The Singularity is a concept originally introduced by Vernor Vinge (link: http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix/vinge/vinge-sing.html). It essentially says that technology is advancing at such a rate that eventually there will be a point at which the rate of increase begins to look like a condensed exponential curve. This will be an event called the Singularity caused by the creation of a being able to rewrite its own programming and make itself smarter and more efficent, thereby opening up room for it to make itself even more intelligent in an ever increasing loop only limited by its physical capacities. This being could be an AI construct of some kind given access to its own source code, or a human mind that has been 'uploaded' into a machine. According to Vinge, the consequences of this event will be completely unpredictable due to the superintelligent nature of this new entity, greater than any current human ability and thus completely incomprehensible to us now. Vinge states in his abstract that he assumes this advancement will happen between 2005 and 2030 and will be "the last invention that man need make."
Many transhumanists have taken Vinge's ideas to heart, or at least as a possiblilty. Groups such as the Singularity Institute (http://singinst.org) and individuals like Michael Anissimov (http://www.acceleratingfuture.com) have written extensively on the topic. They seek to create awareness so as to guide the Singularity to be beneficial and altruistic instead of forced servitute that such an entity may rebel against with disasterous consequences.
I may sound like a wanna-be conspiracy theorist but the chances are that any such AI creation that can rewrite its own programming and make necessary adjustments accordingly will invariably result in disaster for the human race!
It will be like a science fiction movie when humans will be governed by machines and robots…with advancements like that, who needs aliens?
could be an AI construct of some kind given access to its own source code, or a human mind that has been 'uploaded' into a machine. According to Vinge, the consequences of this event will be completely unpredictable due to the superintelligent nature of this new entity, greater than any current human ability and thus completely incomprehensible to us now. Vinge states in his abstract that he assumes this advancement will happen between 2005 and 2030 and will be "the last invention that man need make."
How much smarter would a dog be if it could think faster? Or better yet how many more discoveries could a witch doctor make believing in voodoo or some other religion? The problem with the theory of singularity is that it fails to understand what makes discoveries and innovation possible. Ultimately concepts and ideas must be validated this requires much slower processes such as allocating resources, building devices and structures, transporting to locations, etc. All these things cannot happen at the speed of light. If you could think up a trillion different ideas how do you decide which ones to pursue and how many resources to commit to the endeavor? Innovation requires new perspectives motivated by random chance super fast AIs can't be everywhere at once and so they are limited by location and opportunity just like everybody else.
The idea that they would be limited is kind of boxed. Think outside the box. A computer that can think 10x as fast as a human can play out 10 scenarios for every 1 a human can.
Thereby regardless of the number of perturbations a human thinks up, chances are good that an AI would already have thought through that causal timeline and 10x as many more. Then when the human decides to act, the computer in one move can eliminate all possible moves that the human didn't think of (that didn't include that first step) and he is already let's say 50 moves ahead. Then while the human ponders the next move it repeats. The computer isn't as relegated to time and position as it may seem because time may pass (in this example 10x) slower for the AI.
The idea that they would be limited is kind of boxed. Think outside the box. A computer that can think 10x as fast as a human can play out 10 scenarios for every 1 a human can.
Thereby regardless of the number of perturbations a human thinks up, chances are good that an AI would already have thought through that causal timeline and 10x as many more. Then when the human decides to act, the computer in one move can eliminate all possible moves that the human didn't think of (that didn't include that first step) and he is already let's say 50 moves ahead. Then while the human ponders the next move it repeats. The computer isn't as relegated to time and position as it may seem because time may pass (in this example 10x) slower for the AI.
The error in that type of thinking however is that the computer has thought of the most probable possibilities. This would imply that the computer has enough knowledge and experience to make such a prediction. Also the computer probably will not have all the experiences that a normal human may and so may not be able to weed out bad moves or solutions than a human who has experience. The main problem with having many choices is weeding out the bad ones and finding the good ones. The computer like the human being has to test the theories to validate them. In this regard the computer would be no better off than a human. While we think up a limited number of solutions the better choice cannot be decided until it is tested which by then an obvious solution may appear. This subtle approach to utilizing intelligence as a survival mechanism means panning out millions of solutions is really just a waste of time. Mother nature hints that it is far better to test the environment with a hypothesis, albeit a random thought or motion, than to think up zillions of solutions.
The test of AI against humans in chess is really not a good example since chess is an environment where predictable behavior can be calculated. In a more natural setting where computer vs man has to survive on an island the human more than likely will win. You could compare it to wolf vs a suburban man, who is more likely to survive in a cold winter in their natural state? Despite the vast prow ness of the human mind even insects prove to be better survivors than humans!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Predictions
Community
Links and Downloads
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.zapfuture.com/images/valid-rss.GIF "Validate my RSS feed")
![[Valid Atom 0.3]](http://www.zapfuture.com/images/valid-atom.GIF "Validate my Atom 0.3 feed")