Singularity - Yay Or Nay

[Siim Land]

What are your opinions on the Singularity theory?

In a nutshell, Ray Kurzweil hypothesis that by 2035 man will merge together with its own created technology and create this symbiotic union between the organic and artificial.

Do you think this is going to happen? We're already starting to use more and more bionic prosthetics and other gadgets, such as Google glass etc.

Secondly, are you pro or against this kind of transhumanism?

Me personally, I think its inevitable. We probably won't be able to upload our consciousness into a micro chip and sent it across space in a gamma ray by that time, but I think that self-aware AI will become a part of our lives nonetheless.

At what point do you think this shift will occur? At what point can we say that we're no longer Homo Sapiens Sapiens but Post-Human instead? I think we're living at a fascinating time, as we're literally at a transitory point of our own evolution and can deliberately direct it according to our own liking.

Let me know what you think.

 

[ChimpBrain]

I also think it's inevitable. And I think it's awesome. 

 

What I find even more fascinating is simulation theory. 

[renegade_bee]

I would love this to be true. I really do. But sadly I think it is just a human bias we have. There's a good chance we're overly optimistic by saying this will happen in 2035, just so we can kid ourselves into believing we'll live forever. Ray Kurzweil strikes me as someone who is terrified of death and can't seem to accept it, so he makes these impossible estimates. He's also not very well respected by his colleges. Nevertheless, there are some very smart people and intellectuals that appear to buy into this theory (Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking come to mind). Also Sam harris talks about this here:

 

A lot of smart people also seem to dismiss it (Chomsky etc,...) I've also heard from people with master in AI that it might never happen, and certainly not anytime soon.  Here's a set of counterarguments that it will happen so soon (or ever):

I wish this was true as much as the next person, but it appears to be untrue.

Edited August 1, 2016 by DrMatthewsausage

[Leo Gura]

In 2035, we'll be lucky if the apps we install on our smartphones are all patched up and not-buggy.

A technological singularity won't happen for hundreds of years.

Science doesn't have a clue how consciousness works. Like zero. It's quite sad. Their paradigms aren't even right yet.

Kurzweil is talking nonsense.

[renegade_bee]

@Leo Gura Could you share some of your sources? I'm fascinated about this and agree with you, but I'd like to read some more about it

Edited August 2, 2016 by DrMatthewsausage

[Extreme Z7]

@DrMatthewsausage Discover your true self first. And then ask that same question again.

[David1]

@Leo Gura Science doesn't give a shit about how consciousness works. They only look at how the brain works. And they're making rapid progress on that. Personally i think the singularity is a spiritual concept, because what it really means is that we will literally all be one. İ remember Kurzweil describing it as 'it will be the universe waking up'. Whether it happens in our lifetime or not, doesn't really matter. What matters is, can we reach this point, or will we do ourselves in before?

[Siim Land]

@David1 I think of singularity as a spiritual concept as well. It just resembles so much some sort of a mythical "coming of the Messiah". Of course, uploading our consciousness to the Internet is also quite yoke-ing and uniting humanity. Luckily, there are some scientists who are trying to incorporate better scientific understanding of consciousness without butchering it. John Hagelin (quantum physicist), David Hawkins and Bruce Lipton come first to mind. We need more of such figures, though.

[Leo Gura]

@David1 The whole idea is moot. There is no universe. Reality is nothing at all, and it's already a perfect unity. It always has been and it always will be. You don't need a technological revolution for that to happen. It's already the case. You just need to wake up from the dream you call life.

Kurzweil is speaking about consciousness but he has no idea at all how consciousness really works. It doesn't work at all the way he assumes.

The funny thing is, if Kurzweil just dropped all the singularity talk and just sat down and became enlightened, he would achieve the very thing he is seeking, minus the silly sci-fi technology. But then of course he would have to write a massive "sorry" letter to all his readers, apologizing for the nonsense he's been telling them for decades. Still, it would be worth it for him, given how keen he is on immortality.

[David1]

@Leo Gura

 "The whole idea is moot. There is no universe. Reality is nothing at all, and it's already a perfect unity. It always has been and it always will be. You don't need a technological revolution for that to happen. It's already the case. You just need to wake up from the dream you call life."

 

Sorry, for some reason i can't use quotes on my mobile device.

This is very true...we already are one, but it will take a technological singularity to wake all of humanity up from this dream. The singularity will be a massive enlightenment event.  Hence the quote 'it will be the universe waking up' 

İts undeniable that novelty seems to be the driving force in the universe. Since the universe began to cool down, complexity increases at an ever greater speed, with the human organism (as far as we know) as the most complex, 'thing' currently in existence. And imo it won't take long (or maybe we already have with the internet) before we will bring forth even more complex things.  

 

[Philip]

@Leo Gura

On 8/2/2016 at 2:34 AM, Leo Gura said:

A technological singularity won't happen for hundreds of years.

Science doesn't have a clue how consciousness works.

That's not a relevant argument. We don't have to figure out how consciousness works in order to build human level AI. It just has to simulate human behavior and human cognition. And we're getting there frighteningly fast. Once we do get there, we're basically left with two possibilities: World War III or Singularitarian Utopia.

And where do you take that number? Hundreds of years? Your estimation is laughable to anyone who works at the cutting edge of machine learning. People who kind of know what they're talking about (unlike you and I) estimate maybe 10 to 50 years.

Now you have eyeballs directed towards your channel, Leo. Do the responsible thing for humanity:

• Admit that it's by far the #1 issue for humanity right now.
• Help raising awareness about that issue.
• Use your wisdom to think about solutions.
• Contribute to those solutions in any way you can.

Or convince me that I'm wrong. And use real arguments this time, please.

[electroBeam]

@Siim Land I work in Artificial Intelligence, my goal is to make the singularity occur in 2030. I sleep 6 hours a night to do it

[Extreme Z7]

3 hours ago, Philip said:

@Leo Gura

That's not a relevant argument. We don't have to figure out how consciousness works in order to build human level AI. It just has to simulate human behavior and human cognition. And we're getting there frighteningly fast. Once we do get there, we're basically left with two possibilities: World War III or Singularitarian Utopia.

And where do you take that number? Hundreds of years? Your estimation is laughable to anyone who works at the cutting edge of machine learning. People who kind of know what they're talking about (unlike you and I) estimate maybe 10 to 50 years.

Now you have eyeballs directed towards your channel, Leo. Do the responsible thing for humanity:

• Admit that it's by far the #1 issue for humanity right now.
• Help raising awareness about that issue.
• Use your wisdom to think about solutions.
• Contribute to those solutions in any way you can.

Or convince me that I'm wrong. And use real arguments this time, please.

Arguments don't mean anything at all when it comes to understanding consciousness. Really take consciousness work very seriously and do that for several months and you really understand just how meaningless it is to try to explain something as deep as consciousness and existence with words/models. What you really need is deep understanding. And you can't have deep understanding of truth without doing the raw practical work required.

Even an enlightenment newbie will know that one.

Uploading our consciousness into a system that would make us immortal is a complete joke! Complete delusion. It only takes a few months of exploring your own consciousness to know that it's complete bunk. As if consciousness is an actual physical phenomenon that is present in some sort of physical material world. As if consciousness is somehow located inside the skull of a human being that can be transferred into a different vessel. That's not the case at all.

The only real problem here is that we're living in an age where the majority does not understand existence, consciousness, nothingness, truth etc. If you think that this A.I. utopia crap actually matters, you're way off.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Extreme Z7

[Philip]

@Extreme Z7

2 hours ago, Extreme Z7 said:

Arguments don't mean anything at all when it comes to understanding consciousness.

True.

2 hours ago, Extreme Z7 said:

Uploading our consciousness into a system that would make us immortal is a complete joke!

I agree.

Consciousness has nothing to do in this conversation. I don't even know why @Leo Gura brought it here. He just switched debate.

I repeat: It is a matter of probable human extinction. Life or death. I like consciousness and enlightenment and all, but now I'm talking practical pragmatic strategy. I'd really like for people to think about solutions so we don't get wiped out of earth during the 21st century.

And just avoiding the debate by coming up with a random estimation of "It won't happen before hundreds of years" is at best, being uninformed and at worst, being a threat to mankind.

Please people, do your research. I know the debates I'm throwing here haven't reached mainstream media yet, which is why I may sound like a crazy alarmist. But the people who actually know a lot about General Artificial Intelligence, they also know how much of a real issue this is. We have to build this responsibly or else you can probably say goodbye to most of what you care about.

[Siim Land]

Singularity is probably the only, or at least most efficient way we currently can think of, to reach higher levels of consciousness as a species. Compared to our mental powers, our physical bodies have too many shortcomings. If we can overcome that, human consciousness will be able to expand itself and build upon our development. Transhumanism shouldn't be feared. It might seem scary, but it can, as Nick Bostrom put it: "open up new avenues of our mode of being currently incomprehensible to us." It's true that it can also turn into a dangerous weapon that could wipe out all of the beauty in it. That's why we have to take this with as much caution as possible.

[ChimpBrain]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

 

I repeat: It is a matter of probable human extinction. Life or death. I like consciousness and enlightenment and all, but now I'm talking practical pragmatic strategy. I'd really like for people to think about solutions so we don't get wiped out of earth during the 21st century.

And just avoiding the debate by coming up with a random estimation of "It won't happen before hundreds of years" is at best, being uninformed and at worst, being a threat to mankind.

Please people, do your research. I know the debates I'm throwing here haven't reached mainstream media yet, which is why I may sound like a crazy alarmist. But the people who actually know a lot about General Artificial Intelligence, they also know how much of a real issue this is. We have to build this responsibly or else you can probably say goodbye to most of what you care about.

I just listened to Sam Harris' latest podcast yesterday with Eric Weinstein (mathematacian/physicist) where they agreed that superhuman AI is really the only problem worth worrying about right now and all of our greatest minds should be working on it. Sam just did a TED talk on AI but I don't think it's out yet. While I don't agree that it's the only problem worth worrying about (likely hyperbole on their part) I do think it's something that will be a very real issue within my lifetime.

[renegade_bee]

3 hours ago, Philip said:

Please people, do your research.

So far I've heard very conflicting opinions about this.

Any books or people that you recommend I look into?

[ChimpBrain]

45 minutes ago, DrMatthewsausage said:

So far I've heard very conflicting opinions about this.

Any books or people that you recommend I look into?

 

Super intelligence by Nick bostrom would be a good starting point. It's a little dense at times but I think it's hard to avoid that given the topic.  

[ChimpBrain]

5 hours ago, Philip said:

@Extreme Z7

True.

I agree.

Consciousness has nothing to do in this conversation. I don't even know why @Leo Gura brought it here. He just switched debate.

I repeat: It is a matter of probable human extinction. Life or death. I like consciousness and enlightenment and all, but now I'm talking practical pragmatic strategy. I'd really like for people to think about solutions so we don't get wiped out of earth during the 21st century.

And just avoiding the debate by coming up with a random estimation of "It won't happen before hundreds of years" is at best, being uninformed and at worst, being a threat to mankind.

Please people, do your research. I know the debates I'm throwing here haven't reached mainstream media yet, which is why I may sound like a crazy alarmist. But the people who actually know a lot about General Artificial Intelligence, they also know how much of a real issue this is. We have to build this responsibly or else you can probably say goodbye to most of what you care about.

I think Leo is unintentionally straw-manning because he's not that familiar with the topic and the arguments surrounding it (I don't claim to be either FWIW). Nowhere in the argument for a technological singularity is consciousness even mentioned. AI having a consciousness is not presupposed for them to possess superhuman intelligence, as I know you're already well aware. It's all about runaway technology. 

 

I personally see no problem with AI developing consciousness though. If it can inhabit us, millions of forms of animals and insects, now they think possibly even plants, why couldn't it inhabit some superhuman form of intelligence? It's just one more type of eyes for the universe to observe itself through. I actually think it's likely they could develop a consciousness far more complex than our own. Why not? Ours is more complex than anything else we're aware of, but to think that our consciousness is the most complex possible is foolish.

[Extreme Z7]

8 hours ago, Philip said:

I repeat: It is a matter of probable human extinction. Life or death. I like consciousness and enlightenment and all, but now I'm talking practical pragmatic strategy. I'd really like for people to think about solutions so we don't get wiped out of earth during the 21st century.

And just avoiding the debate by coming up with a random estimation of "It won't happen before hundreds of years" is at best, being uninformed and at worst, being a threat to mankind.

Please people, do your research. I know the debates I'm throwing here haven't reached mainstream media yet, which is why I may sound like a crazy alarmist. But the people who actually know a lot about General Artificial Intelligence, they also know how much of a real issue this is. We have to build this responsibly or else you can probably say goodbye to most of what you care about.

The universe does not exist and neither does death, you are not even a human being. If you can really grasp these things then human extinction will become a complete non-issue.