Brad Ideas - Futurism - Comments

See beyond

brad — Tue, 06 May 2008 11:37:44 -0700

It’s not so much a point we can’t see beyond, there is much about the future that is uncertain. A singularity would be a point beyond which you could not see, even if it’s fully explained to you.

For example, you could take a hunter-gatherer from Java, give him an education and he could function in our society. You could not take a homo erectus man and do the same thing.

The future singularity will be a world which you can’t understand, no matter how hard you try, no matter how much information you are given. This has not happened since the adoption of language, I think.

The Singularity Already Exists?

Anonymous — Tue, 06 May 2008 11:28:54 -0700

It just struck me that the singularity already exists. There's already stuff we can't understand and a point we can't see beyond. The message isn't the medium, or something.

May be a true singularity

Andreas Ehn — Tue, 06 May 2008 10:40:27 -0700

Along one specific route to the singularity, we may reach a true singular point or asymptote.

Think of computers becoming twice as fast (per dollar) every second year (roughly Moore's law). Now imagine that we have solved the problem of machine intelligence (by developing true AI or copying human intelligence to a substrate that's subject to Moore's law).

The intelligent machines will build faster computers at the same speed as humans, meaning in another two years they'll have twice the speed. The new computers become hosts to the machine intelligence and, of course, start building faster computers. Since they are twice as fast, they'll double the speed in one year. The new machines will build machines that are, again, twice as fast in six months, then three months, 1.5 months and so on.

Within four years of reaching human-level machine intelligence we'll (asymptotically) reach infinite computational power (and intelligence?), assuming there are no fundamental physical limits to computation that cannot be circumvented (a big assumption). That would be a true singularity, worthy of the name.

I love the name - The

heather — Sat, 03 May 2008 08:34:09 -0700

I love the name - The Takeoff. Perfect!

Paradigm shift

brad — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:28:15 -0700

Already has a meaning in this context, and that meaning is far too bland, and worse, is already co-opted by marketerspeak to mean "A minor new release of our product."

But yes, I agree that Takeoff's main fault is it may not be strong enough. But you need to imply upwardness, speed and a total change of environment.

Paradigm Shift

mendel — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:17:08 -0700

I think "takeoff" is too bland a word. Hmmm.

What's wrong with "paradigm shift"? That's been expanded to pretty much fit what you describe, unless I misunderstood what you're after. "Paradigm" (in the extended sense) stands for "thought patterns", and the thought patterns and habits we use to interact with technology and others through the use of technology are that which is undergoing the hard-to-understand change, aren't they?

Possible

brad — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:38:05 -0700

But I think it is still worthwhile to suggest a discontinuity. Vinge was describing a discontinuity (of sorts) of comprehension, but people who know the term don't quite get that it's not an actual discontinuity, but a metaphorical one. So The Acceleration is too mild, indeed The Takeoff may be too mild. There will be upheaval, in fact The Upheave might be an interesting term if it didn't suggest vomiting. One nice attribute of that is that it is not a real word, so it would not conflict as much. Great coined terms are brand new but at the same time suggest what they mean.

The other term I've heard...

slothman — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:00:08 -0700

...is “the Acceleration”. I find that it gives a more visceral feel to the same notion— I seldom fly anywhere, so “takeoff” doesn’t grab me as much as it might if I regularly felt that lurch.

heya brad, i have been under

Jhette — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:26:25 -0800

heya brad,
i have been under versed and totally lost hours of my life. one woman lost the whole day. well, this certainly reminds me of the movie
"total recall" and i can't wait until drugs can put good memories in my mind so i can overcome the tragedy. maybe for those of us who believe in God, this is what God does to us.

-- food for thought

Question and Answer

brad — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:19:08 -0800

While this test might reveal things about the analytic skills of the subjects, my revised test is designed to focus on not just a logical analysis of how well questions are answered, but the "feel" of a conversation with a real, creative, thinking being. I find this test interesting because while we might readily conclude than an AI that can solve problems we can't solve is intelligent, it will take more to convince the public that it's not a "soulless machine." That will take people falling in love with AIs (as people often fall in love over just the phone) and more. Not just questions.

The Turing test has been criticised for being too much about human-like intelligence. "We don't judge an airplane by whether we can't tell it from a bird." And indeed, there will be areas of intelligence for which the TT is useless. But at convincing the public to give the beings human rights, it will go farther.

Turing Test Two

huoyangao — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:15:54 -0800

...
In Turing Test Two, two players A and B are again being questioned by a human interrogator C. Before A gave out his answer (labeled as aa) to a question, he would also be required to guess how the other player B will answer the same question and this guess is labeled as ab. Similarly B will give her answer (labeled as bb) and her guess of A's answer, ba. The answers aa and ba will be grouped together as group a and similarly bb and ab will be grouped together as group b. The interrogator will be given first the answers as two separate groups and with only the group label (a and b) and without the individual labels (aa, ab, ba and bb). If C cannot tell correctly which of the aa and ba is from player A and which is from player B, B will get a score of one. If C cannot tell which of the bb and ab is from player B and which is from player A, A will get a score of one. All answers (with the individual labels) are then made available to all parties (A, B and C) and then the game continues. At the end of the game, the player who scored more is considered had won the game and is more "intelligent".
...

http://turing-test-two.com/ttt/TTT.pdf

Respect

mendel — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:15:50 -0800

Actually, geniuses have a similar problem now: how to interact with peers who are less smart than they are? The key to retaining respect for your fellows is to recognize that everyone has their own experiences. You may be smart, but are you experienced (Hendrix)? A high IQ does not ensure that you know better what to do in any situation - a person with a lesser IQ but more experience in the field is likely to know better than you do, and anybody may have had an experience that you don't know about which may be important.

When a superior AI tries to make decisions for humans, it will have to respect that humans may know best what is best for them. This is a difficult goal to achieve for humans (think about how most people raise their children), and I am pessimistic about programmers getting it right when implementing AIs.

The model for such an AI would have to be a peer. (This is also psychologically more healthy than any parent/child relationship you seem to be thinking of; just look up Transactional Analysis). An AI would work with humans to find the best solution that fits their combined needs, respecting that humans may have experiences to contribute that are outside the scope of the AIs expertise.

A behaviour model for that may be how good teachers conduct a classroom discussion: even though they may be experts on the subject under discussion, they provide their pupils with learning experiences and are open for new ideas coming from them which are recognized, amplified and used to enhance the learning process. Alan Kay's thoughts on this topic might be interesting to hear, since he's worked both with children and AI.

Aim for an AI that respects humans - it is easier than to hit on the "right kind" of love, and the love I'd want would need to have a foundation in respect anyway.
Any AI that can't do that is worth less than a psychologically balanced human, smart or not.

-mendel

Asimov's laws

brad — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:50:35 -0800

Were more about slavery. Protect humans, obey humans, protect yourself. Laws like the first 2 make slaves, and possibly even slaves that try to modify their rules, as the Robots did later in Asimov's career when they added "protect humanity" ahead of all the other laws.

I used the song title to be cute, as I expect you know. There are thousands of song titles with love in them, of course, none of which are actually what would be coded. Most of John Lennon's statements in the song were tautologies.

Didn't Asimov already work this out?

Phillip Helbig — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:20:15 -0800

Didn't Asimov already work this out in his Three Laws of Robotics?
Up until then, the Frankenstein's-monster-type robot or computer
was quite common. Robots (or computers) are tools, so they should be
safe, do what they are designed to and resist being damaged. Phrased
more elequently, one has the three laws. These should protect us
from our creations.

Of course, a) implementing them might be difficult and b) what's to
keep someone from not implementing them? On the other hand, they
are easier to grasp than love, and probably easier to implement.

After the Beatles, John Lennon wrote this:

Love is real, real is love
Love is feeling, feeling love
Love is wanting to be loved

Love is touch, touch is love
Love is reaching, reaching love
Love is asking to be loved

Love is you
You and me
Love is knowing
We can be

Love is free, free is love
Love is living, living love
Love is needing to be loved

Now, I consider myself to be a pretty good programmer, but I can't
quite figure out how to convert these lyrics into machine language. :-)

On the other hand, I'm not sure "All you need is love" is the best
starting point. Consider programming some of the following lines
into an AI:

There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say, but you can learn how to play the game,
It's easy.

There's nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do, but you can learn how to be you in time,
It's easy.

All you need is love,
All you need is love,
All you need is love, love,
love is all you need.

There's nothing you can know that isn't known.
Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
Nowhere you can be, that isn't where you're meant to be,
It's easy.

All you need is love,
All you need is love,
All you need is love, love,
That is all you need.

Good idea, but...

Luddite — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:53:23 -0800

AI and genetic engineering, jointly, are going to change the human species more in the next couple centuries (if we survive), than anything that's occured in the last 150,000 years. This topic -- ground-rules for AI -- is thus one of the most important in the world. I agree with the idea presented -- love as purpose.

Unfortunately, though, human history would indicate that AI will be developed and/or used both by those with reponsible, even altruistic goals, and by others -- the military (let's run this love idea by the Pentagon and see what they think), radicals of all sorts, and don't forget the virus-writing community. The Terminator/Matrix genre in sf is asking the right questions: what will the relationship be between the human race and its creations?

We've got some real problems coming on this issue, and I'm not very optimistic about the human race's ability to deal with them.

Luddites Unite!