Going to one extreme because you haven't found the perfect balance between the two is ridiculous. Keep adjust your balance, a little at a time, aiming to find the perfect balance where the least people die, and accept that taking the responsibility to do so is the only moral way to act. How can a democracy exist if there is no one you can trust to lead? How can it exist if all of its soldiers are wiped out because the enemy has the truth of all your troop movements and plans?
I think the rate of change is slowing already. Things have certainly gotten a bit stale in computer hardware and software. The set of societal problems that can be solved easily with computers, but which have not already been solved is dwindling.
I predict in another decade we'll all be yearning for the days when advancement came quickly.
The fact that we don't have voluntary access to aspects of the computations doesn't mean our brain isn't doing them.
Yeah, but that doesn't help you when you want to integrate those computations into your thought process. The point is simply that:
Brain + Calculator > Brain alone
Easily showing that the brain isn't the ultimate thinking machine, as it is not hard to improve upon it.
People who are attempting to simulate brains in supercomputers think that warehouse sized supercomputers are probably still off by 10^4.
Might be, but thats still just around 20 years away.
The first part I agree with you on, though I don't know if it is a very reliable indicator for how much the density of intelligence can be improved. The amount that calculators and computers have done for things like fundamental research have been substantial, but not jaw-dropping. Einstein got by pretty much without.
The second part, though, is problematic. To get 10^4th more cpu power we're going to be closing in on one atom per transistor. We'll get some improvement in density when we learn to layer our chips in 3d, but the challenges there are substantial. It could be a long long time before we have something powerful enough to act like a brain in a box the size of a brain (because remember, our 10^4 supercomputer is still warehouse sized, to get down to human brain box size is another 10^4 or 10^5). That's far enough out that we'll be pushing the limits of what we can actually cram in such a box. So how much more intelligent than a human that thing can be is up in the air.
I feel so bad for Bradley Manning, the 22 year old that is taking the shit for all of this. Some douchebag congressman wanted to execute him. Why is getting truth out so bad guys?
So, if you could provide me with a list of times when your wife and children will be home alone over the next couple of months, I know some people who would love to get a hold of those truths. Thanks.
No. The swedish government might, if they've signed some treaty saying they will. Assuming you are a USian, consider what would happen if the federal government of Iran demanded that the Green party drop all information pertaining to Israel from their site. (Mostly: laughter).
Indeed. I think a lot of the 'singularity' talk resulted from people who saw an increasing pace of technological change as computers rendered certain classes of problems 'easy'. That pace of change has slowed noticeably in my lifetime as the number of remaining problems that can be rendered easy has dropped off. I expect the rate of change will continue to slow as we approach the atomic limits of miniaturization.
The fact that we don't have voluntary access to aspects of the computations doesn't mean our brain isn't doing them. People who are attempting to simulate brains in supercomputers think that warehouse sized supercomputers are probably still off by 10^4. The question is whether the brain is anywhere close to the limit of intelligence, not of any random selection of computation.
My claim is simply that's the conventional one. The only other mechanism proposed on that page is recursive amplification of human intelligence, which I would say is certainly not the conventional view.
Two more lines would get you there: "Theoretically, if a machine built by humans could bring to bear greater problem-solving and inventive skills than humans, then it could design a yet more capable machine. If built, this more capable machine then could design a machine of even greater capability. These iterations could accelerate, leading to recursive self improvement.
I. J. Good described this as an "intelligence explosion".[3] It is quite different from normal technological progress because the underlying driving force is increasing, causing exponential growth. The term Technological Singularity reflects the idea that the change may happen suddenly, and that it is very difficult to predict how such a new world would operate. It is also unclear whether there would be any place for humans in a world containing very intelligent machines.[citation needed]"
Let's see. On another recent article it was stated that the average car has several million lines of code running in it. I haven't come across a sentient Prius yet.
Or so you think. They've been quietly (oh so quietly) running down pedestrians for years now, forcing us into subservient reliance on them.
Very well said. Kurzweil is NOT wrong about the amount of data required to encode the result of the human brain. What he's completely ignoring is the execution environment for that program, which is physical reality. That program is designed to run on an incredibly complex set of physical interactions between complex proteins, etc. The emulation we'd have to do of that execution environment would be exorbitantly expensive in cpu time and memory. This is NOT the way we are likely to simulate the brain for artificial intelligence anytime soon. This kind of reality simulation is probably about 10^15th beyond the capabilities of our best supercomputers today.
The big whoosh in Kurzweil's theory is that he is completely ignoring the fact that the brain's computation leverages the laws of physical reality. When you write an emulator like he is suggesting, you don't just need the ROM, you need a very precise simulation of the hardware as well.
And the huge hole in his theory is the execution environment, e.g., the cpu that the brain is running on is REALITY itself. So be sure to add that to your cost of simulation of the brain.
What's so crazy is that he's missing a key piece of the puzzle. The brain is a highly compressed program designed to operate on a unique execution environment: physical reality. So in addition to his million lines of code for the brain, he needs a near-perfect simulation of the execution environment: reality. That will require a computer with probably 10^15th times the memory of our best supercomputers today. At least to simulate the brain the way he is thinking about. There are probably much more efficient ways to do so, but this particular idea has a huuuuge hole in it.
I don't know where you got your definition of 'the Singularity', but I'd bet that the majority of slashdot readers would disagree with you. I expect most of them have the definition of the Singularity as the time when an AI capable of building an AI superior to itself exists, and begins the freefall towards an AI that is operating at the maximum capability that the universe will allow.
And of course the singularity folks typically conveniently ignore the possibility that we are already close to the limit on intelligence density with the human brain, or that the problem could become a steep exponential more difficult, etc.
Heh... a naysayer said just that in a subsequent followup! And I did respond that I'd have expected at least a dozen platter failures in the same timeframe. GMTA.:-)
Yeah.... that's completely different from censoring yourself because you believe the CIA is listening to your tooth fillings. One is a crazy belief derived from nothing, the other is reacting to real events that are documented by numerous reliable references.
I note you omitted from your quote of me:
"Was there some credible reason for the South Park folks to believe that they would be sent to Gitmo for showing Muhammad in their episode?"
So I ask it again: Was there a credible reason for the South Park people to believe that they would be sent to Gitmo if they did not censor Muhammad?
No but if you happened to be talking to a relative that is out of the usa what are the chances that your being monitored? Or how about this little unknown video. And before you respond watch the video and explain to me how convicting a girl for purgery and sentencing her to 9-25 years for testifying against the people that used her and one of them getting less time for stealing 40mil is ok. Actually watch the video don't just dick around and say its bullshit without watching it.
The odds of your being monitored while talking to a relative outside the US... depends on your definition of monitored. Is your conversation recorded? Almost certainly. Analyzed by computer? Probably. Reviewed by a human? Almost certainly not (barring your discussion being around blowing something up).
I won't be able to comment on the video before this discussion closes to comments.
When you can;t say what you want for the fear of going to Gitmo its still censorship.
That would be censorship only after it credibly left the realm of insanity. E.g. people who are afraid to speak because they think the CIA is listening to their tooth fillings are not being censored.
Was there some credible reason for the South Park folks to believe that they would be sent to Gitmo for showing Muhammad in their episode?
The thinker is *naked*! For all we know he's thinking about how best to mix kiddy porn and clubbing baby seals.
Think of the children, and baby seals...
Oh come on, that can't be true. The best way to mix kiddy porn and clubbing baby seals is so straightforward that to hypothesize him 'thinking' about that is just ridiculous.
Interestingly, I understand the people who find the notion of a mosque 'near' ground zero offensive. And I look at those pictures, and find not a one of them to be offensive in the same way. The rest all seem to be typical freedom loving capitalist activities.
Slashdot Mirror
Going to one extreme because you haven't found the perfect balance between the two is ridiculous. Keep adjust your balance, a little at a time, aiming to find the perfect balance where the least people die, and accept that taking the responsibility to do so is the only moral way to act. How can a democracy exist if there is no one you can trust to lead? How can it exist if all of its soldiers are wiped out because the enemy has the truth of all your troop movements and plans?
I think the rate of change is slowing already. Things have certainly gotten a bit stale in computer hardware and software. The set of societal problems that can be solved easily with computers, but which have not already been solved is dwindling.
I predict in another decade we'll all be yearning for the days when advancement came quickly.
So would you like to offer up the truth of your home address and some times when your family will be home alone?
There are truths that people shouldn't have to be prepared to defend their lives against, and there is no perfect security system.
The fact that we don't have voluntary access to aspects of the computations doesn't mean our brain isn't doing them.
Yeah, but that doesn't help you when you want to integrate those computations into your thought process. The point is simply that:
Brain + Calculator > Brain alone
Easily showing that the brain isn't the ultimate thinking machine, as it is not hard to improve upon it.
People who are attempting to simulate brains in supercomputers think that warehouse sized supercomputers are probably still off by 10^4.
Might be, but thats still just around 20 years away.
The first part I agree with you on, though I don't know if it is a very reliable indicator for how much the density of intelligence can be improved. The amount that calculators and computers have done for things like fundamental research have been substantial, but not jaw-dropping. Einstein got by pretty much without.
The second part, though, is problematic. To get 10^4th more cpu power we're going to be closing in on one atom per transistor. We'll get some improvement in density when we learn to layer our chips in 3d, but the challenges there are substantial. It could be a long long time before we have something powerful enough to act like a brain in a box the size of a brain (because remember, our 10^4 supercomputer is still warehouse sized, to get down to human brain box size is another 10^4 or 10^5). That's far enough out that we'll be pushing the limits of what we can actually cram in such a box. So how much more intelligent than a human that thing can be is up in the air.
I feel so bad for Bradley Manning, the 22 year old that is taking the shit for all of this. Some douchebag congressman wanted to execute him. Why is getting truth out so bad guys?
So, if you could provide me with a list of times when your wife and children will be home alone over the next couple of months, I know some people who would love to get a hold of those truths. Thanks.
For the same reasons we have to have laws restricting the dissemination of top secret truths. Some truth-tellings result in people dying.
No. The swedish government might, if they've signed some treaty saying they will. Assuming you are a USian, consider what would happen if the federal government of Iran demanded that the Green party drop all information pertaining to Israel from their site. (Mostly: laughter).
Indeed. I think a lot of the 'singularity' talk resulted from people who saw an increasing pace of technological change as computers rendered certain classes of problems 'easy'. That pace of change has slowed noticeably in my lifetime as the number of remaining problems that can be rendered easy has dropped off. I expect the rate of change will continue to slow as we approach the atomic limits of miniaturization.
The fact that we don't have voluntary access to aspects of the computations doesn't mean our brain isn't doing them. People who are attempting to simulate brains in supercomputers think that warehouse sized supercomputers are probably still off by 10^4. The question is whether the brain is anywhere close to the limit of intelligence, not of any random selection of computation.
My claim is simply that's the conventional one. The only other mechanism proposed on that page is recursive amplification of human intelligence, which I would say is certainly not the conventional view.
Two more lines would get you there:
"Theoretically, if a machine built by humans could bring to bear greater problem-solving and inventive skills than humans, then it could design a yet more capable machine. If built, this more capable machine then could design a machine of even greater capability. These iterations could accelerate, leading to recursive self improvement.
I. J. Good described this as an "intelligence explosion".[3] It is quite different from normal technological progress because the underlying driving force is increasing, causing exponential growth. The term Technological Singularity reflects the idea that the change may happen suddenly, and that it is very difficult to predict how such a new world would operate. It is also unclear whether there would be any place for humans in a world containing very intelligent machines.[citation needed]"
Let's see. On another recent article it was stated that the average car has several million lines of code running in it. I haven't come across a sentient Prius yet.
Or so you think. They've been quietly (oh so quietly) running down pedestrians for years now, forcing us into subservient reliance on them.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/extreme-machines/4337190
Very well said. Kurzweil is NOT wrong about the amount of data required to encode the result of the human brain. What he's completely ignoring is the execution environment for that program, which is physical reality. That program is designed to run on an incredibly complex set of physical interactions between complex proteins, etc. The emulation we'd have to do of that execution environment would be exorbitantly expensive in cpu time and memory. This is NOT the way we are likely to simulate the brain for artificial intelligence anytime soon. This kind of reality simulation is probably about 10^15th beyond the capabilities of our best supercomputers today.
The big whoosh in Kurzweil's theory is that he is completely ignoring the fact that the brain's computation leverages the laws of physical reality. When you write an emulator like he is suggesting, you don't just need the ROM, you need a very precise simulation of the hardware as well.
And the huge hole in his theory is the execution environment, e.g., the cpu that the brain is running on is REALITY itself. So be sure to add that to your cost of simulation of the brain.
What's so crazy is that he's missing a key piece of the puzzle. The brain is a highly compressed program designed to operate on a unique execution environment: physical reality. So in addition to his million lines of code for the brain, he needs a near-perfect simulation of the execution environment: reality. That will require a computer with probably 10^15th times the memory of our best supercomputers today. At least to simulate the brain the way he is thinking about. There are probably much more efficient ways to do so, but this particular idea has a huuuuge hole in it.
I don't know where you got your definition of 'the Singularity', but I'd bet that the majority of slashdot readers would disagree with you. I expect most of them have the definition of the Singularity as the time when an AI capable of building an AI superior to itself exists, and begins the freefall towards an AI that is operating at the maximum capability that the universe will allow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
And of course the singularity folks typically conveniently ignore the possibility that we are already close to the limit on intelligence density with the human brain, or that the problem could become a steep exponential more difficult, etc.
Heh ... a naysayer said just that in a subsequent followup! And I did respond that I'd have expected at least a dozen platter failures in the same timeframe. GMTA. :-)
Yeah .... that's completely different from censoring yourself because you believe the CIA is listening to your tooth fillings. One is a crazy belief derived from nothing, the other is reacting to real events that are documented by numerous reliable references.
I note you omitted from your quote of me:
"Was there some credible reason for the South Park folks to believe that they would be sent to Gitmo for showing Muhammad in their episode?"
So I ask it again: Was there a credible reason for the South Park people to believe that they would be sent to Gitmo if they did not censor Muhammad?
No but if you happened to be talking to a relative that is out of the usa what are the chances that your being monitored? Or how about this little unknown video. And before you respond watch the video and explain to me how convicting a girl for purgery and sentencing her to 9-25 years for testifying against the people that used her and one of them getting less time for stealing 40mil is ok. Actually watch the video don't just dick around and say its bullshit without watching it.
The odds of your being monitored while talking to a relative outside the US ... depends on your definition of monitored. Is your conversation recorded? Almost certainly. Analyzed by computer? Probably. Reviewed by a human? Almost certainly not (barring your discussion being around blowing something up).
I won't be able to comment on the video before this discussion closes to comments.
When you can;t say what you want for the fear of going to Gitmo its still censorship.
That would be censorship only after it credibly left the realm of insanity. E.g. people who are afraid to speak because they think the CIA is listening to their tooth fillings are not being censored.
Was there some credible reason for the South Park folks to believe that they would be sent to Gitmo for showing Muhammad in their episode?
I'm heavily invested in the M-I-C you insensitive clod!
The thinker is *naked*! For all we know he's thinking about how best to mix kiddy porn and clubbing baby seals.
Think of the children, and baby seals...
Oh come on, that can't be true. The best way to mix kiddy porn and clubbing baby seals is so straightforward that to hypothesize him 'thinking' about that is just ridiculous.
Interestingly, I understand the people who find the notion of a mosque 'near' ground zero offensive. And I look at those pictures, and find not a one of them to be offensive in the same way. The rest all seem to be typical freedom loving capitalist activities.