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.
Perhaps thats the way it will go, at this point we can only speculate..
With most things we can only speculate not so with information technology. That is rather unique and why we know what will happen with technology by 2030 and 2045.
I would never say that people who choose to merge with the technology are better then people who do not. Now they will be more intelligent and have access to more knowledge and will be able to keep up with how fast technology will be advancing by then.
Allow me to refer you back to your own statement once again: "AI will be one reason humans will have to change because we will not be able to survive if we do not." Based on that statement, there would be no other alternative for survival for anyone not choosing to go with AI. So which is better? Having intelligence that advances at a faster rate or having intelligence that advances at a rate that is not as fast?
BTW, even if a person does install hardware in the brain to give you direct access to AI, that doesn't mean that person will have any more or less capacity to be more intelligent. Having access to information can be useful, but having access doesn't automatically mean you can always understand and apply the knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie
From reading your post I thought of the Amish and maybe they are a better example. They choose to live without modern technology and from what little I have seen about them they seem to be happy. Maybe in the future you will have pockets of people who choose to form communities and live their lives without merging with technology or having AI. However this is where we start to get into the social sciences and is something that can not be predicted.
However, that could be turned around because you can't accurately predict the percentage of the population who will choose to merge with hi-tech information technology or having AI. So your statement can also be reversed. Maybe in the future you will have pockets of people who choose to form communities and live their lives by merging with technology or having AI. It doesn't matter if social sciences can be predicted or not. That's nothing more than meaningless techno-babble. What is predictible though is that if you split humanity between the haves and the have nots, you're going to have social issues because there will be social differences. You can't simply dismiss social sciences because the very nature of what you envision would very much involve the structure of societies.
You have to consider the attitudes of the people who merge with info-tech and AI. How willing are they going to be in terms of sharing the fruits of their new techno-life with those that don't opt for it? If they're willing to share, then there's no real advantage for everyone to merge. If they don't share, then it gets into eliteism and conflict between the haves and the have nots. The exception would be if such "merging" is simply fancier form of internet access, which seems more likely. In that case, there'd be no need for the kind of autonomous AI you seem to think looms on the horizon.
The example about the Amish is a noble effort, but it's really just grabbing at straws because its an example that's not applicable in this case. People without AI are not going to be reverting back to the stone age, nor will they not continue advancing with technology and not have the capability to do so without AI. There is no evidence that AI is or will be the ultimate answer to all things, apart from fiction. We're nowhere near to having a computer system that is truly autonomous and self-aware. But assuming that did happen, then without built-in limitations and constraints, there would be nothing to stop such a system from doing what it wants to do, even if it means the extermination of the human population. After all, what benefit would people have if the same thing can be done by intelligent machines? If such an AI system were more intelligent than the entire combined knowledge of humans, then what's to stop the AI system from doing what it wants to do?
You often tend to leap to clever expressions and terms like 'computers are advancing at exponential rates'. So what? It only means that computers are getting faster. It does not automatically mean that computers are becoming more intelligent than all the people on the planet, or leading to an autonomous AI super system, or that people must merge with the technology in order to survive.
I would never say that people who choose to merge with the technology are better then people who do not. Now they will be more intelligent and have access to more knowledge and will be able to keep up with how fast technology will be advancing by then.
Isn't it funny that now, in 2014 people are dumber now than over 100 years ago?
Yet as per you all of a sudden in 16 years they will get smarter because of machines?
Nation’s Report Card reveals high school seniors lack critical math and reading skills
Only about one-quarter are performing proficiently or better in math and just 4 in 10 in reading. And they're not improving, the report says, reinforcing concerns that large numbers of today's students are unprepared for either college or the workplace.
BTW, even if a person does install hardware in the brain to give you direct access to AI, that doesn't mean that person will have any more or less capacity to be more intelligent. Having access to information can be useful, but having access doesn't automatically mean you can always understand and apply the knowledge.
I apologize if it sounds too harsh, but your statements above clearly indicate your lack of understanding of basic computer technology.
A simple computer stores data on a hard-disk, and accesses and processes the data using (among many things) a processor and RAM. You are already conceding that humans may be able to increase information storage capacity in the future. But what makes you think that they cannot in a similar fashion, improve their processors (i.e. brain computing capacity)?
If humans can implant hardware that stores more information, hardware that processes and understands that information is only the next logical process.
Quote:
However, that could be turned around because you can't accurately predict the percentage of the population who will choose to merge with hi-tech information technology or having AI. So your statement can also be reversed.Maybe in the future you will have pockets of people who choose to form communities and live their lives by merging with technology or having AI. It doesn't matter if social sciences can be predicted or not. That's nothing more than meaningless techno-babble. What is predictible though is that if you split humanity between the haves and the have nots, you're going to have social issues because there will be social differences. You can't simply dismiss social sciences because the very nature of what you envision would very much involve the structure of societies.
You have to consider the attitudes of the people who merge with info-tech and AI. How willing are they going to be in terms of sharing the fruits of their new techno-life with those that don't opt for it? If they're willing to share, then there's no real advantage for everyone to merge. If they don't share, then it gets into eliteism and conflict between the haves and the have nots. The exception would be if such "merging" is simply fancier form of internet access, which seems more likely. In that case, there'd be no need for the kind of autonomous AI you seem to think looms on the horizon.
Again, you make an argument based on a false sense of what singularity and AI will bring to humanity. Allow me to elaborate.
Singularity and advanced AI is going to make everything many million magnitudes better. Your arguments would be true if these improvements were only incremental. If I told you about 10 years ago that there would be a device in the future, that could hold the text from all the books ever written, and access maps from all the world, and you could watch live sports and movie on it, and it would be a camera, and you could play games on it, and ........ you would think that I was crazy.
You think, nanobots that can cure cancer, other disease, and reverse aging (Phase I, before singularity) are going to appeal to a small segment of society? And note that this technology is supposed to appear even before we achieve singularity.
Compare the stone ages to the year 2014. You think there are still people out there who would want to live in the stone ages? Lose 90% of their offspring and die by 30 years due to a tooth infection?
Singularity vs 2014 is going to be different by many more magnitudes.
Quote:
The example about the Amish is a noble effort, but it's really just grabbing at straws because its an example that's not applicable in this case. People without AI are not going to be reverting back to the stone age, nor will they not continue advancing with technology and not have the capability to do so without AI. There is no evidence that AI is or will be the ultimate answer to all things, apart from fiction. We're nowhere near to having a computer system that is truly autonomous and self-aware. But assuming that did happen, then without built-in limitations and constraints, there would be nothing to stop such a system from doing what it wants to do, even if it means the extermination of the human population. After all, what benefit would people have if the same thing can be done by intelligent machines? If such an AI system were more intelligent than the entire combined knowledge of humans, then what's to stop the AI system from doing what it wants to do?
People without AI wouldn't be reverting to the stone age. But current generation technology is going to feel like stone tools from the stone age (actually many magnitudes worse) when compared to what would be available after singularity.
Nanobots curing disease, 3D printer producing everything from houses to food is expected to appear even before singularity. Now compare chemo/ radiation to nanobots that cure cancer/ other diseases ... and 3D printers that build houses to cranes that build houses. Feel like the stone age yet?
And remember, nanobots and 3D printers are coming soon. Much before the singularity.
I apologize if it sounds too harsh, but your statements above clearly indicate your lack of understanding of basic computer technology.
A simple computer stores data on a hard-disk, and accesses and processes the data using (among many things) a processor and RAM. You are already conceding that humans may be able to increase information storage capacity in the future. But what makes you think that they cannot in a similar fashion, improve their processors (i.e. brain computing capacity)?
If humans can implant hardware that stores more information, hardware that processes and understands that information is only the next logical process.
Again, you make an argument based on a false sense of what singularity and AI will bring to humanity. Allow me to elaborate.
Singularity and advanced AI is going to make everything many million magnitudes better. Your arguments would be true if these improvements were only incremental. If I told you about 10 years ago that there would be a device in the future, that could hold the text from all the books ever written, and access maps from all the world, and you could watch live sports and movie on it, and it would be a camera, and you could play games on it, and ........ you would think that I was crazy.
You think, nanobots that can cure cancer, other disease, and reverse aging (Phase I, before singularity) are going to appeal to a small segment of society? And note that this technology is supposed to appear even before we achieve singularity.
Compare the stone ages to the year 2014. You think there are still people out there who would want to live in the stone ages? Lose 90% of their offspring and die by 30 years due to a tooth infection?
Singularity vs 2014 is going to be different by many more magnitudes.
People without AI wouldn't be reverting to the stone age. But current generation technology is going to feel like stone tools from the stone age (actually many magnitudes worse) when compared to what would be available after singularity.
Nanobots curing disease, 3D printer producing everything from houses to food is expected to appear even before singularity. Now compare chemo/ radiation to nanobots that cure cancer/ other diseases ... and 3D printers that build houses to cranes that build houses. Feel like the stone age yet?
And remember, nanobots and 3D printers are coming soon. Much before the singularity.
I would urge some of the critics of singularity on this forum to read Kruzweil's writing on this topic. He makes it very clear and easy to understand.
This Time Magazine article is a good summary: Singularity: Kurzweil on 2045, When Humans, Machines Merge - TIME
Also, I only say things like "we will have an advanced brain" and "3D printers will print houses", because there is a lot of weight and evidence behind these claims.
Just look at Google Brain - deep research project that is trying to model the brain. Google Brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I would urge some of the critics of singularity on this forum to read Kruzweil's writing on this topic. He makes it very clear and easy to understand.
This Time Magazine article is a good summary: Singularity: Kurzweil on 2045, When Humans, Machines Merge - TIME
Also, I only say things like "we will have an advanced brain" and "3D printers will print houses", because there is a lot of weight and evidence behind these claims.
Just look at Google Brain - deep research project that is trying to model the brain. Google Brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A simple computer stores data on a hard-disk, and accesses and processes the data using (among many things) a processor and RAM. You are already conceding that humans may be able to increase information storage capacity in the future. But what makes you think that they cannot in a similar fashion, improve their processors (i.e. brain computing capacity)?
If humans can implant hardware that stores more information, hardware that processes and understands that information is only the next logical process.
First of all, my post was intended for the poster to respond to, to which the only response was to congratulate you. That's fine. I'm more than happy to respond to your comments too. Don't fool yourself by assuming I'm conceding that may be possible. I have no idea and neither do you. Personally, I'm not that optimistic about it. Read on.
According to the poster's past speculations, within the next decade or so, nano computers smaller than blood cells and each one 1000's of times more powerful than NASA's computers back in the 1960s will be somehow implanted or put into the brain. Presumably, these nano brain computers would have to download information from some central AI computer and relay it to the correct neurons for comprehension. We are no where close to anything like that, if ever.
I'm well aware of chips being implanted into the brains of mice. It is quite remarkable, and it could be helpful, but there's a vast difference between the complexity of a mouse brain and a human brain. It's questionable that experiential memory can be inserted. If I'm incorrect about that, then please provide some solid references that clearly show some facts that prove otherwise. I don't mean cochlear implants or eye implants. Keep in mind that the brain is estimated to contain anywhere from 10 billion to 100 billion neurons interconnected by trillions of synapses. Those are some staggering figures. How Many Cells are in the Brain? | LiveScience The Matrix reality: Scientists successfully implant artificial memory system - SmartPlanet
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman249
Again, you make an argument based on a false sense of what singularity and AI will bring to humanity. Allow me to elaborate.
Singularity and advanced AI is going to make everything many million magnitudes better. Your arguments would be true if these improvements were only incremental. If I told you about 10 years ago that there would be a device in the future, that could hold the text from all the books ever written, and access maps from all the world, and you could watch live sports and movie on it, and it would be a camera, and you could play games on it, and ........ you would think that I was crazy.
You think, nanobots that can cure cancer, other disease, and reverse aging (Phase I, before singularity) are going to appeal to a small segment of society? And note that this technology is supposed to appear even before we achieve singularity.
Compare the stone ages to the year 2014. You think there are still people out there who would want to live in the stone ages? Lose 90% of their offspring and die by 30 years due to a tooth infection?
Singularity vs 2014 is going to be different by many more magnitudes.
So are you saying that the percentage of the population that would choose high-tech information and AI -via brain implants- (I did inadvertently leave that out) can be predicted? Try to keep things in context. I said that because the poster claims that social science is not information technology so therefore cannot be predicted. That's nothing more than a convenient way dodge things in order to tout a single-minded view.
Come on, really? To say, "Singularity and advanced AI is going to make everything many million magnitudes better" is nothing more than sheer speculation you know it. Keep in mind that the poster's speculation is that all this stuff will happen around 2030. In my opinion, the term "Singularity" is little more than a catchy, over-used, borrowed term that has a techno-savvy ring to it,
Is all the text from all the books ever written, etc., held on a "device"? I understand there are various estimates getting into perhaps several thousand petabytes (that's a lot). That has nothing to do with what I said. Nor do nanobots. Since you're tossing that into the fray, let me toss it back to you: How much digital information can a nanobot hold?
I realize there are people who have very passionate beliefs about what the future may hold, but once again, apart from a crystal ball, it's speculation. Will things continue to improve? Assuming something unforeseen doesn't get in the way, then that's probably true. The problem is that in making specific predictions, it assumes that nothing interferes. Unfortunately, that puts such predictions about the future in a state of uncertainty. So really, your point is moot. Further, there is no way of knowing exactly what the long term effects would be if a swarm of nano computers, or even nanobots, were implanted in the human brain. If you want to volunteer yours, feel free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman249
People without AI wouldn't be reverting to the stone age. But current generation technology is going to feel like stone tools from the stone age (actually many magnitudes worse) when compared to what would be available after singularity.
Nanobots curing disease, 3D printer producing everything from houses to food is expected to appear even before singularity. Now compare chemo/ radiation to nanobots that cure cancer/ other diseases ... and 3D printers that build houses to cranes that build houses. Feel like the stone age yet?
And remember, nanobots and 3D printers are coming soon. Much before the singularity.
Expectations about the future is not conclusive evidence of what can or will occur in the future. Do any nanobots cure disease? Do any 3D printers make everything from houses to food? I think it's a stretch to put food into that notion considering to be useful, food includes a range of nutrients.
As for radiation, that starts getting into the area of quantum mechanics. Quantum computers could make a big difference in terms of a big leap in computing. It'll be interesting to see how that develops. At the present time though whether it makes it out of the lab or not remains to be seen. Is Quantum Computing real?
I do want to commend you for at least not inserting particular dates. And I understand your points, but they are mostly speculative, not factual. I'm a bit surprised you didn't include any links or references to support some of your views though. In any case, I also understand that things don't always pan out quite like we may hope they will or when they will. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. Time will tell what happens or not.
AI will make it necessary for humans to merge with technology and that will happen in 16 years not hundreds. So in a way your are right as AI will be one reason humans will have to change because we will not be able to survive if we do not.
AI will make most humans unnecessary. The frightening question is, what happens to most of us then?
LOL people tell me a lot. The thing is that is just a movie and will be noting like real life.
One solution: a huge electromagnetic pulse. Wipe them all out.
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.
