The Singularity is Here

[Demian]

This is for those of you interested in technology. I assume every computer literate person must have a nominal interest, as the scope of our world has been honed down from the natural to the technological in quite a short time. Ray Kurzweil wrote a book on this trend, and as far as I could tell it was a philisophical book as much as a piece of speculation. He proposes that as Artificial Intelligence progresses with technology the advancment shall be (or already is) at an exponential rate--something like a whole series of quantum leaps! His idea is that mankind will need to evolve at a rapid pace or shall be rendered useless by our AI predecessors and left in the evolutionary dustbin. I know this may sound like a science fiction novel to some, but he has quite a few people at the top of their game in his corner. So what do you think? Is this a plausible idea, or one best left for the writers of clever fictions? :alien:

[ballb]

As long as they rely on that little scoket in the wall or a battery for power, I think we`ll probably stay one jump ahead of them.

[earthboar]

Delegating tasks to AI has been happening gradually. In the 60s it was robots painting cars, and in the 90s it took computers to make other computers. Frankly, I don't think computers can keep up with fickle human demands. Just when they think they can take a vacation, we want a better version of the product they just designed for us. It's not the humans who have to be afraid of the AI, it's the AI that should be nervous.

Whatever happened to all that leisure time and wealth and low-cost electricity those Dick and Jane books promised us? My first grade text book predicted we'd be living in space colonies in the 1980s.

[NikolaiI]

Haha that's quite funny Darnay.

A lot of science fiction has been good at predicting the future. Or, well, some of it has, but sometimes it has been very accurate. I don't know, I am skeptical about the idea of humans serving machines as sentient beings, but I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility. ballb makes a good point, though.

[Demian]

Kurzweil's idea in the book is that AI is about to reach an event horizon in which it not only gains self consciousness, but shall begin replicating itself endlessly and taking over the means of producing more technologies. He thinks that this freedom shall not be a limited event, such as some supercomputer in a localized space controlling things, but sentience will flow through every power source on earth and hence our very enviornment will be suffused by Intelligence. Nanotechnology coupled with a shared 'hivelike' technology may make this possible. He believes that the limits on our own technology have been largely self imposed due to restraints in the market place (Tucker vs. Big Auto). We have not seen many new technologies because of either money or military concerns. For instance, we could be using ethanol or even hydrogen to power our cars right now, but the oil industry is too powerful at the moment to allow it.

[The Atheist]

Fascinating subject.

I don't see how any rationalist/materialist/determinist can doubt that AI must catch up to human intelligence at some time. If you believe, as I do, that all human emotions, morals and "consciousness" are no more than animal instinct + social conditioning, then you must accept that complete AI is not only possible, but highly likely.

Nick Bostrum, Director, Future Humanity Institute of the Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University has a number of excellent articles on the likely shape of humans and AI. (http://www.nickbostrom.com/)
Enjoy.

[Orionsbelt]

Kurzweil's idea in the book is that AI is about to reach an event horizon in which it not only gains self consciousness

Does anybody have any idea what this actually means? Where is the self? Who is the self? What kind of existential crisis will this machine have when it finds that there is no self only the other..... the programmer.... the one... Veeegir.... Not based on current technology. The key word in Artificial intelligence is the word "artificial"... the whole problem of comprehension...

[cows]

I know someone mentioned Nick Bostrom, but heres a link to an article in the NY Times recently: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html?ei=5090&en=22bfff4070a81187&ex=1344744000

[bazarov]

It's impossible that creature surpass it's creator; it makes no sense. Creator gives his best and he can not give more than he posses and therefore AI cannot be smarter and above humans.

[Lote-Tree]

It's impossible that creature surpass it's creator; it makes no sense. Creator gives his best and he can not give more than he posses and therefore AI cannot be smarter and above humans.

Are you sure? DeepBlue can beat any human chess player.

[TheFifthElement]

Are you sure? DeepBlue can beat any human chess player.


Yes, but can DeepBlue make an omlette?

[Lote-Tree]

Yes, but can DeepBlue make an omlette?

It makes excellent Starbucks coffee...making omlette is it's second nature ;-)

[TheFifthElement]

It makes excellent Starbucks coffee...making omlette is it's second nature ;-)

Wow! Then it's true, the created can exceed the creator. (though to be fair, any mug can make Starbucks coffee, but an omlette....)

[Lote-Tree]

Wow! Then it's true, the created can exceed the creator.


Yep. It happens all the time! That's why God created us mortal - so even if we succeed death will take us ;-)

[TheFifthElement]

Yep. It happens all the time! That's why God created us mortal - so even if we succeed death will take us ;-)

The ultimate payback, I guess God is a sore loser.

Of course if the created can exceed the creator I'd best be careful of my dinner ;)

[Lote-Tree]

The ultimate payback, I guess God is a sore loser.


God is wise ;-)



Of course if the created can exceed the creator I'd best be careful of my dinner ;)

Make sure you kill it before you eat it ;-)

[NikolaiI]

Are you sure? DeepBlue can beat any human chess player.

I think DeepBlue is no longer in existence, but there are others that are nigh-undefeatable. Hydra and Deep Fritz are two big ones. I think Hydra is 64 computers all connected together and broken down into sections of 4 and 16.

[Lote-Tree]

I think DeepBlue is no longer in existence, but there are others that are nigh-undefeatable. Hydra and Deep Fritz are two big ones. I think Hydra is 64 computers all connected together and broken down into sections of 4 and 16.

Yep. But DeepBlue started all. DeepBlue was the first to kick-human backside quite repeatedly :-)

[bazarov]

Yep. But DeepBlue started all. DeepBlue was the first to kick-human backside quite repeatedly :-)

OH NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Gari Kasparov????


Chess against computers

[edit] Deep Thought, 1989

Kasparov easily defeated the chess computer Deep Thought in both games of a 2-game match in 1989.

[edit] Deep Blue, 1996

In February 1996, IBM's chess computer Deep Blue defeated Kasparov in one game using normal time controls, in Deep Blue - Kasparov, 1996, Game 1. Kasparov recovered well, however, gaining three wins and two draws and easily winning the match.

[edit] Deep Blue, 1997

Main article: IBM Deep Blue

In May 1997, an updated version of Deep Blue defeated Kasparov in Deep Blue - Kasparov, 1997, Game 6, in a highly publicised six-game match. This was the first time a computer had ever defeated a world champion in match play. A documentary film was made about this famous match-up entitled Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine. IBM keeps a web site of the event.[1]

Kasparov claimed that several factors weighed against him in this match. In particular, he was denied access to Deep Blue's recent games, in contrast to the computer's team that could study hundreds of Kasparov's.

After the loss, Kasparov said that he sometimes saw deep intelligence and creativity in the machine's moves, suggesting that during the second game, human chess players, in contravention of the rules, intervened. IBM denied that it cheated, saying the only human intervention occurred between games. The rules provided for the developers to modify the program between games, an opportunity they said they used to shore up weaknesses in the computer's play revealed during the course of the match. Kasparov requested printouts of the machine's log files but IBM refused, although the company later published the logs on the Internet. [2] Kasparov demanded a rematch, but IBM declined and retired Deep Blue.

[edit] Deep Junior, 2003

In January 2003, he engaged in a six game classical time control match with a $1 million prize fund which was billed as the FIDE "Man vs. Machine" World Championship, against Deep Junior.[31] The engine evaluated three million positions a second.[32] After one win each and three draws, it was all up to the final game. The final game of the match was televised on ESPN2 and was watched by an estimated 200-300 million people. After reaching a decent position Kasparov offered a draw, which was soon returned by the Deep Junior team. Asked why he offered the draw, Kasparov said he feared making a blunder.[33] Originally planned as an annual event, the match was not repeated.

[edit] X3D Fritz, 2003

In November 2003, he engaged in a four-game match against the computer program X3D Fritz (which was said to have an estimated rating of 2807)[citation needed], using a virtual board, 3D glasses and a speech recognition system. After two draws and one win apiece, the X3D Man-Machine match ended in a draw. Kasparov received $175,000 for the result and took home the golden trophy. Kasparov continued to criticize the blunder in the second game that cost him a crucial point. He felt that he had outplayed the machine overall and played well. "I only made one mistake but unfortunately that one mistake lost the game."