By the way, IBM BlueGene/L is going to produce 360 teraflops by end 2004, so if the report of Moravec's estimate is correct, and he is correct, that AI Overlord welcome could be pretty soon.
(Although I don't believe brain scanning quite hits the resolution mark required yet.)
I think Morevec's method of simulating human intelligence involves modelling a scanned copy of the human brain, in real time at a neuronal level. It would be similar to modelling the global weather system, a software capability we already have. Current neuroscience would expect this model to be functionally equivalent to a human mind in terms of matching inputs and outputs.
As an aside, I know that Ray Kurzweil has I much higher required estimated of a 20 petaflop (20,000 teraflop) computer, based on more conservative assumptions.
20 petaflops is due around 2009/10 under Moore's law. (And I for one offer an early welcome to our expected new AI overlords...)
I know that Ray Kurzweil estimated that a scan of the human brain can be modelled, at a neuronal level, in real time, on a 20 petaflop (20,000 teraflop) computer. Current, neroscience would expect this model to be functionally equivalent to a human mind in terms of matching inputs and outputs.
20 petaflops is due around 2009/10 under Moore's law. (And I for one offer an early welcome to our expected new AI overlords...)
I love the bit where he takes that suspiciously personal looking leopard skin garment she is ironing/folding, and tucks it under his arm with a: "Why thank you, Anne!"
Actually I (hazily) remember a Vernor Vinge story where FEDEX packages were fired (by rail gun?) from a central launch depot to land near their recipients (the final landing being controlled by onboard computer-controlled microjets).
I think it was called "Fast Times at Fairmont High".
I quite agree. I've lived in central London for 40 years and I've never seen a gun or heard a gunshot or heard of anyone being shot, except on TV (mostly American TV).
I agree gun ownership is a deterrent to burglary in the US, but in the UK the odds of a burglar running into a gun-toting householder are about the same as them breaking in and finding a stack of gold bars in the living room. In fact, burglary is pretty much seen as petty crime in Britain - you might not even go to jail, whereas having a gun with you would entail a minimum 5 year stretch.
So lots of burglary, but we all live through it.
Handguns were banned in Britain after a middle-aged hand-gun enthusiast walked into a school and shot most of the kids.
At the time handguns were incredibly rare, mainly owned by handgun sporting enthusiasts, olympic competitors, etc. I don't have the figures but I would reckon one houshold in a thousand had one. Hardly a deterrent to burglars.
It has nothing to do with the recent rise in gun crime which is being caused by hand guns illegally smuggled in from the Carribean by drugslords.
The rise in gun crime is nearly all crimnal-on-criminal killing. I've not heard of a gun being used in a house burglary.
I can't be bothered to do the maths, but, around the Earth, orbital speed is 17,000 mph, and escape velocity is 25,000 mph. So to land a thing from orbit requires slowing by 17,000, escaping the Earth, speeding up by only 8,000. So oddly, it is easier to escape the Earth than to land - it's the same with the Sun. (The reason NASA finds it so easy to land is that it just dips into the atmosphere and lets friction do all the heavy work - you can't do that with the Sun at this distance.)
Am I missing something, or were we developed blindly by sexual selection amongst monkeys, in turn, right back to the primordial slime?
Clearly intelligence can increase by a technique of blind experiment. Why can it not increase faster by guided experiment?
A counter example (not that this example technology would be expected lead to the Singularity):
Creature A discovers that high glial cell counts are related to intelligence as measured by IQ tests. Through a Genome project Creature A discovers the gene that determines the number of glial cells. Creature A genetically modifies its descendent Creature B's glial cell count gene to triple the level of glial cells, and sure enough Creature B is marginally more intelligent than Creature A.
However, I agree with you about individual enlightenment being the only important goal. I love the book "I am that" by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj and thoroughly recommend it.
Ray Kurzweil has written several peer moderated papers on the historical data. He fully recognises plateaus in individual technologies, and demonstrates that historically each curve is superseeded by a "breakthrough" substitute.
The underlying "curve" carries on up, unabated.
As an extreme example look at "Hacking Matter" by Wil McCarthy as a superseeding technology for, as yet only dreamt of, molecular anufacturing nanotechnology.
Also, "we cannot see beyond it" makes no statement about whether there is a plateau or not beyond the blind spot.
Slashdot Mirror
(Although I don't believe brain scanning quite hits the resolution mark required yet.)
I think Morevec's method of simulating human intelligence involves modelling a scanned copy of the human brain, in real time at a neuronal level. It would be similar to modelling the global weather system, a software capability we already have. Current neuroscience would expect this model to be functionally equivalent to a human mind in terms of matching inputs and outputs. As an aside, I know that Ray Kurzweil has I much higher required estimated of a 20 petaflop (20,000 teraflop) computer, based on more conservative assumptions. 20 petaflops is due around 2009/10 under Moore's law. (And I for one offer an early welcome to our expected new AI overlords ...)
20 petaflops is due around 2009/10 under Moore's law. (And I for one offer an early welcome to our expected new AI overlords ...)
As you can launch in any direction, to get anywhere on the globe you only need a half orbit, or 45 minutes.
I love the bit where he takes that suspiciously personal looking leopard skin garment she is ironing/folding, and tucks it under his arm with a: "Why thank you, Anne!"
I think it was called "Fast Times at Fairmont High".
Is that the Yoda School of Business Law? :-D
Oh, I forgot, this is Slashdot. I have no friends.
I move alone.
That is a very good point. GO TRANSHUMAN! me first...
...reading a short story called "The Ungoverned" (in "The Collected Stories of Vernor Vinge") for a few "nuke-based" home defence tips.
I quite agree. I've lived in central London for 40 years and I've never seen a gun or heard a gunshot or heard of anyone being shot, except on TV (mostly American TV). I agree gun ownership is a deterrent to burglary in the US, but in the UK the odds of a burglar running into a gun-toting householder are about the same as them breaking in and finding a stack of gold bars in the living room. In fact, burglary is pretty much seen as petty crime in Britain - you might not even go to jail, whereas having a gun with you would entail a minimum 5 year stretch. So lots of burglary, but we all live through it.
Handguns were banned in Britain after a middle-aged hand-gun enthusiast walked into a school and shot most of the kids. At the time handguns were incredibly rare, mainly owned by handgun sporting enthusiasts, olympic competitors, etc. I don't have the figures but I would reckon one houshold in a thousand had one. Hardly a deterrent to burglars. It has nothing to do with the recent rise in gun crime which is being caused by hand guns illegally smuggled in from the Carribean by drugslords. The rise in gun crime is nearly all crimnal-on-criminal killing. I've not heard of a gun being used in a house burglary.
I can't be bothered to do the maths, but, around the Earth, orbital speed is 17,000 mph, and escape velocity is 25,000 mph. So to land a thing from orbit requires slowing by 17,000, escaping the Earth, speeding up by only 8,000. So oddly, it is easier to escape the Earth than to land - it's the same with the Sun. (The reason NASA finds it so easy to land is that it just dips into the atmosphere and lets friction do all the heavy work - you can't do that with the Sun at this distance.)
..but I will delete his e-mail without reading it as he is not on my "friends" list.
Uploaded into a computer running XP. The ultimate nightmare (on licence fees alone)!
Am I missing something, or were we developed blindly by sexual selection amongst monkeys, in turn, right back to the primordial slime? Clearly intelligence can increase by a technique of blind experiment. Why can it not increase faster by guided experiment? A counter example (not that this example technology would be expected lead to the Singularity): Creature A discovers that high glial cell counts are related to intelligence as measured by IQ tests. Through a Genome project Creature A discovers the gene that determines the number of glial cells. Creature A genetically modifies its descendent Creature B's glial cell count gene to triple the level of glial cells, and sure enough Creature B is marginally more intelligent than Creature A. However, I agree with you about individual enlightenment being the only important goal. I love the book "I am that" by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj and thoroughly recommend it.
Yes. I totally agree. Check out: http://singinst.org/index.html for deeper analysis.
Ray Kurzweil has written several peer moderated papers on the historical data. He fully recognises plateaus in individual technologies, and demonstrates that historically each curve is superseeded by a "breakthrough" substitute. The underlying "curve" carries on up, unabated. As an extreme example look at "Hacking Matter" by Wil McCarthy as a superseeding technology for, as yet only dreamt of, molecular anufacturing nanotechnology. Also, "we cannot see beyond it" makes no statement about whether there is a plateau or not beyond the blind spot.