Comments on: Temporary tattoos could make ‘electronic telepathy,’ ‘telekinesis’ possible

By: dayhawk

dayhawk — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 21:42:53 +0000

everything lead to some thing else.. that i know

By: Bri

Bri — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 19:54:30 +0000

I think those abilities are an aspect of nature. Super AI should be able to understand what makes it work, so from that be able to use them. It appears to me to be different paths to similar goals. Technology will get there faster than evolution because we had arms and opposable thumbs. If we were different type critters it might have happened the other way.

By: thinkahol

thinkahol — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 19:40:44 +0000

it’s hard to believe that’s a serious question; there are countless abilities granted and extended by this technology some of which are clearly listed above.

By: Bri

Bri — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 16:21:52 +0000

I agree, it’s hard to comprehend all the trends and make plans in accordance. Long term looks nice but is speculative. The short term is more dire and needs concerted attention.

By: Editor

Editor — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 15:59:00 +0000

Sounds wildly ambitious. I have trouble imagining next year. Think of it as the law of accelerating confusion. My question is: will we be able to augment our intelligence or merge with machines fast enough to understand what’s going on in the coming years?

By: Editor

Editor — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 15:48:39 +0000

Misleading headline, my bad. These are simply electronic devices for remote sensing and remote control.

By: warren

warren — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:28:41 +0000

Nice technology for what it is intended for. However, making these predictions about telepathic communications is a little like someone making the same prediction when the telephone was invented. The idea of detecting brain waves and recognizing their intent has been around for quire some time and has been the subject of research in the military especially for fighter pilots being able to control their aircraft or weapons systems with thought. That’s promising but it still a very far cry from carrying on an intelligent conversation with someone else using telepathic means. Right now, it seems that the development of this sort of communication will need to take a different path than this. Of course, I could be wrong but, that’s my sense.

By: Bri

Bri — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:02:09 +0000

The problem is getting political leaders and other talking heads to understand the nature of the times we live in. To promote the ideals outlined in Ray,s books really it should be promoted to as Manu business leaders as possible. On particular the philanthropic ones. They can help mitigate the hardships of this phase transition we are going through. The distribution of knowledge in reference to the laws Ray discovered will help focus us toward being altruistic. Obamas call for investment in 3D printing is a good example. It will transform industry. The sooner they understand this the sooner we can make a smooth transition to the next manufacturing paradigm. Knowledge is like a light. It can illuminate a more orderly transition.

By: SmartAndSober

SmartAndSober — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:12:40 +0000

Ha ha. Nothing after 2030 can be accurately foreseen by us 2010ers, with our puny knowledge and our slow, lousily-wired, uncyborgized brains.
My life-plan ends at 2030 (the Vingean Singularity).
I will plan further when I cyborgize and get a much better intelligence.

By: SmartAndSober

SmartAndSober — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:08:59 +0000

When techs become inexpensive (such as computers), people take them for granted and forgot how miraculous such techs are.
People should practice mindfulness and be grateful to the intelligent and hardworking people who created such life-enriching technologies.

By: onefeather

onefeather — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 06:08:10 +0000

Well said, could be that most people are lazy/brain dead.

By: SmartAndSober

SmartAndSober — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 11:00:06 +0000

Thanks for mentioning Stross. I hope more Singularitarians can try to make (beneficial) SF scenarios come true.

By: SmartAndSober

SmartAndSober — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:56:21 +0000

What you see as irony I see as bold tech proposal.
Anything get us to Singularity faster should be done.

By: SmartAndSober

SmartAndSober — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:53:38 +0000

Because Human-Made Tech-Advance is much faster than Natural-Selection, and results in Singularity (next step of Cosmic-Evolution).

By: Peter the Printer

Peter the Printer — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 09:42:52 +0000

Why are they trying to invent something which already exists naturally?

By: SmartAndSober

SmartAndSober — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 02:15:27 +0000

I guess we need a supercomputer that can play RTS games (using brute-force “tree-growing”). Such supercomputer can help us get to Singularity faster.

By: Ian Clarke

Ian Clarke — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 02:10:07 +0000

I view it differently – living in a world where no-one can lie unknowingly – that’s a world I’d like to live in.

By: rico

rico — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:53:03 +0000

this is awesome ! i am really longing for this kind of invention . i expect this thing such as we can read and text SMS without looking in the phone screen, just sending SMS electrical signals on our Skin going thru our brain. really promising.. :-)

By: Snake Oil Baron

Snake Oil Baron — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:12:54 +0000

Who wants to scrape off old hardware with a luffa sponge every few days? But then, who wants to peel off their skin every few years to upgrade? I’m keeping my hardware in my pants (pun intended).

By: Klaatu

Klaatu — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:07:52 +0000

Saw an Assimov YT from the 1980′s saying
how late he was to the science of global warming/
climate change. Just think, if you’re libertarian you
don’t have to wait 20 years to ketchup…just put
your tattoo on vibrate for the “latest” Fox “News”
update…directly into your mid-brain.

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:58:36 +0000

I can’t understand why when facts are pointed out or scientific discoveries are made that people will make comment (even to themselves) that it can’t be so. When Obama talked about 3D printing, the camera pointed to a Rep who whispers “pie in the sky” to his buddy. “Why bother with facts” seems to be his attitude. Exponential change is happening every day and I for one will welcome the benefits.

By: Klaatu

Klaatu — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:52:34 +0000

Bradbury? I was reading a lot of Charles Stross lately
and he has been writing about this for awhile.
I think it is not concept tech to be able to pick up
thoughts/words on the breath or the vocal cords,
not from neurons or directly from the brain.

By: The man

The man — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:20:26 +0000

You clearly haven’t played any RTS games. Starcraft is infinitely more complex than chess could ever be. That is just to name 1. Chess is actually very simple (complex to master yes) but still simple. RTS games (the good ones at least) are more complex both in just simply playing and in mastering. Unless you are doing speed chess there isn’t even a comparison in the 2 for complexity.

By: Ian Clarke

Ian Clarke — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:52:14 +0000

Gorden, a mate of mine was floored by his wife (wielding a frying pan) after he spent a little too long down the pub. I sincerely hope future tech won’t deprive us of such anecdotes. :-)

By: Ian Clarke

Ian Clarke — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:39:39 +0000

Haha, I’m sure similar was said of the ideas of Galileo, Darwin, the Wright Bros., Frank Whittle, et al. In those eras, this sort of comment reflected the majority view.

In this case, we’re talking about current tech – so your skepticism is extremely misplaced (in my opinion). But thanks for the laugh. :-)

By: hlampert

hlampert — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:26:33 +0000

Seems rather farfetched.

By: Jenny Linsky

Jenny Linsky — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:55:41 +0000

With companies such as Real Doll out there, you can’t possibly imagine that the first strong AI isn’t going to be closely followed by the first sex-toy robot.

By: SmartAndSober

SmartAndSober — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:52:05 +0000

I think the “basketball” example is great. Designing a basketball-playing robot will pose challenge not just in game-complexity but also in the physiology of the robot. What materials should constitute the robot’s muscles and bones, and most importantly, how to create a effiecient brain (with an artificial cerebellum and artificial somatosensory lobes) for the robot, so that the robot can play all by itself (without the help of a human or supercomputer remote controlling it).
The DARPA SyNAPSE project works exactly on how to make efficient brains for mobile robots.

By: SmartAndSober

SmartAndSober — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:45:40 +0000

” … and your contribution to the process will be measured, …”
I hope that in the future, knowledges are no longer tested. Instead, employers of the future test your enthusiasm and work ethic, which is a much fairer measurement of a person’s ability.
Connecting to a central “knowledge bank” (for example, online encyclopedia) is not enough. The relevant knowledges must be constantly copied and stored in backup storages (in many physically secure locations), so that even in the dire event of malfunction of the “knowledge bank”, people will still have useful knowledge handy.

By: SmartAndSober

SmartAndSober — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:35:20 +0000

Thanks for the reply.
Chess = game on an 8*8 grid, with 32 pieces (traditional rule).
Most modern video games contains a much larger grid and more pieces.
Developers should work hard to create a game that *actually* produce higher complexity (than chess).
I wonder in which ways will Ray Kurzweil, Ben Goertzel, Yudkowsky and other researchers take advantage of such complexities (in their study on AI and Singularity).

By: Jho

Jho — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:09:44 +0000

I’m not sure if I agree. Not fully anyways. Few games have a more complex fighting system than chess for instance. Computer games just usually have more content, more stuff and more freedom. Still in their core modern games usually have really simple mechanics.
I always think how sad it is that old people aren’t used to playing computer games. When I’m old and I have all that time, I will mostly be playing. I don’t think playing computer games requires much intelligence at all! I think they are much closer to sports. Think about a game like basketball. Anyone can understand the rules and play a little for fun. But then if you start to play professionally, you need to understand the tactics and all the more deep things that are involved.

Damn, sorry for the long babble. I’m a game developer so this cought my eye.

By: Ralph Dratman

Ralph Dratman — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:07:58 +0000

Um, soul mates, whether real or virtual, are and will be great. However, we will still have bodies, and our bodies will still have physical needs for touching, kisses, sex and just plain being together. If we can’t feel physical sensations, our lives are over.

By: Ralph Dratman

Ralph Dratman — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:09:15 +0000

Goldfinger

By: liam

liam — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 17:53:14 +0000

with your answer i see your not aware of irony

By: Snazster

Snazster — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 17:48:34 +0000

One tattoo to rule them all and, under your clothing, bind them.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 17:15:23 +0000

Time on earth is limited. If DeGray is correct we can escape from existing human lifespans, then it will be only a matter of time before we have humans able to live to 1,000 year plus lifespans.

The question is how and when, not if and why.

By: DougW

DougW — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:55:15 +0000

Agree. At some point, ‘tests’ will become participation in active group problem solving sessions, and your contribution to the process will be measured, resulting in your ‘grade’. Tests as we know them today will be obsolete, memorizing ‘facts’ will be a relatively valueless thing, as they will be instantly available to everyone.

By: DougW

DougW — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:51:20 +0000

Privacy is going away long term, there really isn’t anything we can do to stop it. Our ability to sense objects even through solid walls is increasing all the time, 100 years form now you will only be able to really have privacy if we pass laws that prevent people from observing you. At that point where does one person’s right to observe intersect with another’s right to be unobserved? And what are the real benefits of allowing people to be unobserved anyway, other than silly societal taboos?

By: SmartAndSober

SmartAndSober — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:18:26 +0000

If the acceleration is to continue indefinitely, the time span will eventually be shortened to a fraction of a second.

By: Gorden Russell

Gorden Russell — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:02:19 +0000

Just look at how fast computers are getting now. After the Sing, you will be a super intelligence and will only need a New York nanosecond to analyze a new invention and ubiquitize it.

You’ll be enmeshed constantly on the web and trading your latest designs for things to grow at home with your photovoltaic self-assembling carbon nanocells that will use the power of the sun to take carbon out of the air and minerals out of the soil to grow everything you can imagine.

The only limitation will be the size of your lot. You will need a certain sized piece of real estate to support your solar array.

With a 160 acre homestead in the Arizona desert, on a piece of land with calcium in the soil, you’ll be able to grow a shining marble palace.

Englishmen living along the chalk cliffs of Dover will be able to do this too, but it will take them a lot longer, just waiting for the rare sunny day.

By: SmartAndSober

SmartAndSober — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:52:10 +0000

” … and will probably devise much complexier games. ”
Actually, such games already exist.
I wonder how many commenters at KAI are game-literate.
The complexity (and the intelligence required to play them successfully) of some modern video games are staggeringly high.
AIs grown (with evolutionary algorithms) to play these games exhibit some interesting features that (I guess) can have important role in the rise of AGI.

By: Gorden Russell

Gorden Russell — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:47:15 +0000

Right, Ian, women already expect you to read their minds, and get angry with you for not meeting their unvoiced desires.

Life would be so much simpler if you knew what a woman wanted before she started throwing pots and pans at you.

By: Gorden Russell

Gorden Russell — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:44:30 +0000

I’ve been thinking about that for a long time, melajara. I’ve never been able to talk to girls.

Lately I’ve observed that a sociopath is very seductive and is busy all day long hitting on every girl he meets.

Now imagine copying this skill into spintronic memristors and implanting this into your brain. You could switch it on whenever you saw a girl you liked and were too shy to talk to.

But don’t leave it on all the time, or it would turn you into a monster Casanova. (I would only use my sociopath program to seduce our beauteous editor, she’s such an angel.)

By: Gorden Russell

Gorden Russell — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:38:35 +0000

Maybe this is what drove Ray Bradbury’s “Illustrated Man” out of his mind.

By: SmartAndSober

SmartAndSober — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:19:21 +0000

I am not advocating crimes, of course.
Melajara used 4 examples: exams, interview, chess competitions and dating.
I believe exams and interviews will be obsolete after cyborgization (with direct connection of the brain to the Internet) become common (Kurzweil predicted that “Human Body 2.0″ will appear in, according to Wikipedia, the 2020s).
After universal cyborgization, people will soon find the traditional board games (such as sudoku and chess) boring and will probably devise much complexier games. It may be a virtue to not “cheat” (in other words, voluntarily limit oneself) in chess, but certainly “cheating” is acceptable (and even required) when we encounter the real world equivalent of chess (detective-actions and warfares).
As for dating, I believe most people will be satisfied by virtual soul mates.
(Kurzweil predicted that first AI that passes the Turing Test will be created by 2029.)

By: Bri

Bri — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:04:11 +0000

Yes SAS. Understanding and cooperation. It will make it hard to perpetrate any crime.

By: SmartAndSober

SmartAndSober — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:52:08 +0000

” … having your entire body covered with this.”
Great idea, but I believe that full-body covering must be coupled with thoroughly enhanced nervous systems. It will be wasteful otherwise, as the full potential of the electronic tattoos are not exploited.

By: MatthewQ

MatthewQ — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:47:15 +0000

Imagine having your entire body covered with this.

By: SmartAndSober

SmartAndSober — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:24:22 +0000

People will switch from using the term “cheating” to “cooperating”.
Ubiquitous (and high-level) cooperation is, in my opinion, a pre-requisite for the advent of Technological Singularity.

By: Rollie

Rollie — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:14:30 +0000

Terrific! Yet are their implications for tracking and privacy?