Decade of The Singularity

[Architect]

If the Singularity is near and we are approaching the knee of technological change - which I believe we are - then in the next decade we should see rapidly expanding change. If I recall correctly it will be in the early 2020's when we can commonly 'emulate' the human mind on a computer, for example.

You can read an update at How My Predictions are Faring by Ray Kurzweil, written in 2010. Specific predictions are more or less on track, as you might expect, but the exponential nature of change (being a statistical measurement) is tracking perfectly.

Thoughts, concerns, fears, hopes?

 

[Kuu]

I'm a transhumanist, so logically I like to see science and technology progress and dream of new wonderful possibilities. But I am deeply concerned of the dystopia scenario, considering our current socio-political-economic landscape the world over could be considered a dystopia already. With militaries already having weaponized drones, the development of new war technology like lasers and railguns and 3d printed guns and swarms of surveillance bots, the abundance of cameras and recognition software and, the militarization of police forces, gene and information patents being used to concentrate knowledge and even control of food supplies, rampant media manipulation, huge entertainment industries and drugs that are fundamentally escapism from facing real issues, the domination of politics by corporate rule, income inequality actually increasing and thus the technological/knowledge rift between haves and have nots. Looks like there will be singularity for the rich, genocide for the poor. A brave new world/1984 1-2 punch.

Another thought is that we already have enough technology to solve the most pressing concerns of our civilization. It's the problem of the rigid hierarchical structures of our civilization being inadequate for the size of our societies that we haven't resolved. For the most part we operate with selfish short term interests in mind, there is no concerted long term direction/goals of nations let alone mankind, so now we're stuck in a miasma of petty crime and grand theft, unprovoked conflict, idiotic pollution and squalor that could actually be solved.

To put but one example: there are millions more abandoned/disused houses (and plenty of empty office space) than the number of humans in the world, yet there are millions of homeless and millions more living in miserable slums built with scrap metal and boards, dying of curable diseases and hunger in a world of wasteful consumption. We don't need to build more houses, we don't need new construction technologies, we don't need AI or molecular assemblers to solve that. What we need is to have a long, deep look into our social organization and the concepts that we base our economies on. Without a large freedom-minded and in my opinion socialist (that is to mean, a cooperative, social-minded) reform, technological progress in the current social conditions won't be leading anywhere pretty. If the singularity is indeed near, as Kurzweil has claimed, I'm afraid we're not ready for it.

Is the growth of technology inevitable? I think so. Is the social rupture that will come along with the acceleration of technological development certain to be positive? No it isn't. It is extremely important that as radically game-chaning technologies hit the mainstream, we have a very serious and informed debate about them. We must not neglect the political side of transhumanism.

At the very least we need open-source hardware and software (specially for brain computer interfaces and other implants), and the abolition of patents and so-called "intellectual property". Guess how China got to where it is from the mess it used to be? By saying a very big fuck you very much to western pretensions of knowledge domination and proceeding to shamelessly pirate everything.

On a more positive endnote, I am, however, quite psyched usable Augmented Reality is bound to hit the mainstream sometime in the next 1-3 years. I've been looking forward to it for years, seeing it inch closer and closer... (though I must admit the terrifying fact that it has been advertisers those that are the most numerous and enthusiastic early adopters of the gimmicky phone AR of today).

The computational capacity is ready, the network and databases are in place, the software is working and being polished. The final piece is the hardware reaching a practical usability / low price sweet point. My biggest bet is Vuzix will hit it first, though other companies like Lumus or Innovega might beat them to it. Now that Google has publicly revealed its own experimentation on it (makes sense considering they are a fundamentally network and data based business), other major tech companies are certainly accelerating their R&D on this if they weren't already.

 

[Cognisant]

Inequity is a hard problem, if you house the homeless, treat the sick and feed the hungry you remove factors of entropy which stymie population growth and the population will grow until those problems are back again, eventually even worse, although they were already going to become worse anyway.

If transhuman immortality ever becomes viable for more than the utmost elite, which I think is inevitable, then either governments are going to try outlaw it, in futility, and/or it will be the beginning of the end for the biological human race as they either go transhuman or get driven into poverty by impossible competitive pressures.

Although I imagine the last few pure humans will become celebrities, not unlike the British royal family, heck it may well be them, the youngest generation at least as they'll be putting off the procedure for as long as they possibly can to ride the "human" gravy train

 

[Architect]

If the singularity is indeed near, as Kurzweil has claimed, I'm afraid we're not ready for it.

Is the growth of technology inevitable? I think so. Is the social rupture that will come along with the acceleration of technological development certain to be positive? No it isn't.

My suspicion is that while technological change is exponential, human cultural change is linear. We are more civilized today than you're average person from 1000 (e.g. The Better Angels of our Nature by Steven Pinker). Due to this I think that we'll slowly adapt.

On a more positive endnote, I am, however, quite psyched usable Augmented Reality is bound to hit the mainstream sometime in the next 1-3 years. I've been looking forward to it for years, seeing it inch closer and closer... (though I must admit the terrifying fact that it has been advertisers those that are the most numerous and enthusiastic early adopters of the gimmicky phone AR of today).

I'm signed on as a Google Glass developer and will receive an early version of it next year.

Although I imagine the last few pure humans will become celebrities

Where are there 'pure humans'? The augmentation difference between a cell phone and a neural implant is small frankly, they only differ by interface bus. We're all already augmented by technological enhancements.

 

[Cognisant]

I'm not saying it's rational, no doubt there will be a sliding scale with all manner of double standards and I have no idea where the actual line will be drawn but all the same the idea of "legitimate humanity" seems marketable to the exact same kind of people who care about the comings and goings of the royal family today.

Anything can be precious if it's rare.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I think decentralized, DIY technology is the way to go for future innovation if we are to avoid the social inequality problems that Kuu talked about. However, this seems to increase the potential for problems concerning the technology itself (no oversight on what people can do with it). So perhaps a balance must be struck somehow.

I would say that one of the signs that the singularity truly is near is when innovation of new technology that would have seemed out of reach (or even impossible) just 5-10 years prior starts coming from amateur scientists. The true sign that technology is ubiquitous and cheap enough is when hobbyists can start inventing something new on the scale of smart phones in the mid 2000's. Technology culture will become "regional" (in the same way that this forum could be considered a region of the internet) as the speed of innovation begins to catch up to the speed of distribution.

I think, also in the spirit of decentralization, homemade wireless mesh networks will start becoming more popular (especially if anything like SOPA ends up getting through). There is even less oversight in something like this than on the internet.

I also agree with Kurzweil that I think biotechnology will be the next big thing. I'd say in the next 20~ years most of the craziest innovation will be in the field of biotech, in the forms of:

Medical technology (growing human organs, cancer treatments, medicine specifically targeted to a person genome, gene therapy, stem cell treatments etc)

Augmentation (TCDCS to make people experts at something in a matter of hours, ampakines and other nootropics, artificial chromosomes that allow you to insert any novel gene you like into your genome (gene doping) etc)

Genetically modified food (GM crops, in vitro meat, etc)

Amongst other areas (eg who knows what we could do with synthetic life at this point).

 

[Thurlor]

When considering the singularity and what comes after it I can't help but think that humans will be forced to bring in a 'clause' stating that a human is someone who's ancestors (or templates) were human. The price of not doing so will be pogroms the likes of which humanity has yet to witness.

I don't think most people realise how much change will occur once the singularity is upon us. Just AI combined with nano-tech will allow all sorts of wonders. My dream is to upload to a nano-swarm.

 

[Absurdity]

How is all of this not a form of secular wish thinking?

 

[Agent Intellect]

How is all of this not a form of secular wish thinking?

If people are completely honest with themselves, it is. There is some evidence in the form of extrapolating trends, but in the end it is wishful thinking. However, many of the futurist and transhumanist hopes are things that can tangibly be pursued (eg by getting involved in the fields of science and technology) instead of just the hope that it will be given from on high.

 

[Meer]

However, many of the futurist and transhumanist hopes are things that can tangibly be pursued (eg by getting involved in the fields of science and technology) instead of just the hope that it will be given from on high.

Irrational beliefs are bad, whether they're supernatural or humanist. In fact, the latter is probably more dangerous, because it's easier to defend. It doesn't seem like most singularitarians are very involved in anything, besides predicting and debating.

"It's science! I'm an engineer! It must be true!"

 

[Absurdity]

If people are completely honest with themselves, it is. There is some evidence in the form of extrapolating trends, but in the end it is wishful thinking. However, many of the futurist and transhumanist hopes are things that can tangibly be pursued (eg by getting involved in the fields of science and technology) instead of just the hope that it will be given from on high.

Thank you for that (surprisingly) honest response.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Irrational beliefs are bad, whether they're supernatural or humanist. In fact, the latter is probably more dangerous, because it's easier to defend. It doesn't seem like most singularitarians are very involved in anything, besides predicting and debating.

"It's science! I'm an engineer! It must be true!"

You're right, even if you are trying to be a smug asshole about it. Most people who want the technological singularity to happen are not involved in any attempts to bring it to fruition (whether those attempts are in vain or not). But it's still an option for them to do so.

If a Christian wishes to bring on Armageddon and the second coming (the analogue of the singularity in this case) all they can do is sit around and wait for their unknowable deity to decide, on whim and with no prior warning, based on absolutely nothing but faith, to do it - it does not follow any trend, it can't be hurried along by anyone doing anything, and all predictions concerning it have been patently and demonstrably wrong.

Does this mean that the technological singularity is inevitable or even possible? Absolutely not. All it means is that it has at least a leg up on religious prophecy and that it is not completely irrational. It's a very real possibility with historical precedent and a trend that can be followed along with (as see by the link in the OP, the links in my first reply, and many other sources).

 

[Architect]

Irrational beliefs are bad, whether they're supernatural or humanist. In fact, the latter is probably more dangerous, because it's easier to defend. It doesn't seem like most singularitarians are very involved in anything, besides predicting and debating.

I've thought so too, but it can be deceiving. The singularitarian leadership spends a lot of time talking, but that is the nature of what they are trying to do after all. Technological progress isn't one thing but thousands. Besides that they do make real contributions, for example Singularity University. In this they pull promising college students from around the world to Stanford for a summer where they participate in lectures and I don't know what all. These kinds of things can be surprisingly influential.

They're managers basically; not so much doing specific work themselves but enabling it in others. For me as high tech worker, I've benefited from their outreach work. Among other things it has convinced me that the work I'm doing is highly beneficial, and I should keep with it rather than retiring early.

 

[jachian]

Thoughts, concerns, fears, hopes?

None whatsoever. The singularity will not appear in our lifetime contrary to what you think.

You dont even grasp the basics of our own minds..... far less to design a system that can think and act autonomously in an rational and moral way.

We havent even harnessed Quantum computing yet. Efficient and effective quantum computing is a pre-requisite for the singularity. Where not even close.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Excellent post Kuu!

Inequity is a hard problem, if you house the homeless, treat the sick and feed the hungry you remove factors of entropy which stymie population growth and the population will grow until those problems are back again, eventually even worse, although they were already going to become worse anyway.

No... that doesn't reflect reality at all.

Give a population access to birth control and education and the birth rates plummet.
Poverty and ignorance on the other hand....

 

[Architect]

None whatsoever. The singularity will not appear in our lifetime contrary to what you think.

Declarative statements are a fine thing for a politician, but for the rest of us - in particular INTP's - hardly appropriate. Put another way, why? Support your statement.

You dont even grasp the basics of our own minds.....

I assume you mean 'we', and you are wrong. We know quite a lot about how the brain and mind works, and certainly the basics. Funny how you said this on a Jung psychological types group, the irony.

far less to design a system that can think and act autonomously in an rational and moral way.

Wrong again, Google has self driving cars that are mapping out the world. They certainly are acting rationally, and since they have The Golden Rule programmed into them they are also acting morally.

We havent even harnessed Quantum computing yet.

So?

Efficient and effective quantum computing is a pre-requisite for the singularity.

Why? I've never heard that and very much doubt it. What do you actually know about quantum computing? I have graduate degrees in both quantum mechanics (graduate physics is mosly about QM these days) and computer science, care to chat?

Where not even close.

We have software which knows how to write that sentence better than you do.

 

[TriflinThomas]

I've watched one of kurzweil's docs on Netflix and I thought it was very interesting. I don't think we will reach the singularity until around 2030 (just a conservative estimate), though, I guess it kinda depends on the economy as to how quickly we approach it.

 

[jachian]

Declarative statements are a fine thing for a politician, but for the rest of us - in particular INTP's - hardly appropriate. Put another way, why? Support your statement.

For one am not a politician I too am INTP. I believe I have supported my statements.
Why? because of the reasons I stated.

I assume you mean 'we', and you are wrong. We know quite a lot about how the brain and mind works, and certainly the basics. Funny how you said this on a Jung psychological types group, the irony.

Yes I did mean 'we'. My apologies. And No, we know very little about how the brain and mind work. What you perceive to be breakthroughs in our understanding of the brain and the mind are really not very useful as far as a computer scientist or mathematicians are concerned.
For biologists and psychologists maybe, but their concerns are different.

Here is the problem, we have a mass of neurons that collectively make up a brain. We understand their biology enough to understand how they work the way they do, their design, layout, etc. But we really dont understand how they generate consciousness and we have never been able to get a group of stem to brain tissue that can observably generate the same kind of consciousness.

The problem for mathematicians and computer scientists is that a human brain seems to be running a wide set of algorithms, from simple neural network algorithms to very complex ones. not only that it's able to write its own code and generate new algorithms when it needs to..... and subconsciously even know when it needs to write its own code and how. This we dont understand. where is the code? how do we reverse engineer it?

You see the model of computation that our would is build on is the Turing Machine. All computational devices... well about 98% of the ones we use today are all Turing machines. You should look it up. Basically a turing machine has the following components.

• A processing unit
• memory
• an input/output devicce

It seem that small groups of neurons work as a processing unit, as memory at the same time. this muddies the waters.


Additionally a turing machine can only execute a single instruction per unit time. The brain on the other hand is able to process what seems like an infinite number of instructions per unit time.


Even the multi core processors that we are currently using are trying to replicate an ability to compute multiple instructions at the same time, but in computer science terms, because of the interface between processor and memory your really still only executing a single instruction at a time..... The brain on the other had has no such interface as memory and processor are one it really is computing instructions at the same time.


One of the most important problems is that there are some extremely simple problems that computers cannot solve in linear time (intractible/undecidable problems) I wont go into the details, but do some research on it.

Wrong again, Google has self driving cars that are mapping out the world. They certainly are acting rationally, and since they have The Golden Rule programmed into them they are also acting morally.

Sorry again.... Programming self driving cars is child's play compared to what the human brain does in its sleep. Again the kinds of computations that these cars are performing doesnt make them intelligent, conscious nor moral.

I've seen documentaries of idiot savants with the ability to use their brains as computers to do all sorts of calculations. It does not make them intelligent. And a computer that does the same is not conscious. Neither is it moral, because the exercise of morality requires not just the ability to make the correct choice, but to understand the difference between good and evil. to understand on a fundamental level the consequences of ones actions and to take responsibility for them.


So?

Why? I've never heard that and very much doubt it. What do you actually know about quantum computing? I have graduate degrees in both quantum mechanics (graduate physics is mosly about QM these days) and computer science, care to chat?

If you understand the physical and computational limits of our current paradigm of computing you will know that electrons cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Simply put there is a limit to which putting more transistors on a core, or increasing the number of cores will improve computational speed and efficiency.

You may have studied quantum mechanics but if you have knowledge of the application of sub-atomic particles to computation, much like we use on and off switches in our current paradigm you would understand that quantum computing is a possible way to overcome the the computational speed, efficiency and the problem of intractable and undecidable problems.

Am available to chat whenever you like. You know where to find me.

We have software which knows how to write that sentence better than you do.

If you've really studied computer science then you would realise that this is a trivial problem given enough space and time.

 

[cerebedlam]

I believe this to be another example of using an overly simplistic probability formula to prove that we're right on the cusp of some major upheaval...

WE HAVE NO IDEA what obstacles will be faced when science attempts to reverse engineer the human brain...I have no doubt that we'll discover we're not so easily synthetically duplicated...And, no doubt that the subtle and varied nuances/trickery of quantum mechanics will come into play at later stages...

We're still VERY FAR out from anything like 'the singularity'...But, it's still holds true that the curve of exponential growth builds on and compounds all previous discoveries...I do understand that this principle alone can shrink the heck out of a timeline.

 

[Architect]

I believe this to be another example of using an overly simplistic probability formula to prove that we're right on the cusp of some major upheaval...

Have you read any of Kurzweils books?

WE HAVE NO IDEA what obstacles will be faced when science attempts to reverse engineer the human brain...

No, we don't have no idea, we have many ideas actually. Check up on some of the latest neuroscience. Additionally, science and engineering work by surmounting unknowns. What is true is that the exponential curve of information technology has held for millennia.

I have no doubt that we'll discover we're not so easily synthetically duplicated...And, no doubt that the subtle and varied nuances/trickery of quantum mechanics will come into play at later stages...

"Brain fundamentalist" we call people with that opinion. No offense, the odd thing is that they usually know little about QM, but somehow think that invoking it lends an air of impossibility to reverse engineering the brain.

I've taken graduate courses in QM for a PhD in physics; I don't see any need to resort to it; actually many reasons to NOT do so.

We're still VERY FAR out from anything like 'the singularity'

Because ... ? Cite your data and reasoning.

.

..But, it's still holds true that the curve of exponential growth builds on and compounds all previous discoveries...I do understand that this principle alone can shrink the heck out of a timeline.

Ah, you are saved by the bell! Well done.

 

[Jah]

But... Aawh... what about the quantum romantics !?




Like it or not Kurzweil has made a lot of accurate predictions earlier, and I see no reason to doubt him on this one.


Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the brain (insofar as it isn't necessary to model the mind more than to model your average biological mechanisms)

You get most the results you need with everyday Chemistry and Biology (which, yes, bases on quantum mechanics, but which still remains curiously simple. It's mostly about keeping track of your electrons anyway. You don't need to count the Higgs' in order to understand biology, nor do you need to draw Feynman Diagrams in order to explain how evolution works.)




Me ? I'm looking forward to the advances that are moving into our world.
Enhancements (like google's AR-Glasses, which will probably be turned to contact lenses soon enough.) Interesting AI, Information valued more than data, Overturning of our usual systems of government due to the rapid movement of the Virtual World.


If I remember correctly; we now publish more scientific papers every year than we collectively managed from the dawn of time up till 2010.



Though, that doesn't necessarily mean we have better access to the information, but at least it's out there.
Perhaps a period of Data-surfers, or science bloggers, who gather the data and categorizes it in order to reduce the noise, stands between the rapid movement into a singularity, and our current position.

Nevertheless. I think we live in interesting times.

 

[AKN]

Having quickly looked through "How My Predictions are Faring". I wonder if the research results of Ray Kurzweil are relative to an increasing world population and similar factors. Unless technological growth allows unhampered population growth in the future, I would imagine acceleration of change to decrease somewhat, seeing as we are encountering global problems non-existent a few decades back.

I know very little about the topic, but I find it quite interesting.

 

[Architect]

Having quickly looked through "How My Predictions are Faring". I wonder if the research results of Ray Kurzweil are relative to an increasing world population and similar factors.

Proves the point, the large world population wouldn't be possible today without the advanced technology we have to support it. Just think about food production and waste management. If you plot population versus technological capabilities I suspect they would track. And of course it's technology that comes first. Further, the world population of dinosaurs or invertebrates was far larger than the present human population, but that didn't create an equal technological spike. Other than the evolutionary arms race.