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.
A motorized exoskeleton, designed to help paralyzed people walk again, just earned U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval. It is the first such device to do so.
The device, called ReWalk, straps on user's bodies and helps those with certain spinal-cord injuries to sit, stand, and walk. Users have to wear a backpack to carry the ReWalk's computer and battery. They also have to wear a wrist device with buttons to tell the motorized legs when to stand up, sit down, or start walking. But it's not like users are punching every step into their wrist controllers--ReWalk legs also respond to movements of the user's torso, so that leaning forward triggers a step. (Popular Science gave the device an Invention Award in 2009 and a Best of What's New award in 2011.)
This is a interesting read but I actually think it will happen by 2030 when one computer is more intelligent then the unaided human and we have to merge with computers to keep up. Also, I do not see it being a problem its just going to be the new reality and IMO a much better one.
This is from Business Insider:
The average estimate for when this will happen is 2040, though Del Monte says it might be as late as 2045. Either way, it's a timeframe of within three decades. "It won't be the 'Terminator' scenario, not a war," said Del Monte. "In the early part of the post-singularity world, one scenario is that the machines will seek to turn humans into cyborgs. This is nearly happening now, replacing faulty limbs with artificial parts.
This is a good but long video on a book written by Erik Brynjolfsson & Andrew McAfee on The Second Machine Age. I will buy the book this week and read it.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,169,902 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie
This is a interesting read but I actually think it will happen by 2030 when one computer is more intelligent then the unaided human and we have to merge with computers to keep up. Also, I do not see it being a problem its just going to be the new reality and IMO a much better one.
This is from Business Insider:
The average estimate for when this will happen is 2040, though Del Monte says it might be as late as 2045. Either way, it's a timeframe of within three decades. "It won't be the 'Terminator' scenario, not a war," said Del Monte. "In the early part of the post-singularity world, one scenario is that the machines will seek to turn humans into cyborgs. This is nearly happening now, replacing faulty limbs with artificial parts.
Del Monte believes machines will become self-conscious and have the capabilities to protect themselves. They "might view us the same way we view harmful insects." Humans are a species that "is unstable, creates wars, has weapons to wipe out the world twice over, and makes computer viruses." Hardly an appealing roommate.
He wrote the book as "a warning." Artificial intelligence is becoming more and more capable, and we're adopting it as quickly as it appears. A pacemaker operation is "quite routine," he said, but "it uses sensors and AI to regulate your heart."
Yeah ..... but machines will be able to create wars, weapons, and computer viruses too ..... after all, our military is funding a great deal of the AI and robotics research, and other hostile countries are taking notes on all that.
We simply don't know, can't imagine, what sort of ethics a vastly smarter self-aware mind would have. They might exterminate us, they might glorify us, maybe keep a few of us alive in zoo exhibits. We can no more guess or understand the meanings of their actions than a chimp could figure us out.
Yeah ..... but machines will be able to create wars, weapons, and computer viruses too ..... after all, our military is funding a great deal of the AI and robotics research, and other hostile countries are taking notes on all that.
We simply don't know, can't imagine, what sort of ethics a vastly smarter self-aware mind would have. They might exterminate us, they might glorify us, maybe keep a few of us alive in zoo exhibits. We can no more guess or understand the meanings of their actions than a chimp could figure us out.
That is why we will have to merge with computers so we can keep up! Trans-humanism.
Earlier and scattered around the thread here and there is the touting about building a computerized version of the human brain. Despite views that if the funding isn't available it'd put such projects on hold, counter attempts ignore economics and withholding or reduction of funding and claiming that it'll happen anyway. But the fact remains that not everyone is all that thrilled about it, meaning that economics and inadequate funding can indeed put such projects on hold.
The 'Human Brain Project" in Europe appears to have those who oppose the $1.6 billion project as a waste of financial resources that would be better spent on existing projects, or at least spend less money on it. A group of 190 neuroscience researchers say that if Europe decides to go ahead and fund the project anyway, the scientists will boycott the project and encourage colleagues to do the same. If such a boycott is successful, it's possible other similar projects in other countries could possibly face the same kind of opposition to funding.
Nothing will change with the time scale as there are to many projects working on reverse engineering the brain.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of what a boycott is. It has the potential of being quite serious if it receives enough substantial support. If it results with funding being either cut back or dries up, the project would have to be either scaled back to proceed at a much slower pace or possibly come to a complete halt if such a boycott is strong enough. It's complete nonsense to think nothing would change. It would depend on how strong a boycott is. At the moment there is no boycott, but if it should take place it would most certainly change the time scale as you see it.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of what a boycott is. It has the potential of being quite serious if it receives enough substantial support. If it results with funding being either cut back or dries up, the project would have to be either scaled back to proceed at a much slower pace or possibly come to a complete halt if such a boycott is strong enough. It's complete nonsense to think nothing would change. It would depend on how strong a boycott is. At the moment there is no boycott, but if it should take place it would most certainly change the time scale as you see it.
I know what a boycott is and it will have no real impact on the scientific community as a whole. It might impact this one project but it will not slow down how fast computers are advancing or how fast we will reverse engineer the brain. In the grand scheme of things its just childish.
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.
By 2045 'The Top Species Will No Longer Be Humans
