The Blurring Line Between Science And Science Fiction - From the Newsletter
-
If you read "The Blurring Line Between Science And Science Fiction"[^] from today's newsletter and were interested, I can recommend Kurzweil's book "The Singularity Is Near"[^]. I'm about half way thorough it now. If you're really really interested, I wrote about one of the reasons I disagree with what I've read so far here[^]. In summary - exponential curves in physical models usually turn out to be the bottom end of sigmoid curves. The negative feedback builds exponentially too and over time slows the growth, so extrapolating into the future isn't science, it's just guesswork. </blatant self promotion>
Simon
-
If you read "The Blurring Line Between Science And Science Fiction"[^] from today's newsletter and were interested, I can recommend Kurzweil's book "The Singularity Is Near"[^]. I'm about half way thorough it now. If you're really really interested, I wrote about one of the reasons I disagree with what I've read so far here[^]. In summary - exponential curves in physical models usually turn out to be the bottom end of sigmoid curves. The negative feedback builds exponentially too and over time slows the growth, so extrapolating into the future isn't science, it's just guesswork. </blatant self promotion>
Simon
I always thought that the Singularity was when a computer somewhere became fully sentient. Kurzweil seems to have his own definition.
Best wishes, Hans
-
I always thought that the Singularity was when a computer somewhere became fully sentient. Kurzweil seems to have his own definition.
Best wishes, Hans
Kurzweil does pretty much say the singularity will be started when we create a machine that can redesign a better version of it's self. So perhaps he's counting it as a few steps ahead of a machine being actually sentient, but he says sentience won't come far after. But machine intelligence is the cause of the singularity, rather than the event itself. The singularity refers to the fact that because the rate of change will be so fast we can't look past the "event horizon" and make accurate predictions because the rules will have changed so vastly we can't even comprehend the scale of the change.
Simon
-
I always thought that the Singularity was when a computer somewhere became fully sentient. Kurzweil seems to have his own definition.
Best wishes, Hans
I thought it was when the LHC started working... :laugh:
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
-
Kurzweil does pretty much say the singularity will be started when we create a machine that can redesign a better version of it's self. So perhaps he's counting it as a few steps ahead of a machine being actually sentient, but he says sentience won't come far after. But machine intelligence is the cause of the singularity, rather than the event itself. The singularity refers to the fact that because the rate of change will be so fast we can't look past the "event horizon" and make accurate predictions because the rules will have changed so vastly we can't even comprehend the scale of the change.
Simon
This is all assuming that the machines won't decide humans are irrelevant. :)
Best wishes, Hans
-
Kurzweil does pretty much say the singularity will be started when we create a machine that can redesign a better version of it's self. So perhaps he's counting it as a few steps ahead of a machine being actually sentient, but he says sentience won't come far after. But machine intelligence is the cause of the singularity, rather than the event itself. The singularity refers to the fact that because the rate of change will be so fast we can't look past the "event horizon" and make accurate predictions because the rules will have changed so vastly we can't even comprehend the scale of the change.
Simon
Simon P Stevens wrote:
the singularity will be started when we create a machine that can redesign a better version of it's self
I'd go a step further and suggest that we won't even recognize the redesigned version as better. The reality that the singularity experiences can not be compared to our reality. And as it drives it's agenda, there will be no human comprehension of that. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
-
Simon P Stevens wrote:
the singularity will be started when we create a machine that can redesign a better version of it's self
I'd go a step further and suggest that we won't even recognize the redesigned version as better. The reality that the singularity experiences can not be compared to our reality. And as it drives it's agenda, there will be no human comprehension of that. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
Perhaps the internet is sentient and currently designing a better version of IPv4.
Simon
-
Perhaps the internet is sentient and currently designing a better version of IPv4.
Simon
It's readying a virus for all iPhone/iPad devices. That'll make IPv4 last a whole lot longer. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
-
Perhaps the internet is sentient and currently designing a better version of IPv4.
Simon
-
If you read "The Blurring Line Between Science And Science Fiction"[^] from today's newsletter and were interested, I can recommend Kurzweil's book "The Singularity Is Near"[^]. I'm about half way thorough it now. If you're really really interested, I wrote about one of the reasons I disagree with what I've read so far here[^]. In summary - exponential curves in physical models usually turn out to be the bottom end of sigmoid curves. The negative feedback builds exponentially too and over time slows the growth, so extrapolating into the future isn't science, it's just guesswork. </blatant self promotion>
Simon
My problem with Kurzweil is that he falls into the same trap as more "futurists": 1) We invent knew technology 2) The technology zooms ahead 3) Magic happens 4) The future becomes what I predict Step 3 trips up a whole lot of neat ideas. Someone does something in a laboratory and people like Kurzweil seem to forget that a proof of concept in a research laboratory doesn't mean that the technology can be scaled, let alone manufactured.
-
I find it disheartening that if/when we are able to create a virtual reality that is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from the "real" reality, the mathematical odds of us actually being elements in another virtual reality approaches 1. //L
What do you mean if/when? That happened several iterations ago. Do pay attention, element #Akdo982dMedia2r!
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.” I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus! When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is.
-
I find it disheartening that if/when we are able to create a virtual reality that is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from the "real" reality, the mathematical odds of us actually being elements in another virtual reality approaches 1. //L
Why disheartening? What really changes?
