Slashdot Mirror


Elon Musk: Humans Need To Merge With Machines Else They Will Become Irrelevant in AI Age (cnbc.com)

Billionaire Elon Musk is known for his futuristic ideas. So it didn't come as a surprise when on Monday at the World Government Summit in Dubai, he predicted that over time we will see a "closer merger of biological intelligence and digital intelligence." He added, via a CNBC report: "It's mostly about the bandwidth, the speed of the connection between your brain and the digital version of yourself, particularly output." Musk explained what he meant by saying that computers can communicate at "a trillion bits per second", while humans, whose main communication method is typing with their fingers via a mobile device, can do about 10 bits per second. In an age when AI threatens to become widespread, humans would be useless, so there's a need to merge with machines, according to Musk. "Some high bandwidth interface to the brain will be something that helps achieve a symbiosis between human and machine intelligence and maybe solves the control problem and the usefulness problem," Musk explained.

39 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. Code by speedplane · · Score: 2

    The code I write at a solid 10 bits per second sure beats anything I've seen a computer do.

    --
    Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    1. Re:Code by Delwin · · Score: 2

      OK, now try doing it without a compiler or assembler.

      Machines have been writing most of our code for decades now.

  2. This guy by geek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Elon needs to go away. One minute we're all in the fucking Matrix and the next we need to "merge with machines". Pick one you fucking douche bag

    1. Re:This guy by kuzb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He needs to go away from topics like this because he's an engineer trying to talk about AI as if he has some clue. People seem to forget that Elon's success is largely due to the people who he surrounds himself with and not him specifically. The man is not an expert in all things.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    2. Re:This guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except the idea didn't come from him. It came directly from Elon who's ego has inflated to such a degree that he's starting to believe his own bullshit.

    3. Re:This guy by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Somewhat ironic that the person who owns Tesla would be more of an Edison...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  3. Relevant for who or as what? by ruir · · Score: 2

    Irrelevant as corporate slaves?

  4. Re:Elon Musk: What's this guy smoking? by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow..these super rich types much be smoking some killer, killer shit.....

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  5. Solve for Greed first. by geekmux · · Score: 5, Interesting

    AI can and probably will ultimately make the concept of human employment extinct. And we probably need to accept that fact faster than any prediction, given the speed at which technology has accelerated just in the last couple of decades.

    Humans need to first solve the problem of Greed. Otherwise, the chasm that separates the AI owners and wealthy overlords from the rest of the human race will continue to grow, and they won't give a shit about the demise of the irrelevant meatsack masses.

    1. Re:Solve for Greed first. by Howitzer86 · · Score: 2

      Sure they will. We'll be their primary source of protein.

    2. Re:Solve for Greed first. by NotInHere · · Score: 2

      Yeah, its a gigantic social problem coming ahead. Capitalism has let the human greed work for it, but if humans don't have to work, only the dividing parts of greed will remain.

      Even further, it will be interesting whether and how the new capabilities given by AI will help the enemies of free democratic systems.

      I don't think humans as such will become irrelevant. Unless some human programs an AI to defy the orders of humans there won't be any "takeover by AI" I think, so there will be always humans at the top. The question is about the remaining 99.99% of humanity.

      We really need to figure out how such a society could look like and we need to figure it out fast, because technology doesn't wait.

    3. Re:Solve for Greed first. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, just stop it. Your desire to neither work nor think does not mean that people will stop working and thinking.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:Solve for Greed first. by geekmux · · Score: 2

      ...The question is about the remaining 99.99% of humanity.

      We really need to figure out how such a society could look like and we need to figure it out fast, because technology doesn't wait.

      The answer already exists. We call it "Welfare" today. We'll give it a fancy name like "UBI" tomorrow, but make no mistake, it's the same exact shit, funded in the same shit way.

      And when I say shit, I mean the fact that Greed N. Corruption will lobby to ensure fiscal responsibility will start and end at sustaining life, and not a penny more.

      Forget the American dream. The Human plan will become nothing more than survival unless we Solve for Greed.

  6. Re:Game Time! by UncleRage · · Score: 4, Funny

    Even better when you consider that an improper filter set to prevent this winds up causing seizures for everyone up in HR.

    "Be back, in a bit. I have to go reboot Bob again."

    --
    #SickNotWeak
  7. He does have a point... by mspohr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Most of the comments so far have been personal attacks on Musk. I guess this is par for the low level of discourse here.
    However, I'd like to see some discussion of his statement.
    Would a better connection between humans and machines be beneficial?
    What would be the benefits/ problems?
    How could this be achieved?
    Come on, folks, I have seen much better from you in the past.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    1. Re: He does have a point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fine, I'll bite.

      We dont have Strong AI. We're not even close. We have programs that are written to do certain tasks really well, and learn how to do tasks when we define the rules for them. We are not close to an AI that can learn things without our assistance.

      We do not know how the human brain works, much less be able to merge it with anything. We are not even close.

      This is a fantasy pipe dream. Elon could say we need to build lightsabers and blockade runners to fight the Empire when they get here, and it would be just as relevant as our need to merge with AI.

    2. Re:He does have a point... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

    3. Re: He does have a point... by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We dont have Strong AI.

      I missed the part when Musk said "we need to do X by next Tuesday".

      We do not know how the human brain works

      Again, I missed the part when Musk said "we need to do X by next Tuesday".

      This is a fantasy pipe dream.

      I missed the part where time ceased progressing and technology ceased advancing.

      Elon could say we need to build 1) lightsabers and 2) blockade runners to fight 3) the Empire when they get here

      1) Not in line with physics, and impractical
      2) Does not describe a concrete thing with traits arguably superior to alternatives
      3) Does not exist, with no prospect of it existing... (...depending on how strictly you want to define it, either A) "... any time soon", or B) "... ever."

      --
      I spent the evening flickering into your darkness.
    4. Re:He does have a point... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      However, I'd like to see some discussion of his statement.
      Would a better connection between humans and machines be beneficial?
      What would be the benefits/ problems?
      How could this be achieved?

      To discuss something meaningfully, you need to have a freakin' clue how it might work. At this point in time, we don't. We don't know how the brain works. We don't have anything close to strong AI. The best interfaces we're looking at now are stuff like moving artificial limbs or whatever. To speculate on what might happen IF we could all of this would be sort of like walking up to Isaac Newton in the 18th century and saying, "Sir Isaac, what problems do you think will occur with the internet next year? What will the major benefits/problems be of new advances?" Even if you explained the basic idea of the internet to Newton, I doubt he'd have enough perspective to meaningfully debate what might happen.

      But, having put forth that disclaimer, I'll just note a few complete speculations in response to Musk. First is that his argument seems premised on the idea that a faster interface from brain to world would be beneficial to humans. Maybe it would. OR maybe our brains are somewhat limited in maximum input/output in ways that we can't really understand yet because we've never tried what he's proposing. Typing is about the right "speed of thought" for me to create coherent text. I've tried dictating, and I need to pause, correct, and reword too much for it to be useful to me. That seems to be how my brain works... although if I really needed to, I probably could retrain myself to dictate better.

      But what if you increased my potential output by 10-fold, 100-fold, a million-fold. Would that actually be useful for me to interact with the world better or faster? Or would it just result in gibberish because my brain literally can't adapt to working much faster than it already does in USEFUL output? Or maybe the plasticity of the adult brain isn't enough to adapt -- so we try hooking up infants from birth with these things. Maybe it works... or maybe it just drives them to be insane or to have other brain development that effectively renders them LESS functional than "normal" humans. Not saying this WILL happen, but it's a possibility when you're talking about an interface with absolutely NO IDEA on what specs might work. Human brains have spent millions of years evolving into what they are to work efficiently at the speeds they do. Just because you could theoretically hook up a device to increase input/output doesn't mean the brain can actually change and adapt enough to make use of the throughput meaningfully.

      Also, I think it's important to note in a discussion like this that one of the PRIMARY hallmarks of human intelligence is FORGETTING. One of the things that makes humans so much better than machines is our ability for abstraction -- finding larger patterns so we don't have to parse the "stream of consciousness" directly all the time. And then we sleep, and our brains revisit the memories of things that we've evolved to assimilate as "important" data, while we forget millions of random little details of our day at the same time.

      Effectively, we take a very TINY percentage of the "noise" that is input into our brains and actually remember it in any detail, mostly through complex pattern-matching that we're only even beginning to emulate in specific cases with computer algorithms. But the point is that there's only so much that we CAN assimilate into our brains -- and that goes not just for memories, but for new skills or whatever. (Think about when you've tried to learn a skill by "cramming" for a full day or two vs. when you've done practice for a few minutes/day over weeks or months. Your brain needs the "downtime" to assimilate new skills... increasing input or output seems unlikely to make that process faster.)

      My speculation is that Musk's idea is rather pointless for somehow keeping humans "relevant" or whatever. IF w

    5. Re: He does have a point... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2

      [quote]1) Not in line with physics, and impractical[/quote] Not at all unlike the Hyperloop.

      Wait, how is the Hyperloop not in line with physics?

  8. Yellow Journalism by Spazmania · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Humans Need To Merge With Machines?" Reading the article it turns out Musk said nothing of the sort. He actually said, "we will probably see a closer merger of biological intelligence and digital intelligence."

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    1. Re:Yellow Journalism by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He's probably right, eventually taking your glasses off will be like suffering from some kind of learning disability. All text you see automatically scanned and available for perfect recall, the name of ever person you meet whispered in your ear in case you forgot, any equation instantly solved... And an unquenchable thirst for Pepsi, an uncontrollable urge to buy a Tesla.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Yellow Journalism by WheezyJoe · · Score: 2

      The actual quote is

      "Some high bandwidth interface to the brain will be something that helps achieve a symbiosis between human and machine intelligence and maybe solves the control problem and the usefulness problem," Musk explained.

      Beware of anything in a news article without quotation marks, or is attributed with "according to..." as paraphrasing, which is fair-warning, for good or ill, that the writer is putting his own spin on things.

      and "high bandwidth interface to the brain"? Many examples already happening in the field of medicine.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    3. Re:Yellow Journalism by lorinc · · Score: 2

      He's probably right, eventually taking your glasses off will be like suffering from some kind of learning disability. All text you see automatically scanned and available for perfect recall, the name of ever person you meet whispered in your ear in case you forgot, any equation instantly solved... And an unquenchable thirst for Pepsi, an uncontrollable urge to buy a Tesla.

      It's already sort of the case. Most of modern students are incapable of doing anything if they don't have facebook to ask elder friends for what to search on google. And then they have an unquenchable thirst for Pepsi. Conclusion, you don't need a brain interface to sell crap and render people useless.

    4. Re:Yellow Journalism by Spazmania · · Score: 2

      Actually, the fake news was at CNBC. The article claimed Musk said exactly what Slashdot quoted. It then quoted Musk saying something entirely different.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  9. Firewall? by zamboni1138 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some high bandwidth interface to the brain...

    Without a 100% perfection inbound firewall you're not coming anywhere near my brain interface.

  10. Re:Elon Musk: What's this guy smoking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    It's funny, if I start spouting crazy shit people tell me I'm crazy and might give me two dollars.

    If you are rich and crazy then people want to give you two hundred million to try your idea.

    Just so everyone is clear... I probably earn way more then you do. So let's invest in my device to detect the shadow people and destroy them.

  11. ...and the benefits would be...what exactly? by holophrastic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    alternatively: humans only need to communicate at 10 bits, we don't need a trillion bits per second to enjoy life.

    But really, isn't the trick to do less, not more? I ain't no worker-bee. I'm jealous of my pet dog sitting on the couch all day while I work at a desk. I want his life -- it's called retirement.

    Productivity is the goal of business. Laziness is the goal of life. I've worked hard to be this lazy.

    1. Re:...and the benefits would be...what exactly? by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      "computers can communicate at "a trillion bits per second", while humans, whose main communication method is typing with their fingers via a mobile device, can do about 10 bits per second"

      Maybe he was mistaking interprocess or CPU interconnect speed with interface speed? Even then, while my output might reach 100WPM (8-9CPS) or by speech maybe 120WPM (there's that 10CPS, or 80BPS), what is the interprocess bandwidth of the typical human brain?

      And what does any of this have to do with reality? The tech world is desperate for us to embrace AI before it impacts us so dramatically that we rebel. And we may anyways, if we perceive it as intended not for our benefit, but either for the benefit of the richer and more powerful, or more likely intended just because they could do it.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  12. Humans communicate 10 bits per second? by infodragon · · Score: 3

    I didn't read the article. However even if this is bytes there's so much that is missed!

    I look at a tree, recognize it and say "tree" in less than a second.

    I can throw a ball against a wall and catch it before it hits the ground. Now give me a completely different size/weight ball and I can do the same (within tolerances of weight and size).

    There is communication in both of those in which massive amounts of information is consumed and processed. For example the tree, 32 bits of information is relayed. However if I speak it then there is inflection, volume, direction, body language and intent that are all communicated in a short time.

    Even though nothing is typed/spoken with the ball there is an output, catching the ball, that requires a tremendous amount of bandwidth utilized by a human.

    Human Computer interfaces have a long way to go to catch up to these types of things; however, I think someone is raising an alarm about something that has no near term danger and just from the porn perspective will be developed as soon as is humanly possible. Think Matrix and Mouse pushing the girl in the red dress to Neo... The first in the porn industry to do that get's money from 99% of the world's men and a good portion of the world's women. Same thing happened with VHS....

    --
    If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
  13. Re:Elon Musk: What's this guy smoking? by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah, rich people don't get a lot of reality checks from their hired help. I just wish people were better at differentiating between Hollywood and real life. I hope Elon has a computer surgically implanted in his brain to show everyone how dumb an idea it is.

    --
    A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
  14. Re:Elon Musk: What's this guy smoking? by zifn4b · · Score: 2

    It's funny, if I start spouting crazy shit people tell me I'm crazy and might give me two dollars.

    Even more funny, claim to hear the voice of God in your head and you're enlightened in certain circles of people but claim to hear the voice of Elvis in your head telling you what to do and you're off to the insane asylum

    --
    We'll make great pets
  15. Humans ARE merging with machines! by jd.schmidt1 · · Score: 2

    Years ago a manager who helped disabled people wished there could be some kind of brain implant that could help someone be smarter. I asked, like playing chess? He said yes. I told him that already exists, just give him a laptop with a chess program. All we are doing is playing with different communication interfaces.

  16. Re:language by flink · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can't find the source, but I remember reading that speakers of lower entropy languages simply end up speaking faster than speakers of higher entropy languages. E.g. English on average is spoken more slowly than Spanish by native speakers because English has less redundancy, so errors are more likely to affect received meaning. Overall spoken information rate (bps) remains pretty constant.

  17. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The concept of bio-integration is quite old. The part-man-part-machine being has been a common theme in popular science fiction for as long as I can remember.

    So, one need not use drugs to come up with these ideas. In fact, the scifi authors who came up with these ideas probably didn't need drugs either...they just thought things through.

    Seriously, this isn't that weird nor does it require that much creativity to imagine it.

    And further, since humans today have machines integrated with them, it is likely that we will see more of this in the future, including and especially where our cognitive abilities are concerned. The potential benefits are just too high.

    None of this should be hard to believe for anyone who has been paying attention.

  18. Re:Elon Musk: What's this guy smoking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The brain machine interface exists today, moron. Check it out.

    The tech is primitive. But as it gets refined, the potential benefits will be far too valuable to overlook. This is a fucking great idea!

    You are just one of those people who can't use the power of reason to look past the familiar.

  19. Re:Elon Musk: What's this guy smoking? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is not money that gives Elon credibility, but his list of accomplishments.
    He has a track record of turning ideas into reality, so people pay attention.

  20. The Bullshit is Strong with This One. by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 3

    He's probably right, eventually taking your glasses off will be like suffering from some kind of learning disability. All text you see automatically scanned and available for perfect recall, the name of ever person you meet whispered in your ear in case you forgot, any equation instantly solved... And an unquenchable thirst for Pepsi, an uncontrollable urge to buy a Tesla.

    It's already sort of the case. Most of modern students are incapable of doing anything if they don't have facebook to ask elder friends for what to search on google. And then they have an unquenchable thirst for Pepsi. Conclusion, you don't need a brain interface to sell crap and render people useless.

    There is so much bullshit with this. Modern students still learn how to use a library. I know, I see batches of students coming with their teachers all the time to learn how (just like old times.) All colleges make students learn how to use them (just like in old times), etc, etc.

    In reality, the ability to search online has made students (and people in general) far more efficient at retrieving information. Obviously, this also has the downside that it makes it easy to plagiarize. But that comes with every technology. You get what you put in, and you put in according to what kind of person you are.

    Case in point: my daughter who is in second grade now knows how to use google voice search to check for spelling of words she doesn't know. Then she cross-checks it with her dictionary in English and Japanese (since she is bilingual, and soon to be trilingual if everything goes according plan.)

    She has become more efficient at writing her homework reports (while learning how to spell faster) without inducing cheating or sloppy work. It has reduced her frustration while helping her focus on the topics she needs to write. This, at 2nd grade.

    This type of efficiency increases a lot more for older students and adults.

    Pretending that people now are useless because they leverage electronic searches and social media is like pretending farmers today are useless for using tractors instead of hand-held plows.

    In other words, this line of reasoning is both simplistic and stupid.

  21. Re:Elon Musk: What's this guy smoking? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

    I hope Elon has a computer surgically implanted in his brain to show everyone how dumb an idea it is.

    I don't think it's that dumb. Imagine if instead of having to manually perform math in your head, you had your result just as soon as you could mentally build the function; no need to pull out a piece of paper or type in LaTex, and you understand the entire process, even if your biological brain parts don't (you don't mentally understand how your biological brain parts work anyways, so what's the difference?) Or suppose you wanted to build a list of objects algorithmically, and instead of needing to open up your IDE and start writing code, you could accurately visualize the result near instantaneously. That would be pretty neat, and allow you to become more productive; probably even moreso than any AI.

    Something like this may come, though probably not within our lifetimes...unless it's for the purpose of extending them. Even if we solve things like aging, cancer, etc, the barrier will inevitably be how to keep your brain working for more than one natural lifespan, so we'll need to conquer not only how it works, but also develop a technology solution for extending our memories.

    So indeed, what Musk suggests may be inevitable, unless skynet beats us to the punch.

    I'd sign up.