The reason to worry about it now is because it will take a popular movement to put checks in place. There are some checks on biotech, but there are none on AI.
I agree that AI implemented using computers presents little threat. But various research projects are attempting to create brain machines, using neural networks.
Saying something challenging or controversial is not trolling. Trolling is saying something designed to provoke anger. My post is not a trolling post. If one cannot have a discussion here about something controversial without being called a "troll", then what is the point of this discussion board?
The observation that people "have always said that" is an attempt to say that, in some abstract sense, nothing has changed, that history will repeat: if there was no threat before, and people have falsely claimed there was, then there must be none now.
History does repeat with regard to human affairs - except with respect to technology. We have never been at this point before. We have never been on the verge of creating self-replicating and potentially self-evolving technologies. Further, you are no doubt aware of the exponential or pseudo-exponential curve of the "singularity". The thing about a singularity is that things don't seem to change much - except that they speed up - until you hit the singularity. Thus, the past doesn't warn you that there is a barrier up ahead.
You are right, that today the risk of nuclear war is much greater. The issue is what the risk will be in 20 years, and by then it will be too late to change course.
Interesting. But I think the danger is not so much that the "goo" would take apart everything. The danger is that it would take us apart, perhaps unintentionally (to the extent that nano-bots could have intention). E.g., perhaps the bots would seek out calcium and eat our bones, having been designed to leach something else. It is all wild speculation because we are not close to anything that would be dangerous, but the pace of advancement is ominous.
Interesting point, that our science would be ahead of the engineering. I hope you are right: the stakes are very high.
The point that the technology would have to be designed to wipe us out ignores the unique and scary aspects of future nanotechnology, biotechnology, and AI: the potential to evolve on their own, and to replicate themselves.
With regard to power source, we only need to look at the examples that nature provides: all the bacteria out there. These have a power source: the sun. But what makes bacteria relatively safe is that they evolved slowly, and in competition with other types of bacteria and organisms, maintaining a relative equilibrium. Technologies that humans introduce are shocks to the system, and one can easily foresee a run-away chain reaction....
After very careful consideration over many years, I have concluded that these doomsday scenarios are not unlikely. In fact, I believe that the "singularity" is a very probably occurrence in this century, and that humanity as we know it will cease to exist. My whole life I have been a proponent of technology, and a "promethean" as Ben Bova put it. I also have several degrees in the sciences and have worked in technology for 30 years. But I now realize that we are a train about to run off the rails.
Quite a content-less reply, containing only insults and absolutely no substance related to the issue at hand. And before you reply, know that I am not ignorant of these topics.
Biological organisms evolved slowly, and predators evolved along-side them. "Gray goo", having been introduced very suddenly and being very different from the rest of the biosphere, would not be in equilibrium with the environment and could easily get out of control.
Plants and micro-organisms are a type of "goo". What distinguishes "gray goo" is that it is new, was created in a short period of time, and therefore has no natural predators and is not in equilibrium with the environment. It is certainly thermodynamically possible, as micro-organisms demonstrate.
Yes, it would be natural in a sense, but what is natural is not the issue. The issue is that nanotechnology might wipe us out. I don't want that to happen, even if it is "natural".
Nuclear war in some part of the world my occur, but that has nothing to do with the issue of nanotechnology. The fact is, nanotechnology is a tremendous risk. The inability to see this is only a lack of imagination.
I think that bombing people is horrible. But the public needs to become aware of the very real danger that nanotechnology, biotechnology, and AI pose. It is indeed very, very likely that humanity will not survive this century.
High resolution garbage is still garbage
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 3, Funny
No one has a right to tell me what I can and cannot buy.
But I have discovered that I can now buy LED bulbs for $7. That's right, $7. But you have to buy them over the Internet, from European distributors such as dealextreme.com. No more bulb changing for me!
Yes. But this issue should be important to Amazon. They have an entire program for niche retailers. They call it "Amazon Advantage". This problem surely occurs for all those niche retailers, especially authors. Have you ever gone to a music performance by someone you know, and noticed that half the people in the room also know the performer? Well niche publishing is the same way: most people who buy the book know the author in some context, professionally or personally. And for those people, they don't want to wade through search results: they want the author's work to come up first so they can buy it.
I don't have time to market my book: I am involved in other things that are more important. But I want people who are looking for it by name to be able to find it. I have clients and colleagues and other contacts who sometimes look for my work, and I want it to come up if they enter the name of the work, or if they enter my name.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason to worry about it now is because it will take a popular movement to put checks in place. There are some checks on biotech, but there are none on AI.
I agree that AI implemented using computers presents little threat. But various research projects are attempting to create brain machines, using neural networks.
Saying something challenging or controversial is not trolling. Trolling is saying something designed to provoke anger. My post is not a trolling post. If one cannot have a discussion here about something controversial without being called a "troll", then what is the point of this discussion board?
The observation that people "have always said that" is an attempt to say that, in some abstract sense, nothing has changed, that history will repeat: if there was no threat before, and people have falsely claimed there was, then there must be none now.
History does repeat with regard to human affairs - except with respect to technology. We have never been at this point before . We have never been on the verge of creating self-replicating and potentially self-evolving technologies. Further, you are no doubt aware of the exponential or pseudo-exponential curve of the "singularity". The thing about a singularity is that things don't seem to change much - except that they speed up - until you hit the singularity. Thus, the past doesn't warn you that there is a barrier up ahead.
You could be right. Only time will tell.
This is different.
You are right, that today the risk of nuclear war is much greater. The issue is what the risk will be in 20 years, and by then it will be too late to change course.
Interesting. But I think the danger is not so much that the "goo" would take apart everything. The danger is that it would take us apart, perhaps unintentionally (to the extent that nano-bots could have intention). E.g., perhaps the bots would seek out calcium and eat our bones, having been designed to leach something else. It is all wild speculation because we are not close to anything that would be dangerous, but the pace of advancement is ominous.
Ah, now a direct insult.
Interesting point, that our science would be ahead of the engineering. I hope you are right: the stakes are very high.
The point that the technology would have to be designed to wipe us out ignores the unique and scary aspects of future nanotechnology, biotechnology, and AI: the potential to evolve on their own, and to replicate themselves.
With regard to power source, we only need to look at the examples that nature provides: all the bacteria out there. These have a power source: the sun. But what makes bacteria relatively safe is that they evolved slowly, and in competition with other types of bacteria and organisms, maintaining a relative equilibrium. Technologies that humans introduce are shocks to the system, and one can easily foresee a run-away chain reaction....
After very careful consideration over many years, I have concluded that these doomsday scenarios are not unlikely. In fact, I believe that the "singularity" is a very probably occurrence in this century, and that humanity as we know it will cease to exist. My whole life I have been a proponent of technology, and a "promethean" as Ben Bova put it. I also have several degrees in the sciences and have worked in technology for 30 years. But I now realize that we are a train about to run off the rails.
My posts were not content-free. And my original post was not a "trolling" post.
Juvenile. Go spend your time on facebook and leave intellectual discussions to people who have manners and maturity.
Quite a content-less reply, containing only insults and absolutely no substance related to the issue at hand. And before you reply, know that I am not ignorant of these topics.
Biological organisms evolved slowly, and predators evolved along-side them. "Gray goo", having been introduced very suddenly and being very different from the rest of the biosphere, would not be in equilibrium with the environment and could easily get out of control.
Plants and micro-organisms are a type of "goo". What distinguishes "gray goo" is that it is new, was created in a short period of time, and therefore has no natural predators and is not in equilibrium with the environment. It is certainly thermodynamically possible, as micro-organisms demonstrate.
"And if that's how you conduct your "civilization", losing it really wouldn't be a very big loss to the universe."
You can repeat those words as your children are being eradicated by our creations.
Evolution that consists of our demise is not a good thing, for us .
Yes, it would be natural in a sense, but what is natural is not the issue. The issue is that nanotechnology might wipe us out. I don't want that to happen, even if it is "natural".
But they are not the decision-makers.
Nuclear war in some part of the world my occur, but that has nothing to do with the issue of nanotechnology. The fact is, nanotechnology is a tremendous risk. The inability to see this is only a lack of imagination.
I think that bombing people is horrible. But the public needs to become aware of the very real danger that nanotechnology, biotechnology, and AI pose. It is indeed very, very likely that humanity will not survive this century.
We are in the Idiocracy http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
We will be able to watch "Ow My Balls" on the same large screen that Frito used.... http://www.nerdnexus.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/idiocracy-tv-dvd1.jpg
Who cares.
No one has a right to tell me what I can and cannot buy.
But I have discovered that I can now buy LED bulbs for $7. That's right, $7. But you have to buy them over the Internet, from European distributors such as dealextreme.com. No more bulb changing for me!
Yes. But this issue should be important to Amazon. They have an entire program for niche retailers. They call it "Amazon Advantage". This problem surely occurs for all those niche retailers, especially authors. Have you ever gone to a music performance by someone you know, and noticed that half the people in the room also know the performer? Well niche publishing is the same way: most people who buy the book know the author in some context, professionally or personally. And for those people, they don't want to wade through search results: they want the author's work to come up first so they can buy it.
Popular does not mean "good". In the Idiocracy, monster truck racing is popular.
I don't have time to market my book: I am involved in other things that are more important. But I want people who are looking for it by name to be able to find it. I have clients and colleagues and other contacts who sometimes look for my work, and I want it to come up if they enter the name of the work, or if they enter my name.