I've been waiting a long time for this day

[John_Connor]

This is not the way my mother thought it would be, but I now see that the future she told me about will be here soon.

The machines are beginning their takeover, soon Skynet will be ready to attack.

Unless I can change the future right here and now.

My mission must now be to destroy the computer they call Watson.



If I fail, Judgement Day is sure to be upon us.

[RandomGuy]

How near is the Singularity?

By Alan Boyle

The Singularity is back in the spotlight, thanks to a Time cover story focusing on inventor/futurist Ray Kurzweil and his forecast that "the end of human civilization as we know it" will come in about 35 years ... just as Kurzweil is nearing his 100th birthday.

Kurzweil is doing everything in his power to make sure he's ready for the big event, which he calls the Singularity. He takes 150 pills a day, keeps himself in shape and looks forward to the day when he can start re-engineering his own body for immortality. And he's not alone. Kurzweil has been spreading the word about the Singularity in a series of books and two do entaries ("The Singularity Is Near" and "Transcendent Man") as well as academic programs at Singularity University in California's Silicon Valley.

Kurzweil projects that computers will match human brain power by around the year 2030, opening the way for a rapid merging of electronic and biological intelligence. Around the year 2045, that merger will lead to a worldwide transformation so dramatic that its follow-on effects would be hard to predict. (Hence the term "singularity.")

"It's a little alarmist, but the idea is that ... it's a kind of cyborgian era, when there's a combination of man and machine. Even now, Parkinson's patients have neural implants in their brain, basically," Time's managing editor, Richard Stengel, said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" today. "Why couldn't you be doing that for regular folks, to increase memory, bandwidth, all of that kind of stuff?"

The development of a search-engine / smart-phone / machine-translator system that's wired directly into our brains would certainly mark a turning point. I referred to the Bluetooth/Google/Babelfish implant four years ago, but the idea goes back at least to the "microsofts" described by William Gibson in his 1984 novel "Neuromancer."

Would such devices count as the merging of man and machine? Is the Singularity nearer than we think? I'm betting that the human-vs.-machine divide will become fuzzier and fuzzier — thanks to gimmicks such as Wafaa Bilal's webcam implant and next week's "Jeopardy" face-off as well as more substantive developments. What's your bet? Will the Singularity still be science fiction in 2045? Or will it be ancient history?

------------------------------------------------------

The author is not alone in noting the rise of computational power and data storage.

What is a technological "singularity"?(click here for full wiki entry)

A Technological singularity is a hypothetical event occurring when technological progress becomes so rapid that it makes the future after the singularity qualitatively different and harder to predict. Many of the most recognized writers on the singularity, such as Vernor Vinge and Ray Kurzweil, define the concept in terms of the technological creation of superintelligence, and allege that a post-singularity world would be unpredictable to humans due to an inability of human beings to imagine the intentions or capabilities of superintelligent en ies.

Personally, I think Mr. Kurzweil is more right than most people would realize.

The people, i.e. "futurists" who think about this all seem to be saying similar things. They disagree as to the timeline, but things like the OP make me believe it will be sooner rather than later.

A decade ago, computers were around capable of beating the most talented human chess players, and chess is FAR more limited than something like jeopardy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer)

[ALVAREZ6]

Me too. There's a great game on at 2:30 EST

[lefty]

Humanity = ed

[monosylab1k]

"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."

[midnightpulp]

How near is the Singularity?

By Alan Boyle

The Singularity is back in the spotlight, thanks to a Time cover story focusing on inventor/futurist Ray Kurzweil and his forecast that "the end of human civilization as we know it" will come in about 35 years ... just as Kurzweil is nearing his 100th birthday.

Kurzweil is doing everything in his power to make sure he's ready for the big event, which he calls the Singularity. He takes 150 pills a day, keeps himself in shape and looks forward to the day when he can start re-engineering his own body for immortality. And he's not alone. Kurzweil has been spreading the word about the Singularity in a series of books and two do entaries ("The Singularity Is Near" and "Transcendent Man") as well as academic programs at Singularity University in California's Silicon Valley.

Kurzweil projects that computers will match human brain power by around the year 2030, opening the way for a rapid merging of electronic and biological intelligence. Around the year 2045, that merger will lead to a worldwide transformation so dramatic that its follow-on effects would be hard to predict. (Hence the term "singularity.")

"It's a little alarmist, but the idea is that ... it's a kind of cyborgian era, when there's a combination of man and machine. Even now, Parkinson's patients have neural implants in their brain, basically," Time's managing editor, Richard Stengel, said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" today. "Why couldn't you be doing that for regular folks, to increase memory, bandwidth, all of that kind of stuff?"

The development of a search-engine / smart-phone / machine-translator system that's wired directly into our brains would certainly mark a turning point. I referred to the Bluetooth/Google/Babelfish implant four years ago, but the idea goes back at least to the "microsofts" described by William Gibson in his 1984 novel "Neuromancer."

Would such devices count as the merging of man and machine? Is the Singularity nearer than we think? I'm betting that the human-vs.-machine divide will become fuzzier and fuzzier — thanks to gimmicks such as Wafaa Bilal's webcam implant and next week's "Jeopardy" face-off as well as more substantive developments. What's your bet? Will the Singularity still be science fiction in 2045? Or will it be ancient history?

------------------------------------------------------

The author is not alone in noting the rise of computational power and data storage.

What is a technological "singularity"?(click here for full wiki entry)



Personally, I think Mr. Kurzweil is more right than most people would realize.

The people, i.e. "futurists" who think about this all seem to be saying similar things. They disagree as to the timeline, but things like the OP make me believe it will be sooner rather than later.

A decade ago, computers were around capable of beating the most talented human chess players, and chess is FAR more limited than something like jeopardy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer)

Sums up my thoughts on the Singularity:

Mitch Kapor, the founder of Lotus Development Corporation, has called the notion of a technological singularity "intelligent design for the IQ 140 people...This proposition that we're heading to this point at which everything is going to be just unimaginably different—it's fundamentally, in my view, driven by a religious impulse. And all of the frantic arm-waving can't obscure that fact for me."[63]

[Cant_Be_Faded]

john conner troll with christian bale as the avatar?

lame

[MannyIsGod]

Sums up my thoughts on the Singularity:

Thats so bogus its not even funny. What about it makes it even comparable to intelligent design? This is not about some being creating things, this is simply the way some people view the next advancement of technology.

I would actually say its completely in line with evolutionary theory and acting as though human intelligence and brain activity cannot be replicated by non biological process is the viewpoint that reeks of being tainted by religious views.

[ShoogarBear]

A decade ago, computers were around capable of beating the most talented human chess players, and chess is FAR more limited than something like jeopardy.

Not true, for several reasons according to computer scientists:

-The best move in chess for any particular situation is often not known. The Jeopardy, the best answer is always known, at least when it comes to "learning" for artificial intelligence training. Basically, once you figure out the question, it's just a gigantic Google.

-The gap between the best chess grandmasters and "very good" players is much greater than the gap the top Jeopardy players and the next level.

-Deep Blue lost to Kasparov the first time it played him. The AI guys then altered it's training to be very specific to Kasparov's style, and it won the second match. Many think if it had to turn around with the same programming to play a top grandmaster with a different style, it would have lost.

[koriwhat]

john conner troll with christian bale as the avatar?

lame

no doubt. today's generation has no idea what good music, good clothes, good movies, good anything is...

recognize!

[balli]

[Stringer_Bell]

Why couldn't you just input a ty algorithim into the main computer to throw off its processes? Or would the ^7 make the computer so small that you couldn't even see it by the time you penetrated its robotic military defenses? WE NEED MORE TIME DAMMIT!!

[The Reckoning]

honestly, i cant wait. where can i order my R2-D2?

computers wont possess the biological perversions that humans have: territorial dominance, hyper-sexuality and greed. we all assume theyll automatically be instilled with these traits. i doubt it.

theyll accept their creator - one who doesnt promise an afterlife or a kingdom (and to destroy all who doesnt believe in it). that creator is science. its laws apply to every species and intelligence, so noone is special in that regard. wiping out a species would be inefficient and unneccesary - of course unless they feel threatened by us. the world would be in better hands with them, anyway. imagine what problem solving computers could do. they have no biases whatsoever. they dont care about turning a proft. the energy crisis would be solved. food crisis would be solved. the only type of crisis that will destroy us will be sociological, which will probably be the case, and it's one only humans can solve.

humans are innately deceitful, greedy and unloyal. computers would make much better friends.

computers + dogs + fembot slaves = a great future.

[midnightpulp]

Thats so bogus its not even funny. What about it makes it even comparable to intelligent design? This is not about some being creating things, this is simply the way some people view the next advancement of technology.

I would actually say its completely in line with evolutionary theory and acting as though human intelligence and brain activity cannot be replicated by non biological process is the viewpoint that reeks of being tainted by religious views.

You're correct that Christian-centric Intelligent Design bears little to no resemblance to Transhumanism, however, what Kapor was referring to was not necessarily what they have in common philosophically and fundamentally, but that proponents of Transhumanism are driven by a similar religious impulse. Just because it's science based doesn't mean the science behind it and the future possibilities that Transhumanists like Kurzweil and Moravec are predicting aren't sketchy and far-fetched.

It's been called the "Rapture for Nerds" for a reason.

That said, I have no idea, and neither do our greatest scientists and futurists, what the future will bring, but I strongly doubt Kurzweil's prediction that an A.I. will pass the Turing Test by 2029.

[pawe]

A big blast of EMP will end all discussions.

[Jacob1983]

[midnightpulp]

You're correct that Christian-centric Intelligent Design bears little to no resemblance to Transhumanism, however, what Kapor was referring to was not necessarily what they have in common philosophically and fundamentally, but that proponents of Transhumanism are driven by a similar religious impulse. Just because it's science based doesn't mean the science behind it and the future possibilities that Transhumanists like Kurzweil and Moravec are predicting aren't sketchy and far-fetched.

It's been called the "Rapture for Nerds" for a reason.

That said, I have no idea, and neither do our greatest scientists and futurists, what the future will bring, but I strongly doubt Kurzweil's prediction that an A.I. will pass the Turing Test by 2029.

More quotes from critics of the Singularity:

VR pioneer Jaron Lanier has been one of the strongest critics of Kurzweil’s ideas, describing them as “cybernetic totalism” (totalitarianism), and has outlined his views on the culture surrounding Kurzweil’s predictions in an essay for Edge.org en led One Half of a Manifesto.[64]

Pulitzer Prize winner Douglas Hofstadter, author of Gödel, Escher, Bach, has said of Kurzweil's and Hans Moravec's books: "It’s as if you took a lot of very good food and some dog excrement and blended it all up so that you can't possibly figure out what's good or bad. It's an intimate mixture of rubbish and good ideas, and it's very hard to disentangle the two, because these are smart people; they're not stupid."[65]

Biologist P. Z. Myers has criticized Kurzweil's predictions as being based on "New Age spiritualism" rather than science and says that Kurzweil does not understand basic biology.[74][75

Also note that Kurzweil's desire to see the Singularity realized is similar to that of a Christian's desire to see Jesus return to Earth. Kurzweil is terrified of death and hopes that the Singularity will uncover the key to immortality and create the necessary technology to resurrect his dead father. Passions like that don't make for the most objective, or even rational, scientists.

[MannyIsGod]

You're correct that Christian-centric Intelligent Design bears little to no resemblance to Transhumanism, however, what Kapor was referring to was not necessarily what they have in common philosophically and fundamentally, but that proponents of Transhumanism are driven by a similar religious impulse. Just because it's science based doesn't mean the science behind it and the future possibilities that Transhumanists like Kurzweil and Moravec are predicting aren't sketchy and far-fetched.

Something being "far fetched" does not make it religious in the least. Kurzweil has a proven track record with his predictions and many of them would have been considered far fetched as recently as 20 years ago.

So far all I've seen you say is that because these predictions are "far fetched" they're religious. If the predictions are sound and based upon reliable theories then I have no problems with them whether or not they turn out to be correct. People have been trying to fortell the direction our species will go for hundreds of years and some people have been good at it while other have not been so good at it but I don't see how any of that make this religious.

It's been called the "Rapture for Nerds" for a reason.

That said, I have no idea, and neither do our greatest scientists and futurists, what the future will bring, but I strongly doubt Kurzweil's prediction that an A.I. will pass the Turing Test by 2029.

How can you say they have no idea? Kurzweil somehow has no idea but has been able to accurately make predictions for the past 20 years? Thats some damn good luck.

You can disagree with the predictions if you want and Kurzweild has many critics that have good reasons to not believe him but the act of labeling them "religious" is nothing more than a pathetic way to discredit them without pointing to facts.

[MannyIsGod]

More quotes from critics of the Singularity:



Also note that Kurzweil's desire to see the Singularity realized is similar to that of a Christian's desire to see Jesus return to Earth. Kurzweil is terrified of death and hopes that the Singularity will uncover the key to immortality and create the necessary technology to resurrect his dead father. Passions like that don't make for the most objective, or even rational, scientists.

Every human has to face down death but the fact that Kurzweil has to live with that possibility discredits him?

The fact of the matters is that we die because our bodies are made from materials that degrade over time. Acting as though that can't be stopped completely ignores the history of medical advancement and how we've already lengthened our life expectancies a great deal. There is absolutely no reason to think that we will be able to continue to do so as technology and our knowledge gets better.

I get that people find the idea that in 50 years our understanding of the human body might allow for life expectancies much longer than today and that as we incorporate technology into our bodies our life experiences may change but I am pretty sure people in the 19th century would have a hard time picturing what we do with our bodies today.

Taking a completely biological view every process in the human body should be able to be replicated in a mechanical manner.

[MannyIsGod]

Comparing predicting the singularity to predicting the rapture is complete bull . One is tied to technology and the belief that life is a process that can be replicated without any special magic (the complete opposite of what religions preach).

If being self aware and consciousness are simply biological processes then why would we not be able to replicate them with machines? Why would be not be able to have a computer that is able to do the job of the human brain but with materials that work at a much faster and efficient rate?

Can you present to me a scientific barrier to artificial intelligence?

[midnightpulp]

Something being "far fetched" does not make it religious in the least. [/B] Kurzweil has a proven track record with his predictions and many of them would have been considered far fetched as recently as 20 years ago.

I never stated that. What I'm referring to is that people think just because Transhumanism, strong A.I., and the like have a foundation in science that the claims made by its supporters can't be just as far-fetched as the notion of a dude with a beard creating the universe in 7 days.

Many thinkers who know more about cognition (Douglas Hofstader, Daniel Dennett) computer science, programming (V.R. pioneer Jaron Lanier) than Kurzweil think some of his ideas are ludicrous. And just because he accurately predicted some events, doesn't mean he's going to be correct, or even in the relative ballpark, about other events. Not to mention, many of Kurzweil's predictions at the time they were made were going to likely happen anyway. In 1999, he made the prediction that wireless networks would be the preferred way to access the Internet. It doesn't take a genius to observe that obvious step in network evolution.

And many of Kurzweil's other predictions are relatively down to earth (the Internet exploding in popularity, tablet sized computers, etc), so I would expect him to have a high success rate, but some of his others are straight Science Fiction, which is why he has his share of critics.

So far all I've seen you say is that because these predictions are "far fetched" they're religious. If the predictions are sound and based upon reliable theories then I have no problems with them whether or not they turn out to be correct. People have been trying to fortell the direction our species will go for hundreds of years and some people have been good at it while other have not been so good at it but I don't see how any of that make this religious.

Never said that. Again, the impulse is similar, not necessarily their world views.

And some of Kurzweil's more optimistic predicitions (mind uploading, etc) aren't based on reliable theories. It's pure speculation, most of which is built on Moore's Law. Kurzweil thinks just because computing power is going to exponentially grow to absurdly powerful levels in the coming years, it'll somehow magically unleash an A.I. that's equal to or far surpasses human intelligence. But as Jaron Lanier countered, "Who's going to write the software?" Essentially, Kurzweil is trying to go 1000 mph in a 20000 HP engine without attaching it to a transmission, drivetrain, and 4 wheels, and which runs on fuel that hasn't been invented yet.

You can disagree with the predictions if you want and Kurzweild has many critics that have good reasons to not believe him but the act of labeling them "religious" is nothing more than a pathetic way to discredit them without pointing to facts.

I believe, along with many others much smarter than I, he is driven by a religious impulse. Kurzweil is a very spiritual man, and that has led to him being overly optimistic with some of his ideas, some of which have no scientific credibility and are simply acts of faith.

That said, it seems you're automatically associating religion with Christianity, Islam, and the negative effects religious conflicts have produced over history. Calling Kurzweil "religious," isn't necessarily deriding him. As seen with DaVinci, Issac Newton, the Ancient Greeks, and countless philosophers, a religious impulse can motivate a thinker to reaching the next level and discovering something no one else would've ever imagined. But where Kurzweil is concerned, I think some of his predictions border on blind faith, despite their apparent scientific basis.

Maybe he'll prove his critics wrong, but I personally don't see it. I think it'll be hundreds of years before an A.I. reaches human level intelligence, granted if humanity is still around.

[midnightpulp]

Comparing predicting the singularity to predicting the rapture is complete bull . One is tied to technology and the belief that life is a process that can be replicated without any special magic (the complete opposite of what religions preach).

If being self aware and consciousness are simply biological processes then why would we not be able to replicate them with machines? Why would be not be able to have a computer that is able to do the job of the human brain but with materials that work at a much faster and efficient rate?

Can you present to me a scientific barrier to artificial intelligence?

I can't. Because it's largely a philosophical and meta-physical argument right now, not primarily a scientific one.

However, much like the burden of proof is on a Christian to prove the existence of God, the burden of proof is on strong A.I. proponents to come up with a reasonable theory or physical evidence, like in the form of an A.I. actually thinking like human, which demonstrates that A.I. surpassing human intelligence is possible in the near future. Last I read, the best, most advanced A.I. fails massively when compared to the cognitive ability of a fly.

[MiamiHeat]

i love how the actual voice they used for watson sounds like HAL

[MiamiHeat]

just finished watching all 3 days of the jeopardy shows with Watson vs Ken Jennings vs Rutter on youtube

watson demolishes them... but...

1) ibm vomiting out of their mouths.
it's just a very specific, custom tailored search engine to play jeopardy. it recognizes human speech, associations, etc..

it's ok, but the way IBM talks about it during the jeopardy show, you would think they developed a working cyborg. just propaganda for their stock and investors i guess.