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.
I suppose it could go there as well. I put it here because its just another milestone on the way to AI which is part of the definition of the singularity.
You are correct there is a different. However, the technology is already here for self-driving cars. Its only a matter of perfecting it and allowing the laws to catch up.
I use to think that same way too. In fact growing up I rarely if ever paid attention to future predictions. That is until I heard about how you can predict information technology then after I studied it a lot I realized that you can predict how information technology advances 100% perfectly.
Your replies here are examples of completely drifting off into the realm of personal opinion and speculation. You seem to be using terms like "singularity" and "information technology" in vague and generic ways. We could just as easily say that spark plugs are another milestone on the way to AI which is part of the definition of the singularity.
Where you're really going off on the deep end is by saying "...you can predict how information technology advances 100% perfectly." 100% perfectly? Really? How so? You're completely ignoring things like error and unknown events which by necessity throws out the notion of predictions that are 100% perfect. At best, you might be able to say that if nothing alters or interferes with reaching a potential outcome then a prediction can be considered correct. So it really boils to are idealistic views where we'll all live happily ever after in the wonderful land of Oz. It always remains elusive and just beyond grasp, like findng the end of the rainbow. The "technological singularity" is not a fact, it is a hypothesis.
I'm not saying we won't continue advancing with technology. I'm sure we will. But I think some folks should consider there's a distinction between what's ideal and what's real. Maybe it's worth looking at the definition of the word "singularity" for the sake of perspective. Singularity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
It's the stuff of science fiction, not reality. Longer lifespans may be possible in the distant future (not in the lifetime of your great, great grandchildren), but everything else about it is quackery. For starters, Kurzweil has shown time and time again he has a layman understanding when it comes to nanotechnology. He is not a scientist, but a businessman (a good one, no doubt) and it seems his attempts at selling people on an unrealistic, futuristic utopia are actually quite successful.
Your replies here are examples of completely drifting off into the realm of personal opinion and speculation. You seem to be using terms like "singularity" and "information technology" in vague and generic ways. We could just as easily say that spark plugs are another milestone on the way to AI which is part of the definition of the singularity.
Where you're really going off on the deep end is by saying "...you can predict how information technology advances 100% perfectly." 100% perfectly? Really? How so? You're completely ignoring things like error and unknown events which by necessity throws out the notion of predictions that are 100% perfect. At best, you might be able to say that if nothing alters or interferes with reaching a potential outcome then a prediction can be considered correct. So it really boils to are idealistic views where we'll all live happily ever after in the wonderful land of Oz. It always remains elusive and just beyond grasp, like findng the end of the rainbow. The "technological singularity" is not a fact, it is a hypothesis.
I'm not saying we won't continue advancing with technology. I'm sure we will. But I think some folks should consider there's a distinction between what's ideal and what's real. Maybe it's worth looking at the definition of the word "singularity" for the sake of perspective. Singularity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
I could explain why we can forecast how information technology advances 100% perfectly but Ray Kurzweil does a much better job. Why reinvent the wheel?
I have posted this video before but it really does the best job and its only a few minutes.
It's the stuff of science fiction, not reality. Longer lifespans may be possible in the distant future (not in the lifetime of your great, great grandchildren), but everything else about it is quackery. For starters, Kurzweil has shown time and time again he has a layman understanding when it comes to nanotechnology. He is not a scientist, but a businessman (a good one, no doubt) and it seems his attempts at selling people on an unrealistic, futuristic utopia are actually quite successful.
Information technology has been advancing exponentially since the first computer was built in 1890. Its just that now we are at the point when the changes are VERY noticeable and having a HUGE impact on society. For example this decade the paradigm shift is to wearable computers and the next decade the paradigm shift will be to computers inside out bodies and they will do things like end disease and enhance our cognitive ability. This does not even get into genetics and biology both of which are forms of information technology and advancing exponentially.
BTW Ray Kurzweil is not a fringe scientist but is the director of engineering of Google. That says a lot for him and his accomplishments and what he understands.
Information technology has been advancing exponentially since the first computer was built in 1890.
So what? I hope you and Kurzweil realize Moore's "law" is not a physical one, but rather one based on extrapolation of current trends into the future that has been remarkably accurate. Unfortunately, there are many scientific reasons to think it will no longer be valid sometime around the end of this decade. The first mistake Kurzweil makes that most science students are taught in a first year lab is to NEVER extrapolate an exponential curve into the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie
For example this decade the paradigm shift is to wearable computers and the next decade the paradigm shift will be to computers inside out bodies and they will do things like end disease and enhance our cognitive ability.
Still deferring to Kurzweil's layman interpretations of nanotechnology, I presume? First of all, we won't be ending disease anytime soon (some diseases may not ever be curable at all), seeing as we still don't understand how diseases fully function and when we do, there is absolutely no reason to think we can cure all of them. As for cognitive ability (whatever that means), this is still a major mystery in the field of neuroscience and it is not at all clear what causes it in the first place. Even if it were understood, there is no evidence at this time that it can be manipulated and controlled, most certainly not by Kurzweil's silly nanomachines.
Your claims here are about as ridiculous at this point in time as someone in the early 19th century claiming men will go the moon soon, long before the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation was published and scientists were even seriously thinking about this question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie
BTW Ray Kurzweil is not a fringe scientist but is the director of engineering of Google. That says a lot for him and his accomplishments and what he understands.
Sure he's not a "fringe" scientist, he's not even a scientist to begin with nor has he ever had training as one. He has not published any papers on nanotechnology (nor on anything at all) nor is he known by any reputable experts in the field, and yet the way he goes on and on about nanotechnology would have the general public think he's a world renowned expert on the field.
Being the "director of engineering" for a reputable firm hardly says anything about one's reputation as a scientist.
I could explain why we can forecast how information technology advances 100% perfectly but Ray Kurzweil does a much better job. Why reinvent the wheel?
I have posted this video before but it really does the best job and its only a few minutes.
Whoa, back up a second there. I believe it was you who said, "That is until I heard about how you can predict information technology then after I studied it a lot I realized that you can predict how information technology advances 100% perfectly." Why should I watch another video by Ray Kurzweil? You seem almost religiously devoted to him, posting video after video about him, clinging to every word as gospel truth, as though he's some kind of prophet. To me it gets kind of boring to hear Ray sez all the time. Posting a YouTube video of him that you've posted before is repetitious.
Since you're the one who has "...studied it a lot...", you should be able to explain easily enough why you think we can perfectly forecast how information technology advances 100%. I'm taking that to mean predictions and forecasting that are 100% correct. 100% means absolute perfection, never being wrong, and never subject to error - ever. Please give a convincing explanation and example in your own words.
The problem is that we can't really do that because the very nature of it deals with future events which have not yet happened. As things that pertain to the future there's ALWAYS the possibility that such predictions about the future can turn out to be wrong. We won't know until the time comes and goes. And that leads to another common problem. Sometimes a predicted outcome can turn out close enough to be reasonably correct, but sometimes futuristic events can fail to occur as predicted. When events fail to materialize as predicted, a common tactic is to change the dates because of some overlooked error in the prediction.
There are unforeseen events that can change a predicted outcome. The only way such a future event as the technological singularity can occur as predicted is if no unforeseen events occur that could change or delay the predicted subject. You've said yourself that we don't know what will happen in the future. I completely agree with that. But I think it's important to understand that there's a big difference between working toward a goal and making a firm prediction and claiming it to be 100% correct.
You are correct there is a different. However, the technology is already here for self-driving cars. Its only a matter of perfecting it and allowing the laws to catch up.
How many times have I heard that phrase over the decades?
Its only a matter of perfecting it
Dream on....
When you can show me a self-driving car driving around in New York City/Los Angeles/Houston during rush hour and driving in blinding snow/rain then I'll start to believe they are perfecting it....
So what? I hope you and Kurzweil realize Moore's "law" is not a physical one, but rather one based on extrapolation of current trends into the future that has been remarkably accurate. Unfortunately, there are many scientific reasons to think it will no longer be valid sometime around the end of this decade. The first mistake Kurzweil makes that most science students are taught in a first year lab is to NEVER extrapolate an exponential curve into the future.
Technically you are correct. More's law will come to a end around 2020 as that will be when the the integrated circuit will run out of steam. However you are confusing the current paradigm with computers advancing exponentially. Since the first computer was invented we have gone through a few paradigms.
Let me give you a example:
First came the elector-mechanical computers. Then it reached a point that they could no longer advance so we went to the next paradigm, the Relay computers. Then we reached a point where they could no longer advance exponentially so we moved to the next paradigm, the vacuum tube. Then they reached a point where they could not longer keep the vacuum so that was the end of the vacuum tube so we moved to the next paradigm, the transistor. Once they could not make that any smaller that was the end of the transistor and we moved to the current paradigm the integrated circuit. Once we reach 2022, give or take a few years as I read it could be as long as the late 2020's, integrated circuits will get to the point that we can no longer make then any smaller and that will again be the end of the current paradigm and we will move to the next paradigm, 3D self organizing molecular structures, and computers will continue to advance exponentially as they have since 1890.
Still deferring to Kurzweil's layman interpretations of nanotechnology, I presume? First of all, we won't be ending disease anytime soon (some diseases may not ever be curable at all), seeing as we still don't understand how diseases fully function and when we do, there is absolutely no reason to think we can cure all of them. As for cognitive ability (whatever that means), this is still a major mystery in the field of neuroscience and it is not at all clear what causes it in the first place. Even if it were understood, there is no evidence at this time that it can be manipulated and controlled, most certainly not by Kurzweil's silly nanomachines.
I don't think you understand how much power computers have. By 2030 computers the size of blood cells will have thousands of times more processing capability then all of NASA in the 1960's. The implications of that are mind boggling. Two things for certain is 1) they will have the ability to enhance our immune system effectively ending all disease for people who have them and 2) will enhance our cognitive ability making us thousands of time more intelligent then we are today. It will happen of that I am 100% certain, not 99.9% but 100%........
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astute
Your claims here are about as ridiculous at this point in time as someone in the early 19th century claiming men will go the moon soon, long before the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation was published and scientists were even seriously thinking about this question.
Not at all as they were not looking at information technology and that is the only thing we can predict with 100% certainty. In fact even today people talk about flying cars and anytime they make a prediction I tune them out as that is not information technology thus impossible to predict.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astute
Sure he's not a "fringe" scientist, he's not even a scientist to begin with nor has he ever had training as one. He has not published any papers on nanotechnology (nor on anything at all) nor is he known by any reputable experts in the field, and yet the way he goes on and on about nanotechnology would have the general public think he's a world renowned expert on the field.
Being the "director of engineering" for a reputable firm hardly says anything about one's reputation as a scientist.
Ray Kurzweil has a lot of credentials. He is most likely one of the smartest people living today.
I want to post one last thing that has nothing to do with Ray Kurzweil but is more proof of his predictions:
Computers have been getting smaller and closer to our eyeballs since their beginning. First they took up whole rooms. Then they moved to desks. Then they were in our laps. Now, they're in our palms.
Why would they stop there?
They won't.
Whoa, back up a second there. I believe it was you who said, "That is until I heard about how you can predict information technology then after I studied it a lot I realized that you can predict how information technology advances 100% perfectly." Why should I watch another video by Ray Kurzweil? You seem almost religiously devoted to him, posting video after video about him, clinging to every word as gospel truth, as though he's some kind of prophet. To me it gets kind of boring to hear Ray sez all the time. Posting a YouTube video of him that you've posted before is repetitious.
Since you're the one who has "...studied it a lot...", you should be able to explain easily enough why you think we can perfectly forecast how information technology advances 100%. I'm taking that to mean predictions and forecasting that are 100% correct. 100% means absolute perfection, never being wrong, and never subject to error - ever. Please give a convincing explanation and example in your own words.
The problem is that we can't really do that because the very nature of it deals with future events which have not yet happened. As things that pertain to the future there's ALWAYS the possibility that such predictions about the future can turn out to be wrong. We won't know until the time comes and goes. And that leads to another common problem. Sometimes a predicted outcome can turn out close enough to be reasonably correct, but sometimes futuristic events can fail to occur as predicted. When events fail to materialize as predicted, a common tactic is to change the dates because of some overlooked error in the prediction.
There are unforeseen events that can change a predicted outcome. The only way such a future event as the technological singularity can occur as predicted is if no unforeseen events occur that could change or delay the predicted subject. You've said yourself that we don't know what will happen in the future. I completely agree with that. But I think it's important to understand that there's a big difference between working toward a goal and making a firm prediction and claiming it to be 100% correct.
Not when it comes to information technology. That is because we take today's computers and build tomorrows computers and they are twice as fast. Then when tomorrow comes we build the next generation of computers again twice as fast. This is not a unknown principal and that is why as far back as the 1980's people who built games and computer programs used that idea to know when to have their game or program on the market. All Ray did was take accepted principals that people used to forecast where computers would be 2-4 years out and did it 20-40 years out.
Now Ray is not the only person who knows this and talks about it but he is the most visible person who does and thus gets a lot of the credit. Another person who I talk about it Verner Vinge.
How many times have I heard that phrase over the decades?
Its only a matter of perfecting it
Dream on....
When you can show me a self-driving car driving around in New York City/Los Angeles/Houston during rush hour and driving in blinding snow/rain then I'll start to believe they are perfecting it....
I know I get it the boy that cried wolf. But back in the 1980's it was all theoretical. Today car companies have the technology and say it will be on the market by 2020.
Look at this video on youtube:
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.
Your replies here are examples of completely drifting off into the realm of personal opinion and speculation. You seem to be using terms like "singularity" and "information technology" in vague and generic ways. We could just as easily say that spark plugs are another milestone on the way to AI which is part of the definition of the singularity.
