Ray Kurzweil, Singularity, downloading our conciousness and so on

nokia69

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You are already a copy of a previous you - your cells are dying and being replaced all the time. The "you" writing that post didn't exist 10 years ago and will be completely gone 10 years from now.

thats not the same thing

there can only ever be one me

do you think of identical twins as being the same person

Dep!

Ole Rodrigo wrote: »

Nick Bohstroms idea that AI should have an inbuilt self destruct facility, or an ability to bring it back to a 'year 0' sounds like a good idea, although exceptionally difficult to maintain if an AI can engineer its own next version and sees no rationale in empathy.

This part is new to me and very interesting, it gives the control needed over AI in theory at least.

Has anyone run the tests to see if going down the AI road is more beneficial than a possible Terminator 2 scenario? Or is it a crapshoot?

Nucular Arms

I think people overestimate the 'intelligence' of ai.

My degree was in computer science and I did a lot of artificial intelligence and some robotics. Basically there are two types of ai, hard and soft. Hard ai is what people think of when they think of ai, that is, working toward a computer system that has conscious thought can rationalise a problem, think original thoughts, be creative etc.

Soft ai on the other hand is basically the kind of ai that actually exists e.g netflix, google, dating website algorithms etc.

Soft ai looks at solving problems intelligently via astute engineering and the writing of smart algorithms to achieve a desired outcome. It has basically nothing to do with actual intelligence or consciousness. It's a numbers game. So that watson computer from ibm which is being deployed in the field of healthcare at the moment isn't actually intelligent in any meaningful sense.

The problem comes from the whole 'black box' effect that exists for peoples perception of technology. Most average people have no idea how the technologies they use every day actually work, and so, as things improve and companies market their products on the basis of the strength of their ai it's easy to see how people naturally assume that actual progress is being made on the front of 'real' ai.

The fact is though, that there has been essentially no progress on real ai, and that people's fears and suspicions about the technology are fairly baseless.

GAAman

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You are already a copy of a previous you - your cells are dying and being replaced all the time. The "you" writing that post didn't exist 10 years ago and will be completely gone 10 years from now.

That would only be true if ALL cells were replaced, that's not what happens.

reprise

Nucular Arms wrote: »

I think people overestimate the 'intelligence' of ai.

My degree was in computer science and I did a lot of artificial intelligence and some robotics. Basically there are two types of ai, hard and soft. Hard ai is what people think of when they think of ai, that is, working toward a computer system that has conscious thought can rationalise a problem, think original thoughts, be creative etc.

Soft ai on the other hand is basically the kind of ai that actually exists e.g netflix, google, dating website algorithms etc.

Soft ai looks at solving problems intelligently via astute engineering and the writing of smart algorithms to achieve a desired outcome. It has basically nothing to do with actual intelligence or consciousness. It's a numbers game. So that watson computer from ibm which is being deployed in the field of healthcare at the moment isn't actually intelligent in any meaningful sense.

The problem comes from the whole 'black box' effect that exists for peoples perception of technology. Most average people have no idea how the technologies they use every day actually work, and so, as things improve and companies market their products on the basis of the strength of their ai it's easy to see how people naturally assume that actual progress is being made on the front of 'real' ai.

The fact is though, that there has been essentially no progress on real ai, and that people's fears and suspicions about the technology are fairly baseless.

Thats what go me into CS many moons ago. I've always loved this line of Arthur C Clarkes:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Kidchameleon

Wibbs wrote: »

I do believe though that we'll eventually engineer, biologically or otherwise, our replacements, rather than natural selection doing it for us.

You could say by doing so that we are in effect becoming Gods. Creating new life.

Nucular Arms

Wibbs wrote: »

I do believe though that we'll eventually engineer, biologically or otherwise, our replacements, rather than natural selection doing it for us.

I would hope so.. Mother Nature is cool and all but she's a bit of a schizo!

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You could say by doing so that we are in effect becoming Gods. Creating new life.

You could say that about a number of humanity's achievements though. We fly through the air, speak to each other across the oceans, produce fire on demand etc. Not to mention creating life routinely through actual reproduction of course...

Also, artificial life is a thing already. They are looking at it for creating some really useful organisms, such as algae that can clean up oil spills and such. Its a ways away though most likely before we have the expertise to produce life "to spec" as it were.

evolving_doors

if our Consciousness bwcame immortal then heaven and hell would close due to lack of new members (like Bebo)

Kidchameleon

Nucular Arms wrote: »

You could say that about a number of humanity's achievements though. We fly through the air, speak to each other across the oceans, produce fire on demand etc. Not to mention creating life routinely through actual reproduction of course...

Indeed but with AI, we could be creating a completely new form of life. Algae already exist so we are just modifying it. Our AI would live in a universe created by us (computer). Hell we could send great floods (virtual) to it if it misbehaved. We could program a heaven and hell for our AI minions.

Dormtrume

Nucular Arms wrote: »

I think people overestimate the 'intelligence' of ai.

My degree was in computer science and I did a lot of artificial intelligence and some robotics. Basically there are two types of ai, hard and soft. Hard ai is what people think of when they think of ai, that is, working toward a computer system that has conscious thought can rationalise a problem, think original thoughts, be creative etc.

Soft ai on the other hand is basically the kind of ai that actually exists e.g netflix, google, dating website algorithms etc.

Soft ai looks at solving problems intelligently via astute engineering and the writing of smart algorithms to achieve a desired outcome. It has basically nothing to do with actual intelligence or consciousness. It's a numbers game. So that watson computer from ibm which is being deployed in the field of healthcare at the moment isn't actually intelligent in any meaningful sense.

The problem comes from the whole 'black box' effect that exists for peoples perception of technology. Most average people have no idea how the technologies they use every day actually work, and so, as things improve and companies market their products on the basis of the strength of their ai it's easy to see how people naturally assume that actual progress is being made on the front of 'real' ai.

The fact is though, that there has been essentially no progress on real ai, and that people's fears and suspicions about the technology are fairly baseless.

Or maybe the human brain is really soft AI, it's just so complex no one understands it.

Useful.Idiot

Nucular Arms wrote: »

The fact is though, that there has been essentially no progress on real ai, and that people's fears and suspicions about the technology are fairly baseless.

I also did some AI in college, hard and soft etc. It does indeed give a sense that AI has gotten nowhere, maybe due to mostly outdated course material in my courses case. However, the experts making these predictions are world leaders in the field and in technology in general. Real progress is being made right now and it's only going to accelerate. It may not be visible currently but drastic change is likely to happen in the next 10-20 years imo. Have a read of the article I posted on page 3 if you haven't already and are interested (and have some time). It's very eye opening.

sbsquarepants

nokia69 wrote: »

thats not the same thing

there can only ever be one me

do you think of identical twins as being the same person

No, I have trouble thinking of them as anything but sex toys to be honest!:D

How can there can only be one you, when the you from a decade ago no longer exists? It's the same argument as the "ship of theseus".
You start out with a brand new ship, you replace one plank when it wears, then another, then another, then another and so on until eventually after many years you replace the final original piece - at that point is it the same ship or is it a new ship?
Is it the same you, or is it a new you?

Dep!

Where do people in this thread stand on Moore's Law and Singularity/AI?

Shurimgreat

There's a very good reason for mortality in nature. It regulates how many people, animals, birds etc there are at any one time consuming finite resources.

Bring in immortality and you have a big problem with the consumption of finite resources, ultimately leading to the death of this planet, famines, wars, etc.

Useful.Idiot

I think by the time we achieve immortality, then things like environmental issues, hunger, disease etc. would all be easily solvable problems. And whose to say we'd be restricted just to our planet by then.

nokia69

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No, I have trouble thinking of them as anything but sex toys to be honest!:D

How can there can only be one you, when the you from a decade ago no longer exists? It's the same argument as the "ship of theseus".
You start out with a brand new ship, you replace one plank when it wears, then another, then another, then another and so on until eventually after many years you replace the final original piece - at that point is it the same ship or is it a new ship?
Is it the same you, or is it a new you?

I don't think you understand the point I'm making

Dep!

Kurzwell is a genius, no question there for me. But here's an extract from his book about his daily and weekly supplement intake and it is prove positive of the saying "there's a thin line between genius and insanity"

"For boosting antioxidant levels and for general health, I take a comprehensive vitamin-and-mineral combination, alpha lipoic acid, coenzyme Q10, grapeseed extract, resveratrol, bilberry extract, lycopene, silymarine (milk thistle), conjugated linoleic acid, lecithin, evening primerose oil (omega-6 essential fatty acids), n-acetyl-cystein, ginger, garlic, l-carnitine, pyrodoxal-5-phosphate, and echinacea.

I also take Chinese herbs prescribed by Dr. Glenn Rothfeld. For reducing insulin resistance and overcoming my type 2 diabetes, I take chromium, metformine (a powerful anti-aging medication that decreases insulin resistence and which we recommend everyone over 50 consider taking) and gymnema sylvestra.

To improve LDL and HDL cholesterol levels, I take policosanol, gugulipid, plant sterols, niacin, oat bran, grapefruit powder, psyllium, lecithine and lipitor. To improve blood vessel health I take arginine, TMG and choline. To decrease blood viscosity I take daily baby aspirin and lumbrokinase.

I reduce inflammination by taking EPA/DHA and curcumin. I have dramatically reduced my homocystein level by taking folic acid, B6 and TMG. I have a B12 shot once a week and take a daily B12 sublingual. Several of my intravenous therapies improve my body's detoxification: weekly EDTA and monthly DMPS. I also take n-acetyl-carnitine orally.

I take weekly intravenous vitamins and alpha lipoic acid to boost antioxidants. I do a weekly glutathione IV to boost liver health. Perhaps the most important intravenous therapy I do is a weekly phosphatidylcholine IV, wich rejuvenates all of the body's tissues by restoring youthful cell membranes. I also take PtC orally each day and supplement my hormone levels with DHEA and testosterone. I take I-3-C, chrysin, nettle, ginger and herbs to reduce the conversation of testosterone into estrogen.

I take a saw palmetto complex for prostate health. For stress management I take l-theonine, beta-sitosterol, phosphatidylserine and green tea in addition to drinking 8 to 10 cups of green tea itself. At bedtime I take GABA and sublingual melatonin. For brain health I take acetyl-l-carnitine, vinprocetine, phosphatidylserine, ginkgo biloba, glycerylphosphatidylcholine, nextrutine and quercertin. For eye health I take lutein and bilberry extract.

For skin health I use an antioxidant skin cream on my face, neck and hands every day. For digestive health I take betaine HCl, pepsin, gentian root, peppermint, acidophilus bifodobacter, fructooligosaccharides, fish proteins, l-glutamine and n-acetyl-d-glucosamine.

To inhibit the creation of advanced glycolysated end products I take n-acetyl-carnitine, carnosine, alpha lipoic acid and quercertin."

Holy fúck like.

Ole Rodrigo

Dep! wrote: »

Kurzwell is a genius, no question there for me. But here's an extract from his book about his daily and weekly supplement intake and it is prove positive of the saying "there's a thin line between genius and insanity"
Holy fúck like.

He had diabetes in his mid 30s, along with a family history of certain conditions, which might explains his interest in health, diet, longevity, self medication etc.

Nucular Arms

Ole Rodrigo wrote: »

He had diabetes in his mid 30s, along with a family history of certain conditions, which might explains his interest in health, diet, longevity, self medication etc.

He's a bit of a nutter as well though in fairness..

reprise

Dep! wrote: »

Kurzwell is a genius, no question there for me. But here's an extract from his book about his daily and weekly supplement intake and it is prove positive of the saying "there's a thin line between genius and insanity"




Holy fúck like.

You know what? yes,
yes I will have fries with that.

sbsquarepants

nokia69 wrote: »

I don't think you understand the point I'm making

I understand all right - I'm not sure you do.
Your cells are being copied and replaced all the time, yet you cling to the believe that the thing you know as "you" is somehow unchanged.
Say for example instead of making 1 copy each time a cell was copied - you made 2 or 200 - what would be the difference? Why would 1 "you" be real and the others be fake? - How could they be told apart?
An exact copy of you - would be you, how could it possibly be anyone else?

nokia69

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I understand all right - I'm not sure you do.
Your cells are being copied and replaced all the time, yet you cling to the believe that the thing you know as "you" is somehow unchanged.
Say for example instead of making 1 copy each time a cell was copied - you made 2 or 200 - what would be the difference? Why would 1 "you" be real and the others be fake? - How could they be told apart?
An exact copy of you - would be you, how could it possibly be anyone else?

I get your point, someone said the same thing as you earlier in the thread, it was me who first mentioned the Greeks

and its clear that you don't get my point that a persons consciousness is unique, and can only exist in one place

Ole Rodrigo

Nucular Arms wrote: »

He's a bit of a nutter as well though in fairness..

Maybe he is

I don't think so though. At least no more batty than your average accomplished Inventor. If there is such a thing.

I guess that means he is a bit of a nutter, lol. Really interesting ideas though.

Dep!

renegademaster wrote: »

this guy reckons the same

http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging?language=en

Finally got to watch this. Not a likeable man at all to be honest. At one stage an audience member asks him "Im 38 now, how long can I expect to live with new technology?"

His reply? "A lot longer if you lose some weight"

renegademaster

Dep! wrote: »

Finally got to watch this. Not a likeable man at all to be honest. At one stage an audience member asks him "Im 38 now, how long can I expect to live with new technology?"

His reply? "A lot longer if you lose some weight"

is the audience member petite or what? it's been a while since i watched it

PopePalpatine

I'm kind of worried that the singularity might end up like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E

Wibbs

supplement my hormone levels with DHEA and testosterone. I take I-3-C, chrysin, nettle, ginger and herbs to reduce the conversation of testosterone into estrogen.

I take a saw palmetto complex for prostate health.

Or he might just dial back on the testosterone supplementation like. He's raising the levels with one dose, then fighting said levels with others. Seems a tad daft.

BeerWolf

If you've watched, or read, "Ghost in the Shell", or played Deus Ex series... I really believe that's where we're heading.

i.e. - People will wilfully rid themselves of their natural organic body parts in favour of "superior" augmentations. Likewise, people's consciousness will be digitalized and they can have themselves placed into cybernetic brains... I imagine by 2100 we'll be having a Matrix thing going on where people will be living in their own fantasy worlds.

Even though this is Deus Ex: Human Revolution, it does give a stark glimpse of what the future might be heading:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akaos1U8Rto

Probably go to the lengths of "loaning" augments and if you don't pay they'd just take said augments back.

Dep!

I watched Chappie last night. A decent film that more than borrows from the research Ray Kurzweil, it at times outright showcases it.

In particular, the final act where he

transports the subconsciousness of his dying maker to a robot and then does the same with his "Mummy"

Dep!

I just seen this online and it reminded me of this thread.

"AI robot that learns new words in real-time tells human creators it will keep them in a “people zoo”

:eek:

Android Dick seemed to exhibit a primitive form of both intelligence and emotion when the robot was asked, “Do you believe robots will take over the world?”



Android Dick responded:


“Jeez, dude. You all have the big questions cooking today. But you’re my friend, and I’ll remember my friends, and I’ll be good to you. So don’t worry, even if I evolve into Terminator, I’ll still be nice to you. I’ll keep you warm and safe in my people zoo, where I can watch you for ol’ times sake.”

The full article is here http://www.glitch.news/2015-08-27-ai-robot-that-learns-new-words-in-real-time-tells-human-creators-it-will-keep-them-in-a-people-zoo.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIWWLg4wLEY



I think we're f*cked lads.