily. Name a topic, any topic in the world, and I can talk intelligently about it (all of us here are pretty much augmented beings, backed by the internet). I've seen the Earth from on top of the clouds. I've seen the sun come up over the Bay in Annapolis in the morning, and watched it go down over the bay in San Francisco in the evening of the same day.

    Few people of the past would have thought such things were possible.

    Sure, there's some faith, but there's a lot of carefully considered fact involved in the belief as well.

  15. Re:Faith in the Singularity by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gee, someone who believes some completely un-provable being exists finds what other people believe is 'humorous'.
    That's the height of irony.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  16. Re:Faith in the Singularity by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems very similar to a "rapture" mentality, coming from people who claim to be 100% rational

    Precisely. The only difference from religious people is that the coming of the singularity is something that can be predicted from observable facts, instead of old texts written by self-serving priests of long ago interpreted by self-serving priests of today.
  17. Real Singularity... by ShiNoKaze · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is apparently augmenting our intelligence with way to get more intelligence... I'm so going to laugh if they find out that intelligence is not a "value" that can be increased. Of course raw computing power can be, but that's not intelligence. It's far closer to actually being philisophical view points and the ability to distinguish one from another. They're totally gonna find the world's smartest computer is a philosophy major and sits around doing the electronic equivalent of smoking pot all day. Cuz a smart computer could do that. :)

  18. Debug time by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Soon, if not already, biotech will be able to create genetically modified humans. But it will take a century or so to tell if a given mod was an improvement. It's going to be a very slow development cycle.

  19. This is ridiculous by LS · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The "singularity" will always be somewhere beyond the horizon of our predictive abilities. The flaw with the concept is that somehow this event will hit, like a sonic boom. But as we advance, our connectivity and knowledge advance, and our understanding of the world and ability to predict our future also advance (especially if we start augmenting our minds), so that singularity will always be ahead of us.

    From another angle, this is really no different from predictions of rayguns and flying cars decades ago. Have you seen the state of AI and nanotech? It hasn't progressed qualitatively for quite some time. We've got microscopic gears and shitty speech recognition. What makes everyone think that we aren't going to hit some serious physical limits, or that human civilization is stable enough to support this kind of continued advance?

    It's just religion. Nerd religion, but still religion.

    LS

    --
    There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    1. Re:This is ridiculous by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I suppose it doesn't help that AI has become the fusion power of the computing industry. It's always just around the corner.

      Also, a lot of the singularity talk does have a religious cast to it. "The Singularity will work in mysterious ways" and all that.

      I'm just sayin'

  20. you vs. primitive man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    However, a primitive human from 10,000 years ago could probably stomp your ass in a fair fight. Your current tech, including guns and such, aren't an intrinsic part of you....you'd totally get your ass kicked by Adam, God.

    1. Re:you vs. primitive man by Unoti · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure! All I ask is that he not be any younger than me, because that wouldn't be fair. I'm 39. Oh wait, he'd be long dead. Too bad! The prime of their youth, these primitive humans, would last, what, 10 years?

    2. Re: you vs. primitive man by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But not that it matters, it's the mental capabilities that makes the difference. Suppose that primitive human from 10,000 years ago and yourself were pitted against each other. Let's say the battlefield would include the entire planet, each contestant could pick a random place to start (undisclosed to the other), and the reward would be substantial... say, live out the rest of your live in permanent wealth.

      So yes that caveman would beat your head in when he'd get his hands on you, but would you let him? Ofcourse not. The cavemen would be finished before he saw you coming. You'd find him quicker than he'd find you. You'd find those 'advanced weapons' and bring them with you, before the cavemen would know what those weapons are, or how to use them. Starting out on an empty planet would shift the odds in the caveman's direction, but the modern human would probably still win. Why do you think primitive humans are extinct now, even though they where perfectly capable of surviving harsh environments? Because modern humans outsmarted them.

      For the same reason, any superhuman intelligent being could kick normal human asses, in one way or another.

  21. Qin Shi Huang by bxwatso · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Qin Shi Huang was the first emperor of China and his best scientists tried to develop the singularity of eternal life. To that end, he poisoned himself by ingesting mercury.

    Humans can make small machines, but that completely ignores the fact that we have very limited knowledge about the workings of our cells and we really don't even know what sentient life is.

    In the grand scheme of things, we are only a few steps down the road from Qin Shi Huang. Every generation talks up unlimited life spans, and it is always BS.

    In other words, be prepared to die like everyone else.

  22. Re:Sounds like... by Half+a+dent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    bacteria to me. Unfortunately we will be more like bacteria to them...
  23. Re:Faith in the Singularity by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The difference is that technology really could solve pretty much all of our problems. It has a long and verifiable history of solving problems in ways that earlier generations would have described as magical or divine.

    Religion, on the other hand, does not do this. The most religion can claim is providing government-like structures and psychotherapy-like benefits. It's sure not moving along the path to curing all diseases and increasing mankind's power over the universe.

    So, yeah, there is a rational, historically-supported reason to be excited about one but not the other.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  24. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  25. All well and good by vorlich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    provided the dynamo of technological advancement in society is in some way related to scientific breakthrough. The real world does not appear to bear this out, since what we considered advancement is a phenomenon of the existing economic system. The right discovery has to appear at the right time or it falls by the wayside as being unprofitable.
    The slavery-based imperialist economies of the past relied on captive expendable human labour and looting. There was no compelling need for mechanical transport when slaves could carry you, no need for extensive infrastructure when the roads were primarily intended to enforce the rule of the empire through the rapid movement of armies. Nor was there any extensive profit in consumer retailing when the majority of the population, locked into feudalism did not have the surplus income to spend. The Romans had an extensive and often surprising level of technology that the traditional teaching classical history fails to address at a high school level. They had fast food similar to burgers but no extensive empire-encompassing franchise with the motto "Id amo", nor did their technological abilities extend much past properly constructed water and sewer systems and roads for the majority of the populace. They had all the resources both physical and intellectual to develop into a technologically advanced society but they did not and could not.
    It was not until much later, long after the system that was the Roman Empire had vanished, after the Black Death devastated the populations of Europe that feudalism ended and human labour became a valuable resource. It was at this point the cost effectives of machines became apparent and people were willing to invest time and money in their development and make a profit. The profit part doesn't necessarily appear as the direct result of new knowledge or research. On the contrary, some of the finest example of our technological advancements, anti-biotics and anti-malaria for example are a direct result of military strategic planning and had nothing at all to do with either venture capitalism or pro-bono publico development.

    So yes, The Singularity just like The End of History, (or dare I suggest even the Flying Car!) might be very pleasant but also equally difficult to either pin-down precisely or predict accurately.

    --
    Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
  26. Re:Faith in the Singularity by Unoti · · Score: 2, Informative

    More than likely I will die. But substantially later than someone 200 years ago would. Life expectancy has been going up and up. Life expectancy topped out at about 40 in the early 20th century in Britain, and about 30 in the Middle Ages in Britain. Actually, I'd say that I've got a much better shot of living to be 100 or 120 than anyone did 200 years ago. So it's technically not accurate to say that I will die just as surely as someone from then.

  27. Like the 13th floor? by street+struttin' · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No one ever remembers The 13th Floor because it came out the same time as The Matrix. It deals with exactly this subject and is the reason that every so often I go someplace I've never been before... Just to make sure. ;)

  28. No it's not you... by mario_grgic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is a religion for all the believers. And there is nothing anyone can say to change their mind. I have argued on scientific and technical basis with many of them, back when they were saying that singularity would happen by 2020 (now they have revised their dates). Funny bunch for sure.
    Many of them base their predictions on Moore's law, which as we know is not even a law but an observational trend.

    I on the other hand would be happy if Vista has stable drivers by 2020, let alone if we had "thinking machines" smarter than us :D.

    --
    As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
  29. Right from the Article by madolvin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why should a mere journalist question Kurzweils conclusion that some of us alive today will live indefinitely? Because we all know its wrong. We can sense it in the gaping, take-my-word-for-it extrapolations and the specious reasoning of those who subscribe to this form of the singularity argument. Then, too, theres the flawed grasp of neuroscience, human physiology, and philosophy. Most of all, we note the willingness of these people to predict fabulous technological advances in a period so conveniently short it offers themselves hope of life everlasting. This has all gone on too long. The emperor isnt wearing anything, for heavens sake. The singularity debate is too rarely a real argument. Theres too much fixation on death avoidance. Thats a shame, because in the coming years, as computers become stupendously powerful, really and truly ridiculously powerful, and as electronics and other technologies begin to enhance and fuse with biology, life really is going to get more interesting.

    says it all

    End of line
  30. Re:Faith in the Singularity by osu-neko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... the only difference is it is wrapped in technology instead of mysticism.

    Yes, such a trivial difference. Tell you what, I'll try to boil a pot of water using technological means, while you try to do the same using mystical means. We'll see who gets to drink their tea first.

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."