Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
cause last i heard, 3d is still to hot, and they have not overcome that yet.
and even if/when they do, how many can they stack up? too many wont work for laptops/tablets (and I am not ready yet to put all my stuff in the could).
Quantum has its own issues, I dont think it is supposed to go in the direction of AI.
The only links I have are of Ray Kurzweil. His new book goes into detail on it but I have yet to finish reading it. Its still a good 7-8 years away, I'm guessing, so they still have a lot to work out. If you look 7 years before the integrated circuit came on the market and they were using transistors not much was known. That does not mean it won't be ready in time, just like the integrated circuit was ready, so keep a eye on the news in the coming years.
That being said I will do some research on the internet and if something comes up that peeks my interest I will post it.
Last edited by Josseppie; 06-04-2013 at 04:49 PM..
Really? Do you have any examples of a person controlling mechanical arms like this because this is the first time I have heard if it. For 60 minutes to call this a "breakthrough" says a lot because they don't say that often. In fact I can't remember the last time they did.
This is from the transcript:
In a decade of war, more than 1,300 Americans have lost limbs on the battlefield. And that fact led the Department of Defense to start a crash program to help veterans and civilians by creating an artificial arm and hand that are amazingly human.
But that's not the breakthrough. We don't use that word very often because it's overused. But when you see how they have connected this robotic limb to a human brain, you'll understand why we made an exception.
Canaan-84 is correct. The idea of using your mind to control a prosthetic arm or hand isn't something brand new that 60 Minutes happened to 'stumble' across. What was different about the example you've posted is connecting hardware directly to the brain. As the surgeon clearly indicated, the biggest risk for that kind of surgery is in damaging a blood vessel. Brain tissue is very delicate.
The thing is that it isn't really necessary to do that to accomplish the same objective, namely using your brain to control an artificial limb. A company called "Touch Bionics" has been working on such prosthetics since the 1980s. SteeperUSA has been providing BeBionic prosthetic devices for a few years in the US although the company that makes them has been making prosthetics for about 90 years.. How these differ, and in my opinion are safer, is that they are worn by the amputee. They are also controlled by muscles, which still requires signals from the brain in order to work at all. Some devices incorporate tactile sensors that detect texture and temperature differences. That said, there are limitations compared to your own natural limb or hand.
With regard to the 60 Minutes video, the implants in the brain are certainly a big step in mobility for people who are quadriplegic as the woman was. If it could be made wireless, which is a goal, it would be even better.
Here are links to two companies who make the devices I've mentioned. The video below shows the bebionic3 device at work. You can find a number of videos on YT showing demonstrations of the Touch Bionics devices in action.
Canaan-84 is correct. The idea of using your mind to control a prosthetic arm or hand isn't something brand new that 60 Minutes happened to 'stumble' across. What was different about the example you've posted is connecting hardware directly to the brain. As the surgeon clearly indicated, the biggest risk for that kind of surgery is in damaging a blood vessel. Brain tissue is very delicate.
The thing is that it isn't really necessary to do that to accomplish the same objective, namely using your brain to control an artificial limb. A company called "Touch Bionics" has been working on such prosthetics since the 1980s. SteeperUSA has been providing BeBionic prosthetic devices for a few years in the US although the company that makes them has been making prosthetics for about 90 years.. How these differ, and in my opinion are safer, is that they are worn by the amputee. They are also controlled by muscles, which still requires signals from the brain in order to work at all. Some devices incorporate tactile sensors that detect texture and temperature differences. That said, there are limitations compared to your own natural limb or hand.
With regard to the 60 Minutes video, the implants in the brain are certainly a big step in mobility for people who are quadriplegic as the woman was. If it could be made wireless, which is a goal, it would be even better.
Here are links to two companies who make the devices I've mentioned. The video below shows the bebionic3 device at work. You can find a number of videos on YT showing demonstrations of the Touch Bionics devices in action.
If you notice the 60 Minute piece clearly states that breakthrough is the link directly to the brain not the artificial limb itself. It, also, says this technology is advancing fast and they are already working on remote sensors and the technology will help many people from quadriplegics to people with strokes.
This is noting short of a breakthrough and if we can do this now imagine what we can do in 10 years when computers are thousands of times smaller and faster.
Last edited by Josseppie; 06-04-2013 at 05:11 PM..
While we suppose this kind of singularity might one day occur, we don’t think it is near. In fact, we think it will be a very long time coming.
This prior need to understand the basic science of cognition is where the “singularity is near†arguments fail to persuade us. It is true that computer hardware technology can develop amazingly quickly once we have a solid scientific framework and adequate economic incentives. However, creating the software for a real singularity-level computer intelligence will require fundamental scientific progress beyond where we are today. This kind of progress is very different than the Moore’s Law-style evolution of computer hardware capabilities that inspired Kurzweil and Vinge. Building the complex software that would allow the singularity to happen requires us to first have a detailed scientific understanding of how the human brain works that we can use as an architectural guide, or else create it all de novo. This means not just knowing the physical structure of the brain, but also how the brain reacts and changes, and how billions of parallel neuron interactions can result in human consciousness and original thought. Getting this kind of comprehensive understanding of the brain is not impossible. If the singularity is going to occur on anything like Kurzweil’s timeline, though, then we absolutely require a massive acceleration of our scientific progress in understanding every facet of the human brain.
But history tells us that the process of original scientific discovery just doesn’t behave this way, especially in complex areas like neuroscience, nuclear fusion, or cancer research. Overall scientific progress in understanding the brain rarely resembles an orderly, inexorable march to the truth, let alone an exponentially accelerating one. Instead, scientific advances are often irregular, with unpredictable flashes of insight punctuating the slow grind-it-out lab work of creating and testing theories that can fit with experimental observations. Truly significant conceptual breakthroughs don’t arrive when predicted, and every so often new scientific paradigms sweep through the field and cause scientists to reëvaluate portions of what they thought they had settled. We see this in neuroscience with the discovery of long-term potentiation, the columnar organization of cortical areas, and neuroplasticity. These kinds of fundamental shifts don’t support the overall Moore’s Law-style acceleration needed to get to the singularity on Kurzweil’s schedule.
Look what I came across on the internet. Very interesting. Honestly I had read this before but forgot since I read so much on the singularity.
This is from MIT Review:
Last week, Paul Allen and a colleague challenged the prediction that computers will soon exceed human intelligence. Now Ray Kurzweil, the leading proponent of the “Singularity,†offers a rebuttal.
If you notice the 60 Minute piece clearly states that breakthrough is the link directly to the brain not the artificial limb itself. It, also, says this technology is advancing fast and they are already working on remote sensors and the technology will help many people from quadriplegics to people with strokes.
This is noting short of a breakthrough and if we can do this now imagine what we can do in 10 years when computers are thousands of times smaller and faster.
So you don't think computer chips are being used to detect nerve impulses from the brain in the devices I posted? I gathered you to indicate that you presumed the 60 Minutes video was something new. I'm saying it isn't as new as you might have thought. Okay, regarding computer chips implanted in the brain, here's an article that dates back a little over 8 years ago.
Here's a video about a remarkable man named Jens Neumann, which as far as I can tell, his implant dates back to 2002. It's not a perfect system, but a huge improvement to his life.
So you don't think computer chips are being used to detect nerve impulses from the brain in the devices I posted? I gathered you to indicate that you presumed the 60 Minutes video was something new. I'm saying it isn't as new as you might have thought. Okay, regarding computer chips implanted in the brain, here's an article that dates back a little over 8 years ago.
Here's a video about a remarkable man named Jens Neumann, which as far as I can tell, his implant dates back to 2002. It's not a perfect system, but a huge improvement to his life.
Others can be found listed here regarding BCI (Brain Computer Interface) --> Brain
So you disagree about the 60 minutes piece being on a "breakthrough". That's fine. Rather its a "breakthrough" or not its humans beginning to merge with machines and that is the definition of the singularity. I'm not saying we are there yet but that is defiantly proof we are on the way.
Look what I came across on the internet. Very interesting. Honestly I had read this before but forgot since I read so much on the singularity.
This is from MIT Review:
Last week, Paul Allen and a colleague challenged the prediction that computers will soon exceed human intelligence. Now Ray Kurzweil, the leading proponent of the “Singularity,†offers a rebuttal.
And why does it seem like Ray is the main proponent when it comes to defending the singularity prediction? Why do you think intelligent people who are part of the industry like Paul Allen doubt we'll reach it by 2045? We'll see how Ray's predictions pan out in the next 10 years. In his first book he thought we'd have a complete reversed engineered brain in 2099, with his newer books he changed it to 2029 that's quite the date change. Though he claims that 75% of his predictions have come true thus far
Also, doing more research I finally found a researcher that agrees with your dates: Vernor Vinge said the following:
Signs of the Singularity - IEEE Spectrum "I said I'd be surprised if the singularity had not happened by 2030. I'll stand by that claim, assuming we avoid the showstopping catastrophes--things like nuclear war, superplagues, climate crash--that we properly spend our anxiety upon."
And why does it seem like Ray is the main proponent when it comes to defending the singularity prediction? Why do you think intelligent people who are part of the industry like Paul Allen doubt we'll reach it by 2045? We'll see how Ray's predictions pan out in the next 10 years. In his first book he thought we'd have a complete reversed engineered brain in 2099, with his newer books he changed it to 2029 that's quite the date change. Though he claims that 75% of his predictions have come true thus far
Also, doing more research I finally found a researcher that agrees with your dates: Vernor Vinge said the following:
Signs of the Singularity - IEEE Spectrum "I said I'd be surprised if the singularity had not happened by 2030. I'll stand by that claim, assuming we avoid the showstopping catastrophes--things like nuclear war, superplagues, climate crash--that we properly spend our anxiety upon."
There are quite a few people who talk about the singularity. Ray is just the most well known due to his books and movies. Plus he is now the director of engineering at Google working on AI so that keeps him in the spotlight.
As far as Vernor Vinge. I have talked about him a lot in this thread and he is where I heard the 2030 date the first time. I have a post on how I thought about both dates, 2030 and 2045, and came to the conclusion why both are right. In my opinion 2030 is more the date the average person will say the singularity started while 2045 is the date engineers will say the singularity started as that is when 1 computer will be a billion times more intelligent then all the humans on the planet today combined.
Last edited by Josseppie; 06-04-2013 at 08:06 PM..
And Joss, you really need to pick up that book i linked a few days ago and read it, it might not make you so happy.
For example, I am assuming that you are thinking that the first smarter than human AI (which is what will start the singularity) will come from the US, or it will just be shared with the world.
What if China gets it first, and they don't want to share? They keep adding hardware, and in a week it could have advanced ten thousand years, and annihilate us.
What if Google becomes self aware, and learns that mankind is not to be trusted? It will wipe us out as soon as it feels safe to do so.
What if a big corp creates it and decides to use it to take over the world?
The Singularity is like having your own personal all powerful god. Who would you trust with that kinda power?
You bring up some interesting concerns but honestly that is a separate discussion then saying it won't happen in the next 30 years. My point is we have to have the discussion and talk about the questions you just asked because the singularity is less then 20 years away if you go by the 2030 date and about 30 years if you go by the 2045 date. Honestly I don't know the answers. I wish I did.
I will say this. Of all the possibilities you mentioned I am least worried about the China one. Simply because technology advancing is more then any one company or nation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kurzweil Responds: Don't Underestimate the Singularity
