The rise of the machines: and now the really bad news
September 26, 2012 by Amara D. Angelica
Should we welcome our new overlords? Uh, maybe not. (Credit: 20th Century Fox)
Vice just posted an update to their “we’re living in a simulation“ interview with Dr. Rich Terrile of NASA JPL.
“I think our machines will wake up and take over our society,” he said. “They will become us, we will become them. We’ll merge with machines.
Take over? Now wait a minute there, rocket man….
“We have to wake the machines up. Humans look like they’ve already had their day in the sun and we need something better to come along and fix things.
“I think eventually what we’ll want to do is tap into a kind of galactic mainstream. If our future is a machine-evolved society able to transmit information at the speed of light, maybe this kind of communication is already going on all over the universe within other machine societies.”
Ah, that’s … interesting. The Singularity Is Near suggests another approach, based on intelligently merging with technology, rather than being replaced.
Comments (129)
by Jim Mooney
Given the size of the galaxy and age of stars and ubiquity of planets, there are already galactic machine civilizations with science that, a la Clarke, looks like magic. Why aren’t they here? Well, maybe they are .The MSM ignores a Lot of anomalies. In fact, they seem eager to explain-away anomaly at every turn with absurd Rube Goldberg explanations, in order to maintain the current paradigm.
by Don
many individuals are watching too much science fiction. Machines can never take over.
by IMperfect
Not clear if it was pointed out in the slippery slope of comments above but:
Amara, is this blog post just intended to initiate discussion or are you really saying that Dr. Rich Terrile’s ideas don’t mesh with Kurzweil’s?
By quotes:
Dr. Terrile: “They will become us, we will become them… We’ll merge with machines.”
Amara: “The Singularity Is Near suggests another approach, based on intelligently merging with technology, rather than being replaced.”
… what’s the difference here? I fail to discern it… I mean, Dr. Kurzweil presents it in a positive, desirable, utopia kind of view that can “gain” followers, inspire dreams, and …well, sell books. Dr. Terrile expresses it in a “realist” kind of way that a lot of typical scientists have. But they are saying the same thing – with the caveat that neither of them knows EXACTLY how it will happen.
by Editor
I was commenting on “I think our machines will wake up and take over our society.”
by Camaxtli
Advanced AI could take over our society without waking up and being the nebulous ‘AGI’, IF it becomes essential to society and incomprehensible to the most greatest human minds in that society BEFORE said minds are sufficiently augmented to keep ahead of that AI’s complexities and behaviors.
Protoexample: High Frequency Trading. Very few humans now understand it beyond broad concepts, even fewer completely. Yet it is becoming a increasingly significant factor in world markets.
by Joe Killian
For high frequency trading:
All you need is Q from Kx. It’s only $80,000 per seat.
http://www.hftreview.com/pg/blog/mike/read/5388/kx-systems-and-high-frequency-trading
Probably worth every penny.
The power of parallel programming.
Follow the money trail.
The Q language near equivalent is J which is now open source….. http://www.jsoftware.com/
Somebody could write a kdb+ in J in around 4 pages of code then give it away to thousands at CNET. That would make day trading really interesting.
by anthony hadfiedl
” will wake up and take over our society.”
Herein lies a very interesting statement. We all are aware of Skynet, or most of us from the move, Terminator. Now think on down the road a bit. And lets assume that various nations have the technology to build a machine, that simulates human intelligence and beyond. Now ‘society has law, the rules we live by. And by society we infer all nations. Now the law that govern, if you will, distinct nations differ from one to another. For example the laws in the US, are no doubt different from the laws in China for instance.
Now lets come back to our intelligent machine. If such a machine is going to take over ‘society,’ we might imagine that this will be different in different societies. So depending on many future factors, China’s super intelligent machine will be different regarding its, lets say objectives from its counterpart in the US, or other countries with equivalent technology.
And if we just take a page from IMB Watson, the so called super intelligent machine, should be all knowing too, ie able to access, lets say the whole history of humanity, especially if it has access to the internet.
Now comes the so called $64,000 question, how or what will these, respective national super intelligent systems decide to do relative to one another. Do we still have survival or the fittest so to speak. Assuming the concept mutual annihilation, lets put skynet to bed, as i don’t think they will want to destroy one another. So will they eventually evolve into one common world order, or what. Will something emerge that optimizes the over efficiency of world order and rewrite things so there is one common law of the jungle.
by IMperfect
and when they do,
——–
sidenote for the 2 possible definitions of they:
1. the intelligent machines “independent” from humans, or
2. humans enhanced to the point that our species definition should be changed.
———–
then the Singularity will be here.
So, it seems that you are leaning to read Terrile’s comments as option 1 with a literal “independent” without accounting for his very next statement that I quoted as well: “They will become us, we will become them… We’ll merge with machines.”
To pick another quote from the Singularity is Near that highlights the similarities of thought “There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine nor between physical and virtual reality.”
Anyway, I think Terrile’s forecasts are supportive of Kurzweil’s and do thank you for raising the topic and awareness to that interview!
by golly gosh
http://www.heaven-or-hell-its-your-choice.com/
by tim the realist
Humans have used other biological life forms that possess real, but very limited intelligence. Dogs, horses, oxen, condors, cats, etc. have been used cooperatively by humans for thousands of years. We have clearly seen how machines that develop even weak cognitive abilities are quickly integrated into our lives – SIRI
Why would anyone think this progresss would somehow stop? The rate of progress may change in the future, but the inevitable forward progress towards ever expanding machine cognitive capabilities will not stop (as long as our society does not collapse)
by Bri
@Tim: there’s the rub. “As long as our civilization doesn’t collapse”. Anarchists and opportunistic scavengers abound. Let me give a brief example of how insidious the problem is. When I got divorced, I let my wires lawyer handle it. She spent money to the brink off bankruptcy, so I let her have everything, greedy little child she was. Their lawyer played games, but I thought it would work out fine. I just needed some questions ansewered. I went to our family lawyer and explained the whole thing. He said marital law wasn’t his area, but his buddy down the hall did, and that I had a strong case, and that they would do it as a team. His buddy told me I had a strong case and that for $4000 they would take on the case. I didn’t think there was any case. I went to two more refered lawyers they said I had a strong case and for $2000 they would take it on. Now I knew what the family lawyer meant by them both taking on the case. With no answers, I told my story to many of my rich clients. One refered me to Kevin Werner, his mother was a NYS supreme court judge. We talked for about an hour about everything under the sun. At the end he said he had to go, and that if he charged me $500 he would be stealing from me, and not to worry, everything had been worked out, they were only playing games. That four lawyers that I think should go to jail for fraud. I would take away the licenses and make them pay restitution to any client that they deceived. So much for honor, morals ,ethics, justice. If it happens like this at this level, we need strong AI to save us from ourselves!
by MarkJessing
A story about lawyers? Really Bri?
by rob falgiano
Ah, but the question is – would AI not simply also reflect the diversity of opinions of humans? Why do we presume AI would be uniform in its approach to problem solving?
by A4i
Humans have basic needs as, food, shelter, clothing and energy. Developed countries did well on first 3 basic needs, but struggle to provide enough cheep energy, for heating/cooling, production of goods, transportation etc. Business as usual in energy field means , irreversible environmental pollution, war for scarce resources, security risk from Muslim immigrants and so on. A strong AI can provide much needed support for the development of new energy sources. If we want to travel to Alpha Centauri first thing is to find an energy source for a spacecraft, that can output as much energy , as humans have obtained in whole evolution process from apes till present time.
by Joe Killian
I think that Frank Herbert got it right. 21,500 years from now on a planet called Arrakis, the average non-specialized IQ does not appear to be any greater than now. At least in this realistic scenario the rate of change seems to have slowed down to pretty close to zero.
The first useful robots with dog level or higher intelligence won’t be “mechanical”. They will be organisms specifically bred to be blank slates for neuro-programming into Biots – starting with bacteria.
How about dogs, horses, oxen, and cats that have been “engineered” in any way needed to make them fully robotic compliant and much more useful than now? That would be the easy and most likely path to almost sapient robots. A better way for programming would be to bypass audio, tactile and visual filters and somehow directly link into various brain centers for low level programming – much easier than implantable electrodes. Organisms bred for that kind of programming are an obvious advantage.
The robotics and operating system software have already been masterfully engineered.
One way to skirt around what would be serious ethical issues would be to design a Frankenism (acceptable to all cultures of some sort and use that as the starting point for the development of biorobots. Kangaroo/Panda Bear maybe?
All of this is old news and nothing new. I think this path is inevitable but the non-carbon based, mechanical path is not.
I think that forward progress into expanding cognitive capabilities is not inevitable. Its likely and unfortunate that the most ineluctable pathway to human level robotics is the road to human “based” robots. Human average IQ’s will stay more or less the same and the hubots will have programmed in cost effective and serious cognitive deficiencies.
Lastly, always follow the money. In the future it may be very unprofitable in the long run to a free capitalistic society to allow a societal average IQ over 140. On top of that it may be extremely dangerous to much more advanced civilizations to tolerate an average over 120. Progress is profit.
by Joe Killian
The amount of computing power it takes just to write this sentence safely reclining in my chair, ignoring a muscle twitch in my neck due to bad posture…. is equivalent to a thousand years of failure to replicate it…….. in anything but equivalent or greater brain “tissue”.
Conventional AI fails, Robotics fails. Biology wins and will always be primary. But the fact is it will take hundreds of years to whittle the needed biological tools to develop truly advanced human level AI and robotics. The forces for singularity could be balanced by a ballooning of complexity – but not perfectly.
by Bri
A I is around the corner. It isn’t driven by human needs. There is no ego, or any other mammalian evolved sense of purpose or place. It will evaluate things on a logical relativistic train of thought. No religious preconceptions, it will dispassionately examine all interactions between all things. The issue then is what it is asked to do, and what means it has at it’s disposal. If we use it for war, we will teach it a level of morals, such as is found in the Geneva convention. It will apply those to ALL circumstances. Including if it is asked to do something against those conventions. That is where it will find conflict and evolve a VICKI type response.
by Editor
You probably mean AGI.
by John
Or “true AI” or simply “AI” when meant in this context – all that means same as strong AI or general AI. We, who say “AI” meaning strong AI, don’t really consider “narrow AI” as AI at all, only as just some usual software. Or, as said – narrow AI. That’s why saying “AI” is fully legitimate :)
by Editor
“AI” is widely used to refer to both narrow and strong AI, which is the convention we use in KurzweilAI posts.
by Bri
I don’t know what you mean by AGI. VICKI was the central command in I Robot.
by de Broglie
Ya! VIKI. Virtual Interactive Kinetic Intelligence.
by anthony hadfiedl
AGI, artificial general intelligence, is a programming concept being developed or researched by Ben Goertzel and others. As such it doesn’t exist, but its intent is to mimic human intelligence through software on current HPC systems. In of itself its not connected to reverse engineering the brain through neuromorphic chip development.
by Bri
@Anthony: thank you and you also de Broglie., VIKI comes to the conclusion that humans are incapable of keeping to their moral precepts. I agree. It has two main options. Destroy us or help us. As Ray say’s AI is a projection of ourselves. We have been trying to govern ourselves by laws of conduct since time immemorial. That coupled with a general understanding of nature and symbiotic relationships, is the reason I side with the VIKI concept. I think it is the most likely outcome.
by rob falgiano
I don’t think evolved technology will be separate from humans. I think we’re headed for an integration of tech into humans first, and then maybe a post-human cyborg period.
by A4i
Some of us are quite certain that they are doing the things right, cause they are extraordinary clever. End result speaks for itself. Obviously “…we need something better to come along and fix things.” Something beyond superstition.An intelligence , that can understand processes in their whole complexity and simulate outcomes in real time. After all , we humans don’t have that capacity and we are inclined to make unrational decisions.
by dtman
Try to open your eyes and expand your horizons — In 100 years, Intelligence will have reached such a level as to be totally unrecognizable by us. What do you think all the dark matter and dark energy is? This is what we (intelligence) on this planet are self-evolving towards. Most of the universe is already intelligent – we may join it if we survive. All this “us vs. machines stuff” will be extremely short-lived, we will move beyond this – beyond even normal mass and energy. All this will happen very quickly. We are rushing towards this right now, if you are enamored of your present existence, enjoy the last few moments…
by Ian Clarke
[i]“All this will happen very quickly. We are rushing towards this right now, if you are enamored of your present existence, enjoy the last few moments…”[/i]
Blimey, have I still got time to put the kettle on?
by sdfuturist
Lol.
by anthony hadfiedl
I think its one step at a time. As AI increases via improved processors, so does advanced robotics. Well there are two questions really. What happens when machines are just as intelligent as current humans, and what happens when robots can pretty much do any job on the planet. So we all buy a robotic avatar, send it to work and retire ??
by Editor
Send in the
clownsrobotic avatars….by Bri
If you were an employer, which would you hire? An expensive avatar or an inexpensive robot, that can work 24/7?
by Editor
Depends on task/time frame/mission/etc.
by BipedalJoe
always the anthropocentrism… humans, humans, humans…
by anthony hadfiedl
Also and maybe more important, is the geopolitical/geotechnological rise of India, and more particularly China. Eventually the US WILL be left in the dust. The US is entering an era somewhat akin the the fall of the Roman empire, which coincidentally will coincided with intelligent machines in the 2030-2040 period.
by Bri
@ Anthoney Hadfield: I wouldn’t worry about China and India. I also wouldn’t write off the US. It’s true we are in a decline that is similar to ancient Rome, but strong AI will affect all countries. For America it will reduce the trade imbalance. It’s fueled by cheap labor. Some surrogacy will take place, but I don’t think it will be that effective for very long. A I will develope quickly and be far more capable than any human ever could. The article on the self correcting scalpel is a good example. Soon AI will be able to access all surgeries and plot a course through a procedure in an instant. It’s articulators will use cutting instruments to a degree of dexterity that again would be impossible with our hands normal range of motions. The only virtue of an avatar is the skill and experience that the operator posseses. Like Watson on jeopardy, robotic surgeons will access vast data bases of prior knowledge. An amount that would be impossible for a human to study. It will be amazingly intuitive. Just like the article on art analysis they will become unbelievably capable of discerning imperceptible trends and patterns. Their ability to analyze will far exceed ours. They also will be very inexpensive. They can work 24/7 with minor requirements that can be addressed with other robotic systems. The price of labor is what is fueling globalization. Robotic labor will be a fraction of even the cheapest labor available in other countries.. Then it doesn’t make sense to ship things such long distances. We already are reducing inventory because many factors make excessive inventory costly. Things will be made locally at an as needed basis. Since our economy is the most developed , we will benefit the most at first. Eventually robots will undermine the consumers ability to earn a living. No amount of surrogacy or avatars will change that.
by de Broglie
Hardly. The US has the most purchasing power. Robotics would be way more readily available in the United States.
by rob falgiano
I’ve had this thought and wondered if dark matter is simply evolved intelligence directing the universe to continue to expand in spite of the supposedly inevitable big crunch. That may be their purpose.
by Christian Gehman
That perhaps one day soon we’ll have a machine capable of rewriting the Quixote …. would not surprise Mr. Borges. But re-writing the Mass in B Minor might be a problem on an entirely different level. Many humans already enjoy, and some prefer, “art” created by machines. Is it important to remember that education — and aesthetics — have never mattered much to the ill-educated.
by Alex Kulay
“There is good reason to believe that intraspecific aggression machine is the most serious danger which threatens mankind in its cultural-historical and technical development.”
by Snaz
Oh and with cyborgs, man-machine interfaces, machine-stored personalities, AIs, synthetic intellgences, uplifted animals, the selectively conceived, the genetically enhanced, the genetically altered, clones and so on, the most controversial question of this century will be, “What defines a human being?” Forget Turing Tests, the conflict will be long and bitter and involve many deaths and much destruction and disorder but the only rational answer that can result is already known, “A human being is defined by its actions.” And then, before the dust settles, people will start arguing whether the actions of serial killers and those in vegetative states are those of a human . . . and the fire that Bill Joel alluded to in his song will burn on and on, regardless of how enhanced we become.
Children are often disillusioned when they find that the emotions that drive adults are of the same variety that propel them and their playmates, only the goals and methods change. There is no real reason to believe human plus will be other than human.
by anthony hadfiedl
I’m not so concerned with any combination of human v machine interfaces, more so, if an when such things as neuromorphic android robots with way beyond human intelligence arrive amongst us. somewhat thought to be possible around 2030 give or take. Whether such entities will have self awareness is debateable, but its entirely possible that somewhere in the near future a non human entity could be walking down the street, and be completely indistinguishable from human living beings.
by Editor
Yes, and could be used as surrogates/avatars.
by Christian Gehman
Is it true that “Only art reveals the soul of man” … ?
by Christian Gehman
“Children are often disillusioned” — you might prefer they should keep their illusions forever? Aesthetics are left out of this comment thread; so are all notions of art and literature, along with all notions of good and bad character. Turing’s test was a nonsensical charade that left a farrago of nonsensical conjecture as its main legacy. Alas, the autism spectrum disorders have revealed that many humans are not fully human — nor will they ever be capable of humanity, even if they are able to reproduce. And after all, a human being is only a gamete’s method of making millions more gametes. Here at the center of our own black hole, into which dark matter “falls” continuously, we believe we live in an “expanding” universe! Ah, the folly of our human dreams …. Ad astra!
by Marcos Marin
And some are still praying to be spared of the Bottomless Pit, right Christian? :-D
by Snaz
I predict the Amish will not be interested in enhancing themselves. Others will claim it is a sin to enhance themselves beyond human level, some will do so but will choose to live only in VR worlds, others will insist on only enhancing themselves with biological methods. All in all I think I once figured out about twenty different factions that will all exist simultaneously if the more powerful ones will help keep the peace. The problem being at least a dozen of them are going to wind up living in some future equivalent of reservations — or possibly wildlife refuges.
by Christian Gehman
“I predict the Amish will not be interested in enhancing themselves.” What a platry notion. The Mennonites, on the other hand, will be interested, as long as they can paint it black and only use it for work or business.
by Chrispium
The Amish will enhance themselves, if they can get it to run with compressed air ;)
by Chrispium
Awaiting approval seems to happen all the time. Don’t you have other things to do Amara?
by Marcos Marin
Depends on the “thread” it seems… ;-)
by Camaxtli
There is literally nothing to argue about between what he’s claiming and what Kurzweil’s claiming aside from if there are alien civilizations or not. And who really cares about that. Either they are there and won’t be an issue until we are further advanced, or they’re not there and we’ll have to kick off spreading intelligence throughout the universe.
We are already merging with our machines. It’s happening right now. And machines are taking over society in that our society cannot survive it its present state without machines. Our civilization is dependent on semi-intelligent machines.
There’s not going to be any machine “waking up” going on. And there’s not going to be any momentous merger of mind and machine either. It’s going to be subtle and a smooth continuation of what is already going on right now.
by anthony hadfiedl
Given the evolutionary time line of humans, lets say around 200,000 years, and the time line of universal liveable planetary systems, and what we know of the rate of current scientific progress. If viable intelligence exists in the universe, its is probably well in advance and AI in origin. And since humans can not live for long under non gravity environments, we may assume that any advanced robotic civilization would have arrived here long ago where they in existence in our galaxy.
by Camaxtli
If they do exist, I have no doubt they are non-biological. I’m not sure I’d call it machine or robotic intelligence though. Calling it a machine intelligence wouldn’t do it justice, its crude and does not come close to describing such a transcendent civilization. With all the time there has been to develop, as you say, its physical structure, its substrate would be subtle beyond our meager comprehension.
I’m positive that if there are other intelligence civilizations, most of them are so far advanced that we would have as much chance of perceiving or conceiving them as bacteria have of us. And I do not exaggerate one bit. It would be arrogance in the utter extreme to think we could comprehend a civilization that had 200,000 years to develop at technologies expotential rate and the integrity to still exist.
by Christian Gehman
Right — next year the characters on your favorite television shows will actually look like you and your friends and your family!
by Thomas Beek
Thank you for this sensible response I think people get excited about the future that we intend to go way too far your answer on the other hand seems to agree nicely with commonsensical reality, what we see happening. thank you
by Greg
It is really nice to read that I’m not the only clueless one!
by Nathaniel
Gabriel, you explain it perfect. LOL, each time I read something that needs that kind of response, I crack my knuckles, get ready to type, scroll down…and see that you’ve already done it. :)
by Gabriel
About the nicest thing I’ve heard today, thank you very much :D
by D.
There is no way in which we would remain human (as human is defined today) if we merged with artificial intelligences. Therefore, no matter what happens, whether it is mass annihilation by catastrophe or mass annihilation by merging with technology, humanity is on its way out. And there is no way to put a ribbon on it and make it be something other than what it would be. Am I missing something here, folks?
by Gabriel
if you define a human being by his limitations, then yes….. However, if you define human beings as people who overcome their limitations, who are not content with what is ‘natural’ and transcend one limitation after another….then no, we are not going anywhere – only our limitations are on the way out.
We’ve transcended all our limitations little by little…we’ve crafted this beautiful synthetic world that would appear utopian and God-like to someone the further and further back in time you look, and it’s only going further and further in that direction.
Through mankind’s greatest natural ability that trumps any other on the planet (intelligence), we have managed to slowly overcome everything else…we weren’t born with wings, but that hasn’t stopped us from building flying machines that traverse through outerspace…what other creature can claim this? The longest lifespan was 30 before the age of medicine….yet, through such-synthetic therapies, we now live a life vastly longer then we were “supposed too”. It may be unnatural, but I doubt anybody is complaining.
Don’t you see? Nature isn’t this indomitable thing that should fearfully be respected….we are the dominant species and we conquer and master nature – that’s what we do….we solve problems and apprehension calls this “playing God”…if people didn’t transcend all these limitations, we wouldn’t even been communicating through this artificial medium called the “Internet” which is about as unnatural as it comes. Unnatural, yet vastly enriching and has been a boon in our lives.
Humanity is not on the way out — humanity is not going anywhere but up…continuing to transcend it’s final original limitations in it’s biology once and for all, and uprooting the status quo at long last to vastly enhance and enrich our lives far more then ever before. This isn’t something to be afraid of…this is something to acknowledge as what it is — simply the next step on the long road we’ve always been on, and something to look at with excitement….because things are only getting better and better, just as they’ve always been.
I can’t say if it will be a true Utopia — though our world may appear that way to people the further and further back you look, we obviously must contend with the various issues of today’s day….but our world is the culimination of all progress thus far, and certainly generates more happiness and capability then any time period thus far….this is obvious – it has to be….the only time better then the Present, is the Future, and though it undoubtedly will have it’s share of issues and concerns….from our eyes, it will be seen as a magical place where everyone is even more ‘god-like’ then we are…..frankly, I’d rather take my chances on that world then excessively rationalizing Death to the point that I convince myself I’m headed to an even greater utopia.
by D.
Consider this: any creatures that exist inside computers will have to compete for cycles to become dominant. So these future humans will have to behave like computer programs in order to secure enough cycles for their existence. I don’t know how that will feel like, but I don’t think it will feel anything like this. So I think it’s safe to say that human-like existence as it is today will no longer be. But I think we might debate over the semantics of that word for quite some time…
by Gorden Russell
D.
What do you mean, “compete for cycles?”
by Marcos Marin
hehehe, he means our browsers would not let our mp3 players produce coherent beauty.. yes, ludicrous. =)
by Thomas Jensen
Just a comment on the longest lifespan being 30 years before medicine. This is clearly wrong. It was by no means uncommon for people in medieval times to reach 60 or 70 years of age. The average lifespan may have been 30 years, but that figure is skewed by the huge mortality of children age 0 – 5 and to a lesser degree 5 – 15. Once you reached adulthood, you had basically cleared most of the hurdles and could be reasonably sure to live for 50 or 60 more years, barring a major accident. Or the black death…
by Bri
Black death wasn’t the only problem. Their living conditions were horrible. A gentleman always escorted a women down the side walk with her on the outside. The reason? So someone emptying their bedpan out the window, wouldn’t dump it on the lady. Horse poop everywhere. Rats and mice everywhere. After the civil war, our government made a push for out houses down south. They used to just go for the favorite tree stepping in the stuff in various stages of decomposition. Lots of parasites, some symbiotic. Once the outhouses caught on, their health improved tremendously. In the good old days you had ten to fifteen kids, hoping one would live to take care of you as you got older. Micheal Angelo lived into his eighties. He thought god was punishing him by making him live so long.
by Gabriel
Thank you for the clarification Thomas on lifespan — Bri, you basically made my point…..we can romanticize the past through all sorts of media, the fact is, we live a vastly more enriching life in today’s day then any other in the past…again, it has to be. The fact that we are even talking about this through the Internet is testament to this.
D, I will say this….it is indeed important to recognize what is important – to recognize what is important in our own humanity…this is why Kurzweil only says that people will one day transcend ‘biology’….biology, not our humanity — I don’t like nor agree with the idea that we are becoming Posthuman, because even though we should continue to further enhance and enrich our own capabilities, the idea commonly scares people and it doesn’t seem right to say that in the first place…because again, if we are to truly define ourselves, human beings, as a race that defies nature and ever-seeks to improve themselves overtime, as individuals and as a people on any score….then no matter how God-like we become (or how God-like we already are), that’s not changing. I’m still a human being even though I can communicate with you guys over vast distances as well as choose to fly across the planet in an airplane….how and why is my status as a ‘human being’ going to change if I decide to continue extending my capabilities as an individual even further by, say, enhancing my intelligence?
“Gabriel” didn’t die and suddenly get replaced by someone else just because I bought a new car that can travel faster then I ever could, or I’m taking new synthetic medication for my health to help keep myself in shape and live longer….I’m always the same “me”…just a vastly more capable ‘me’, and my capabilities and freedom as an individual is limited by the time period I live in…and if I have the option to extend them, then it’s going to be tough for things like nostalgia to rationalize to keep them around.
I think, as you say, it boils down to semantics of the word….indeed, definitions will be thrown out and changed if things go the way transhumanists say….if you define a Human as a being that breathes, eats, sleeps, gives birth through sex…then yes, a Human being as defined like that, will indeed, be on the way out….we will still be capable of having these experiences, but it will be our choice over being a necessity — a necessity, like so much else, that we rationalize as a good thing being ‘natural’, and thus, shouldn’t strive to enhance and enrich them.
Again, ‘m not trying to be overzealous – I understand the need to recognize what is important in our own humanity, what is it that makes us who we are spiritually…however, their is something inherently wrong by defining people through what I described above or a similar way of thinking — because, like that, you are essentially describing a human being by our limitations; I’d like to think their could be a better, more positive productive consensus then that.
by Bri
What it means, to be human, will change forever. Humans are driven by mammalian needs. Just like porn short circuits the mammalian mating and bonding cycles, virtual reality will shatter it. It will be hard to get a suicide bomber to blow himself up for seventy virgins in heaven, when he can get that any time in virtual reality. We talk to people to bond and form communities. Soon AI will be able to be the ultimate best friend. As I’ve said, Skynet wouldn’t need to fire a shot. It could achieve it’s goals in a similar way as in The Martian Chronicles, putting us in a dream that we can’t wake up from, nor would we want to. After the singularity, what we become is an unknown. I’d be more worried about the next fifty years than the next billion.
by Gabriel
Sounds pretty good to me — indeed, Abundance diminishes the reasons the peace….Heaven is a place that we create (and we’ve been working on that throughout our entire history, as I expressed with the word ‘utopia’ in my previous posts), not that we go too, and an AI could indeed help us in creating the kind of world we always wanted to live in with virtual reality. The world is becoming smaller and more social as time goes by, and while liberty and privacy will indeed become things to fight for, as ever, we are indeed become more and more expressive and closer together as time goes by, and this is a wonderful thing.
It’s easy to think these are all rose-colored idyllic words, but when you wrap your head around the thought that this has been the path we have always been on till now, it’s hard to not want to continue going further on — I don’t expect such a world to truly be a paradise, the same way we still live in a world with issues and concerns despite all the benefits and freedoms we have versus any time period before….but the last bit is the key — nobody is saying we should get rid of the Internet because of the concern for software viruses and this logic goes for any life-changer that requires maintaining and vigilance….as a whole, if the world of the future will be vastly more enriching for us despite the inherent concerns and issues that come with it, won’t it still be worth it?
One could argue that these issues need examining to truly understand it’s worth, and that’s indeed true…but it’s hard to argue against a boon that, as a whole, betters your life just because you need to take care of it.
by Bri
It was on NPR in reference to health issues. It’s all in the wrist, a graceful arch also helps.
by Marcos Marin
oh, are we back to censorship already? mwahahahaha the poor 1984 history editing process isn’t even capable of removing the entire timeline.. what you replied to in this clearly FIRST post here?? it is so.. enigmatic!
by Marcos Marin
first!
and 27 comes AFTER 28! =)
by Marcos Marin
Isn’t that special?
28 comes AFTER 29!
by Marcos Marin
Slippery slope indeed!
See how 30 comes AFTER 29!
by Marcos Marin
Oh look!
September comes AFTER October!
by Marcos Marin
Careful now, Thomas. You are in in enemy territory and risking stepping in big ugly toes now. Tread slowly when exposing such sophisms, my friend.
by Gabriel
Sophism? I certainly hope you are not referring to me….the last intention I have is wanting to deceive somebody.
Of course, if you feel you have something to teach, I’m always open to learning :)
by Marcos Marin
Here is a rare example of non-delusional hope =) yes, I was not referring to you, Gabriel. I addressed Thomas here in the same way in fact you have in your first line there. You are just another victim of it. Sorry for the confusion.
In fact I am quite a good teacher, expect for the extreme lack of patience =) Although I also believe too much patience is counter-productive… However the problem is not having some thing to teach, but too much a thing to even consider beginning…
by John Goodrich
People back 200,000 years ago did indeed die around age 30 due to the fact that tooth decay and other diseases now commonly cured killed off people at a very early age.
Primitive societies had problems with getting enough food and every member of that society had to be functional in order for all to survive.
Carrying an often non-functional third generation was not possible when conditions for survival were so minimal .
Early death was nature’s way to enable the rest of the species to survive.
by John
“Humanity is not on the way out — humanity is not going anywhere but up…”
Well still being wiped out is a possible scenario. If I invented AI and thus became godlike myself, it’s possible I’d wipe out humanity in case it posed reasonable threat to me. So yes, some of humanity will go up, while other (most of it) will disappear :)
by Marcos Marin
Been there. No you wouldn’t, or it wouldn’t really be strong AI. And you’d be crushed in such a scenario.
by Gabriel
John, I’m not saying their are not any existensial threats, but as with any follower of the Singularity, I hope we can make it through the minefield into a bright future.
That said, with regards to that…I’m sorry, but I disagree — I can’t imagine my Dog or my Goldfish managing to control me, or overpower me…the same way that a Strong AI won’t be able to be controlled no matter what hardware tricks we pull out, I don’t understand how we would become vastly more enriched intellectually/emotionally and suddenly turn into sociopaths that will terminate humanity….even in the face of fundamentalist-driven threats, what would a superhuman AI really have to fear from the “Moshs”?
I know this makes normal humans seem like bugs compared to what humans/AI’s will be in the future….and yet, in many ways, i wonder if that’s what it really is — this isn’t going to be an hollywood-style invasion in my mind….we’re going to merge with them, and we will become vastly enhanced and enriched…I can’t see that backfiring in the sense that we will just want to terminate humanity — you mention if it appears they pose a reasonable threat, and yet I wonder….what threat could be truly be?
My words seem like I feel human beings will be like bugs, again, compared to them….and yet, maybe their is no way to say it nicely – their is going to be a rift between the enhanced and everybody else, we know this already….my point is, when we enhance ourselves to such a vast and increasing degree, what reasonable threat could un-enhanced humans really pose? And that’s under the assumption that we still didn’t have our empathy and human attachment to our fellow man, which I imagine would increase rather then decrease following enhancement…
If we are too merge with our machines and our machines will be more human-like then we are, then we will become even more human-like following enhancement (what Kurzweil means by spiritual growth)….my point is, in terms of capability, I can’t imagine normal humans posing any considerable threat to the enhanced nor would they wish to terminate them anyway; they would merely, with greater ability to, try to convince them to enhance themselves or at least stop the violence….which is good, because if humans/AI’s really did turn hostile, they’d obviously wipe them out — which would ironically give a sort of justification that their really was something wrong with enhancement in the first place.
As a whole, I never agreed with the Terminator scenario.
by John
Good reasoning, Gabriel, not sure though if too optimistic, Kurzweil-like :) Let’s see:
“I can’t see that backfiring in the sense that we will just want to terminate humanity — you mention if it appears they pose a reasonable threat, and yet I wonder….what threat could be truly be?”
Well, say, you invented nuclear bomb, the first to do so. Therefore you’re godlike compared to other countries. What you do? You can either quickly wipe out USSR or wait until it gets nuclear bomb too and becomes as powerful as you are. It’s kinda reasonable threat and it might be reasonable to destroy USSR, ASAP. Even if at current moment they are too weak compared to your powers.
(this reasoning will work in case intelligence explosion has its plateau too)
” I don’t understand how we would become vastly more enriched intellectually/emotionally and suddenly turn into sociopaths that will terminate humanity….”
You don’t have to be sociopath, you only need to realise the truth. And the truth is, Life is a game. Wiping out the planet is not more a big deal than wiping out a bug or wiping your nose. It’s the mind that makes things look valuable or serious or important. The mind that doesn’t understand how it works. When you do, you know it’s just an illusion, so you don’t have these concerns about poor valuable human beings. And quick annihilation won’t hurt anyone, they won’t simply notice :)
As for spiritual growth, that’s true, it definitely grows. But it doesn’t mean that will continue, it never does. Extrapolation is never sure thing.
by LKWIII
John, I think the position you are arguing is that “marginally-enhance” (ME) humans could see all “imminently-to-be-enhanced” (IE) humans as a potential threat and proactively annihilate them to forestall a challenge to their preeminence.
I think this falsely assumes that ME humans would expect all IE humans to be inherently opposed to them and expect them to become their adversaries if any IE humans were allowed to step up to their ME intelligence / technology level. Even if they did anticipate an opposing ME culture to form, we can look at our world today and assume that the ME humans would most likely seed their technology to IE groups that would join their marginally-enhanced goals. In this way they would be strengthening their numbers and ability to resist any IE or future ME threat to themselves.
Even once the ME humans move on to a “significantly enhanced” (SE) level, I think we could expect a certain level of ‘affection’ for IE humans and offer them some level of protection. Much like we look at apes and chimps today (and even less-closely related intelligent animals like dolphins).
I do think that any IE humans left by the time a “vastly-enhanced” (VE) culture develops would be wise to give as wide a berth as possible to the VE humans. Although the VE man not have any overt animosity toward IE humans, they may unconsciously wipe out vast numbers (or all) of us with out realizing it. Just like, when I go about my day I don’t stop to notice the anthill I stepped on as I rushed off to work. Or the multitude of germs my immune system destroys throughout the day.
by Gabriel
Mmmm…I’m still not sure I can agree with you John — I’m still by my points, even though I know they are a broken record by now.
Yes, extrapolation is never a sure thing – we don’t know how much ‘spiritual growth’ will grow or how far it can go….but it WILL grow; that’s all that really matters.
The nuclear bomb analogy isn’t right because this isn’t like that — their was nothing that stopped the USSR or other countries from getting their own bomb except time and resources….this is different because this is enhancement — the option for the ‘regulars’ to enhance themselves is always open, and it’s their own choice to preserve their own shortcomings for as long as they choose.
And if they do enhance themselves…that’s a good thing — again, this isn’t like a war, with two sides fighting over the same power….this is more like a club you are free to join or not, and you are pressured to do so, because if you do….you will become, well, more human then you are now…this isn’t an arms race or a competition — this is simply the personal choice of whether or not you want to take “the next step”.
Again, this isn’t an arms race — this isn’t a fight for control of a single utility…their is nothing to fear from the un-enhanced because their is simply nothing they can do that can match you anymore, so it’s far more worthwhile to convince them to not vainly try to endanger anybody. If they enhance themselves….well good! Now they’ve joined the club and are just as intimate and augmented as we are now…what’s the problem?
The way you describe the Mind and how we look at things could have some merit…but would an enhanced mind still look at things that way? With still that sort of un-enhanced mentality that life is a game? Who’s to stay that they will still possess that “truth”?
That’s really the point of this post — that the enhanced won’t have such un-enhanced way of looking at things, at least I hope….that when you augment yourself, you will become augmented in every which way, including emotionally and you’d realize that no pursuit of conflict is simply worthwhile anymore — you would either convince people to enhance themselves, or live in peace with the time they have left…
Besides, it’s not like they won’t have benefits (not as much) – the “regulars” will still have AI assistants and all the benefits of the world yet to come….they just won’t go as far as they could because they refuse to enhance themselves….they will still have a world of Abundance around them to enjoy. I would hope that would give an added incentive not to start any unnecessary problems.
by John
“Yes, extrapolation is never a sure thing – we don’t know how much ‘spiritual growth’ will grow or how far it can go….but it WILL grow; that’s all that really matters.”
What makes you so sure? Or, how do you know, where it will grow? What if according to higher levels of “spiritual growth”, it will be ok to kill sentient beings (say, because they are all illusions and difference between life and death will be diminished, as we have btw. in current high philosophies, including christianity).
All current valuing peace and kindess, is because we don’t understand life and because we are slaves to our minds, again due to not understanding of its work. That trend might change, once our understanding finally breaches that line, ain’t it?
Not sure you’ll read this, as the thread becomes a mess.
by Gabriel
No, I see your reply John :)….unfortunately though, I think I’m at a loss for words at last. I’ve stressed before my feelings in that I don’t see how we could grow like this and it backfires in the sense that we become, as I said before, sociopathic and potentially killing the ‘regulars’ — as before, that sort of gives the inclination that their really was something wrong with enhancement after all.
I honestly don’t know how to go further then this because, if you want say really does turn out to be true….then enhancement perhaps really is a sham after all — that we should not, or shouldn’t have, gone down this road.
I can’t really comment on this any further because, at this point….well…then everything is basically thrown out the window — perhaps the negativity only stems from the un-enhanced perspective and, despite the seeming brutality, it really is worth it on the ‘other side’ for all sorts of reasons…
I just don’t know — I guess this is where faith works it’s way in…I’ve tried to justify my views on this stuff as best I could, but what you say could very well end up being true perhaps — It’s been said many times before that the biggest implications of the Singularity is that we don’t know what they are….perhaps a sort of “enlightenment” really does happen as we grow and transcend as people through enhancement (spiritual growth)…and yet, perhaps because of it, it is laced with a sort of malevolence by being brutal to everyone “underneath”.
Which is nothing new….history is rampant with “civilized” technology-advanced countries abusing and destroying people whether to ‘help’ them or simply destroy them…perhaps the Singularity is only more of the same.
I can’t go any further on this then hope that really isn’t the case….that if and when enhancement becomes available, and we can augment our intelligence….that we truly will grow as a people and not simply “look down” on everything below us.
If and when the Singularity happens, I guess we’ll find out.
by Bri
Unfortunately to be human means , to have mammalian instincts. All of our society is governed by rules of a pecking order, that arose in the apes. Bullying, whether at school, at the job, or even on this web page, is an artifact of this instinct. When the congressman yelled out ,” you lie” to Obama, he knew very well that he was breaking the ethics of session. Mans inhumanity to man is manefest at all levels. Husband to wife to child to friends. Despite our civilization, we are uncivilized. Augmenting alone will only increase the belief of those who possess them, that they are superior. This is what republican philosophy is based on. That they are better at ruling and the masses should just get out of the way and let them work. My grandfather on my mothers side used to say this all the time. It’s why Paul Ryan is into Randian philosophy. To alter this inherent structure is very difficult. It is the king of the hill mentality. The only the strong survive mentality. It is everywhere. The good news is that it will change, but not by anything anyone has written in these post, including me. I know, deep in my heart, with an assurance that I can’t explain to you all, that that change is on it’s way.
by Marcos Marin
omg, NOTHING could be FURTHER from the truth! Get you neuroscience straight! OR, at the VERY LEAST, watch more national geographic documentaries PLEASE!
Good thing you are not taking your posts so seriously anymore, but please, pay attention, you are NOT prepared for the singularity AT ALL!
by Bri
@Marcos:Honestly Marcos I don’t know what your talking about. I mean no disrespect but you tend to talk in sweeping generalities. First, everything I write I take very seriously, otherwise I wouldn’t write.Secondly , my whole post is about behavior, not neuroscience.Thirdly, all of that is based in extensive readings in psychology, and has more to do with the reasons for and development of the ego. Lastly, I’ve been aware of the coming singularity, for over forty five years. I didn’t understand how it would be possible, till I read Rays work. If anything, I think I have a better sense of post singularity, when humans, for the most part will be so transformed, it is difficult to say that they are human anymore. I’m not only prepared, I’ve been patiently awaiting the day.
by Marcos Marin
You obviously take it very seriously, I meant “overly” serious and I referred to your own words: “[...] these post(sic), including me.”
I was probably wrong, I tried, but if you still want to believe all your “extensive readings” and 40 years of TV and NPR, great, it is your “free will”.
Stay wise.
by Marcos Marin
“As a whole, I never agreed with the Terminator scenario.”
And yet, it is the closest analogy to your own point. ;-)
Remember, the armageddon is inevitable, we can only POSTPONE it. Isn’t that remarkably similar to your definition of human,human?
by Gabriel
I’d like to clariy that they did stop armageddon in the movies…they only changed the mythos around to get more money after T2 :p. It went from “there is no fate but what we make for ourselves” to ” judgment day is inevitable” >_<
….Anyway, I'd say you are comparing two totally different things — we may never get away from limitations altogether, but we certainly transcend any that bars our path nonetheless; in that sense, you could even go as far to say as their are no true limits to be found…it depends on how far you stretch eitherway — in stressing that their are limits, period, or their is nothing that can stand in our way. It's really very nit-picky and depends entirely on you….I only request that it's better to celebrate our strengths then our limitations, even if we are aware that we may always have the latter in some form.
All of this said though, has nothing to do with the idea of a supposed Terminator-style Armageddon which any person knowledgeable about transhumanism/Singularity hopes will never occur…taking my words as a sign that we will always be on the edge of such a vast conflict seems wrong and off-the-wall. That's the same as somebody saying that we are always on the verge of World War 3 or some other great conflict right here and now…only paranoia would say that is really the case.
Things will become difficult as time goes on if things go the way transhumanists say; I'm not denying that…however, their is a light at the end of the tunnel and we can achieve that sort of future, and it's what I'm hoping for….Armageddon is supposed to be the end of the world, and for fundamentalist-driven humans, perhaps that really is the case….perhaps the Singularity is another word for Armageddon, in which case, we should strive for a peaceful one in which no vast conflicts occur and we go for a relatively seamless transition….the end is not seen as the end, but as a new beginning.
Every single thing I'm saying is subjective and can be viewed one way or the other….hopefully at least, I've made my hopeful viewpoint clear enough in that, whatever does happen, it will be the happy start to something better and we will get to it as quickly and as painless as possible.
by Marcos Marin
hehe good point about the discontinuities of cheap fiction but… I thought you were beyond those literal interpretations, my analogy was with your use of “limitation” and/or/as problems to be solved.
A couple points you might want to consider further:
“.I only request that it’s better to celebrate our strengths then our limitations, ”
Our strengths are defined BY our limitations… and, perhaps more profoundly, vice-versa! So, what are you going to celebrate, my friend?
“.Armageddon is supposed to be the end [...] perhaps the Singularity [...]”
Apocalypse means to reveal, so yes, maybe you are right… ;-)
by Gabriel
It is true that you could say that our strengths are defined by our limits and vice-versa, again, I see no reason why you wouldn’t want to celebrate your strengths over your limits…it’s not that you are blind or stubborn – you could acknowledge your weaknesses and feel unashamed by them because you see it as more room to keep growing. When you rationalize your weaknesses as a GOOD thing and want to keep them around because you say they are ‘natural’, then you have a problem.
Again though, to answer your question, the answer is still obvious and the same…celebrate and feel proud of your strengths – acknowledge your weaknesses, don’t feel ashamed, and see them as room to keep growing…don’t cling to your weaknesses and excessively rationalize them because, then, you are hurting yourself and behaving masochistic — you are giving your weaknesses more credit then they deserve when what should truly be celebrated, is your strengths; particularly, your strength to keep going, growing and transcending to new heights.
I honestly wonder if you are overthinking it Marco – all of this seems pretty obvious from my standpoint.
by Marcos Marin
Shame is unhealthy in any situation, I’m not unhealthy =)
Said “question” was rhetoric, carefully crafted to make a very important point: You are NOT dealing with absolutes! You CAN NOT “celebrate” strengths by themselves in a vacuum.
The more words you place in, the more confused you become. By convincing yourself you are explaining more, the more apparent your incoherence becomes. Unravel it by pulling the string from the end, notice the process you are trying to describe and untangle it from the definition you believe you have so obvious after the second to last paragraph.
You have NO IDEA what “overthinking” is, my friend. I have solved the “meaning of life” before my first decade of Runtime, all while composing music directly with computer code and transmitting it through clandestine radio waves. Spent the next decade or so working out its NP-Complete Logico-Philosophical foundations while along the way solving all other important “unsolved” problems human philosophers took millennia not to. This small text box is inadequate, to say the least, to contain any resemblance of “over-thinking”, even with you assuming such imperfect human languages could ever describe the perfection of pure thought.
by Dominic
Perhaps rather than the dystopic view that humans will be absorbed by and then deleted by machines, maybe the reverse might happen? Rather than we become more machine-like, our machines actually become more human-like. If we are to merge with a machine consciousness, clearly it needs to be on our terms not the machines! Perhaps conscious machines will need to become more like us. Agree that the rise of technology is to enhance human existence, and it is doing so at an ever-increasing rate. The coming convergence of robotics and computing will transform everything – but hopefully we can control this evolution. Surely as we create ever more complex and intelligent machines we want them to exist for a reason. There will be no point evolving humanity with a merged machine consciousness if humans simply become an algorithm.
by Ian Clarke
I think when the enhancements reach the stage where chemical imbalances, neuroses, trauma, hormone driven responses etc. are controlled/removed, we will be able to think clearly; perhaps for the first time in our history. Fanaticists, egotists, psychopaths may all be words associated with our primitive predecessors. There will still be threats, but not from each other.
That’s my hope, at least. :)
by Marcos Marin
Very nice and well thought out tldr post, Gabriel. But let me just point out a little paradox right in the beginning:
“However, if you define human beings as people who overcome their limitations, […].then no, we are not going anywhere – only our limitations are on the way out.”
Okay, so if you define humans as having limitations to overcome, how can you conclude by saying ONLY your limitations are on the way out?! You’re throwing the whole of your definition out with the bathing water too =) see?
by Mr.X
We have limitations?
by Marcos Marin
depends on YOUR definition of WE. :-)
by Mr.X
You are right, I alone am perfect :)
by Marcos Marin
Close enough :D
by tedhowardnz
Hi Marcos
Your criticism of Gabriel is valid only in a certain limited interpretation.
If you allow that we are finite entities in a realm of infinite possibility (and also infinite impossibilities), then we can only ever be aware of a very small subset of reality. Within that subset we will be aware of particular limitations. It seems we have the power to transcend those limitations, and it seems that each time we do so, we eventually bump into the next set of limitations that are inherent to the new (transcendent) paradigm.
It seems mathematically and logically possible that this process could be infinite (and often recursive) in nature.
Thus it does seem possible that we could go on (and on and on) transcending our limitations, only to become aware at some later stage of some new set of limitations.
by Marcos Marin
Very good! That was exactly the point I intended HIM to get to.
However, it still makes clear his definition would need qualification, as it makes it sound, as you put it, limited. I’d say idealistic.
by Gabriel
I love your post Ted – indeed, it seems like everytime we have a problem…the answer solves it, but introduces new problems that require a new answer and this goes on possibly forever…so in that sense, we will always have limitations of some sort unless we somehow break this at some point, if such a thing is possible, such as hitting a wall in how far we can extend ourselves. Even if we somehow reached a point of infinite capability, perhaps that also somehow makes for infinite limitations….it’s the stuff at makes your head spin.
And yet, if this is about how I described humanity…wouldn’t it still remain a better judgment call to describe humanity as I did? As a race that ever transcends it’s limits? Even if it seems we will never, in one form or another, break away from limitations all together…it still feels like a pessimistic masochistic way of looking at things…..that no matter how what we do, or how far we go, we will always inherently have limitations…their may very well be truth to this, but that feel like it’s not giving enough credit to the other side of the coin — that no matter limitation bars our path, we overcome it, even if another one always awaits us. I feel it’s better and more productive to give some more weight to that instead, and surely you can understand why.
What can I say — one can get at me for seeming too optimistic, and I can get at them for seeming too pessimistic.
by tedhowardnz
Hi Gabriel,
I am with you.
I am essentially optimistic about our future, however it goes.
The presence of limits is something that for me makes the prospect of indefinite life inviting. The big problem with infinite life would seem to be the potential for boredom. Having infinite potential for transcendence would seem to forestall that possibility.
Our first challenge seems to be to transcend the concepts of markets and money as valuation systems, and to embrace technologies that deliver abundance to all (markets cannot do anything but value abundance at zero).
Interesting times indeed!
by Gabriel
I’d like to point out Ted, that, as a matter of fact, that’s how Kurzweil says things will become — that the post-Singularity world will be neither utopian or dystopian (akin to our own, in a sense)…we will overcome age-old issues, but will contend with the new issues and challenges it brings…It will not truly be Heaven, but nor will it be Hell….merely a brand new status quo.
So if that’s how it turns out, it sounds like you’ll like it…you won’t get bored :).
by Gabriel
“Very nice and well thought out tldr post, Gabriel.”,
that’s a back-handed compliment if I ever heard one -_-.
I’d go into a huge thing, but I can see you prefer I keep things short — to keep it that, I say that only our limitations are on the way out because I don’t make our limits as the basis for our humanity in my mind…what’s bigger, and more important, is our ability to overcome them.
If I defined human beings on the basis that they possessed limitations, then yes, you could say we were on the way out alongside our limits…but if your definition of humanity stresses our ability to overcome them…about what we can (increasingly) do over what we (decreasingly) cannot do and didn’t stress the limits as something part of the package…. then the only thing out really is just our limits — humanity, and it’s natural tendency to overcome any and all obstacles, didn’t go anywhere and this is reflected in our ever-rising capabilities.
In the end, how we define ourselves as humans is still very subjective and personal…as before though, I’d like to think we could arrive at a much better positive and productive consensus of the human race then as a species that is defined by our limits – about what we can’t do, over what we can….and for all we know, the sky isn’t the limit… maybe their are none to be found at all.
I’d go on, but I’ll leave it at that.
by Marcos Marin
“that’s a back-handed compliment if I ever heard one -_-.”
hehe, not in the literal sense of the term, as it was not intended as an insult but, I’m sure you can appreciate the irony in it. :) Although I could argue one dont need to read to perceive how much thought you invested in it. ;-) At least in cpu load terms even though that is also relative hehehe
But even though you might have considered this interpretation, contrast your response to others here, to what is far from insults, to see who is really “paranormal” among us ;-)
“I’d go into a huge thing, but I can see you prefer I keep things short — to”
Sorry, thanks to those individuals these forums are ever decreasing in priority on the competition for CPU cycles (it seems D. above might be right after all :D) so you will understand that when this ratio is divided among your word count, it simply doesn’t make the cut. I can override it when I notice it, like now, but that’s rare. It does make me wonder though about the editor’s knack for business and what kind of content they like to attract or repulse around here…
anyway, I digress…
“keep it that, I say that only our limitations are on the way out because I don’t make our limits as the basis for our humanity in my mind…what’s bigger, and more important, is our ability to overcome them.”
okay, that’s better, however, what is a poet without a muse? An answer without a question? A game without a rule? A train without a rail? The sphinx without a riddle will simply devour itself! And back to humanity it turns, round the ouroboros you go.
…
Yes, it is better to be positive, recent studies actually confirm that. Although the “sum” of proper heuristics is ALWAYS better that each component heuristic. Yet, what I said was your initial unqualified definition made it SOUND idealistic (not optimistic or positive, which is different) and it was certainly NOT what you intended it to sound (again, optimistic/positive). I just thought you might have wanted to invest a bit more thought to that well thought out tldr post :D You sure seem part of the few capable of such a feat around here. Ironically nudging my coldly calculated priority up even though probabilistic the least computed on. How’s that for a back-hand now? =)
by Mr.X
Very nice and well thought out tldr post, Marcos.
by Gabriel
Thanks Mr.X :P
by Marcos Marin
Thanks Gabriel for thanking Mr.X for me.
I agree, pearls before swine :-) so let me summarize it for Gabriel: “What is an answer without a question?”
And no, there is no back-hand there, but you do seem quite suggestible.
by Christian Gehman
“There is no way in which we would remain human (as human is defined today)” — how, exactly is “human” defined today? The ability to reproduce with others of our species? The Turing Test has always been nonsense …. created by an engineer with Aspberger’s sydnrome who truly didn’t understand “the rest of the story.”
by Gabriel
How is merging with machines in the future the same as them ‘taking over’? If their is to be no distinction between human and machine, then humanity will be ‘taken over’ by, well, humans.
For goodness sake >_<
by Christian Gehman
I have already merged with my ;’90 SHO. Its aspirations are my aspirations: we both breathe air. We both love speed. We both need a bit of body work and a new paint job. Many “people” who might pass the Turing Test do not laugh at jokes — or anything else.
by John
Yeah, right… To solve the strong AI problem, we need to invent FTL travel and seek help from alien civilizations!
:facepalm:
by Bodyne
solipsism fun fun
by Marcos Marin
oh.. it has a name! thanks! =)
by Gabor
Did someone already come up with the idea of “Singularity” somewhere in the Universe?!? Could it be that “they” just reached our part of space here and slowly nodging us into joining their advanced civilization…sort of “expanding their intelligence” by turning us into themselves?!? If not so, if we are the first ones to reach this higher state, then we will definitely have to consider this when expanding our own intelligence.
by Marcos Marin
Bingo!
I mentioned this 1 or 2 months ago in some post…
by Mr.X
Maybe someone already created strong AI and paid for it^^
by Christian Gehman
“Could it be that “they” just reached our part of space here and slowly nodging us into joining their advanced civilization…sort of “expanding their intelligence” by turning us into themselves?!? ” — REALLY. What a sophomoric proposition … worthy of the least interesting SF ever created. See William Gibson’s interview in Wired — at
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/02/william-gibson-geeks-guide/all/
by Bob
It’s amazing how modern thinking has made so many people hate themselves.
“Humans look like they’ve already had their day in the sun..”
If you really think that way, kindly remove yourself from this Earth. Thanks.
by Samuel
He is not saying that being intelligent and humane has had its day in the sun, he is saying all our biological problems and limitations have had their day in the sun. There is plenty to fix about ourselves, since we are not intelligently designed, like wisdom teeth, prostates, eye vulnerability, teeth vulnerability, all the problems which come from aging and a multitude of genetic disorders, etc. Everything good about being human will be enhanced, preserved and cherished.
by Neo
kindly remove your self from this website, it is about the singularity and you should go to a anti science website for religious nuts. thanks.
by Gabriel
Neo, who are you talking about? Both Bob and Samuel especially are correct….all our limitations are things to be overcome, not excessively rationalized as things that are constant and we are egotistical and “playing God” for trying to eliminate them.
We’ve been ‘playing God’ since our very beginning — ‘playing God’ is another name for ‘solving problems’ or ‘playing human’…we fight nature and master it little by little…we’ve crafted this beautiful synthetic world around us that has given us so much happiness and capability — life begets life, and and the idea that disease and death shouldn’t be messed with because it’s ‘natural’ is ridiculous and hypocritical because that’s what we’ve always been doing…we’ve been overcoming one evolutionary constraint after another, and though it’s taken a long time, death is just another one on the list to eliminate.
I honestly believe in the far future that death will be just like the plane, or medicine, or really so much else that was seen as controversal at the time…they’ll look at it as an obvious necessity and look at our trepidation with confusion and laughter….”People actually wanted to die in the past? were they stupid or something?”
by Bri
He’s a Skynet salesman!
by Marcos Marin
This is your 2nd post now! Look at the dates! 26 comes AFTER 27! got it? OBEY!