The Singularity is Near

[mike777]

Comments encouraged!

 

Ray Kurzweil is a leading futurist.

His main thesis is that the sum of human knowledge doubles every 3-4 years. Out of this exponential growth he weaves numerous predictions.

 

Perhaps one of the more outlandish predictions is that mankind transcends our biological limitations. Nanotechnology that will make it possible to create virtually any physical product using inexpensive information processes. He expects many of these changes in less than 45 years.

 

His latest book is The Singularity is Near.

 

 

http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=1

[hrothgar]

The expression "The Singularity" is one that I normally associate with Vernor Vinge.

 

Unfortunately, I think that Vinge and Kurweil miss a critical point: The same dynamics that drive the technological changes that underlie the Vinge's singularity also make it much cheaper/easier to kill things. Personally, I fear that our ability to destroy is rapidly outstripping our social maturity.

 

I know that this depressing, but I fully expect that we're going to destroy ourselves in advance of any singularity evolving. To me, the funamental question is whether its going to be some religious extremeist that kills us all or "just" some teenager who couldn't handle getting dumped.

[mike777]

"If a little knowledge is dangerous, where is a person who has so much as to be out of danger?"-Thomas Henry

 

In his books and articles he does have some suggested programs for containing the risks.

 

 

 

Yes Vinge, a mathematician and computer scientist at San Diego State Univ wrote about a rapidly approaching "technological singularity" in an article in Omni magazine in 1983 and a science fiction novel Marooned in Realtime in 1986. John von Neumann may have been the first to reference a Singularity as an event capable of rupturing the fabric of human history. Both are cited often in Ray's books.

[csdenmark]

Comments encouraged!

 

Ray Kurzweil is a leading futurist.

His main thesis is that the sum of human knowledge doubles every 3-4 years. Out of this exponential growth he weaves numerous predictions.

 

Perhaps one of the more outlandish predictions is that mankind transcends our biological limitations. Nanotechnology that will make it possible to create virtually any physical product using inexpensive information processes. He expects many of these changes in less than 45 years.

 

His latest book is The Singularity is Near.

 

 

http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=1

inexpensive information processes

Sounds very attractive. Plus-words in our economic world.

 

In fact it is pure rubbish. Balance is the word you need. Balance regarding resources of all kind. Unbalances are heading for shortage somewhere in the process.

 

Please remember, the wage-quote is the decisive factor. The wage quote not only informs of balance between costs of materials and costs of manpower. It is also informing you whether consumers have the ability to buy. Without such development will very soon become unattractive.

 

What is going to happen in 45 years nobody has any chance to predict anything about. Who pays his present salary?

[mike777]

Which predictions are you saying are rubbish?

Ray's predictions are less than 45 years in the future.

Are you saying all predictions for any length of time in the future have no value or only some of them? Are you saying his predictions from ten and twenty years ago are rubbish?

 

He is an inventor and believes "timing" is the most important issue for a successful invention. So he got into the predicting business. Of course many disagree with him. :).

[Sigi_BC84]

Charles Stross is writing novels that deal with the technology singularity phenomenon. Very high-paced, hard science-fiction, some really mind-boggling ideas. In the foreword of one of his books he says that it has already become close to impossible for a science fiction author to make any credible projections that stretch into the future for more than a few years for the reason that the singularity might be quite close and even with todays rate of technological improvement most sci-fi predictions are rendered invalid within a really short time.

 

Wikipedia entry for Charles Stross

 

--Sigi

[csdenmark]

Which predictions are you saying are rubbish?

Ray's predictions are less than 45 years in the future.

Are you saying all predictions for any length of time in the future have no value or only some of them? Are you saying his predictions from ten and twenty years ago are rubbish?

 

He is an inventor and believes "timing" is the most important issue for a successful invention. So he got into the predicting business. Of course many disagree with him. :).

You remember 'The Rome Club'?

 

You remember Huxley?

 

Even top-economist don't know the rate for interests by the end of this year.

 

I would very much like to know who is backing this guy.

[mike777]

OK here is just a sample of his predictions that may affect those of us on BBO :).

 

Comments welcomed.

 

 

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?....html?m=1%23643

 

"By 2015, computers will be largely invisible, and will be very small. We will be dealing with a mesh of computing and communications that will be embedded in the environment and in our clothing. People in 2005 face a dilemma because, on the one hand, they want large, high-resolution displays. They can obtain these displays by buying expensive 72” flat-panel plasma monitors. But they also want portable devices, which have limited display capabilities. By 2015, we will have images input directly onto our retinas. This allows for a very high-resolution display that encompasses the entire visual field of view yet is physically tiny. These devices exist in 2005, and are used in high-performance applications, such as putting a soldier or a surgeon into a virtual reality environment. So in 2015, if we want a large, high-resolution computer image, it will just appear virtually in the air. We will have augmented reality, including pop-up displays explaining what is happening in the real world. We will be able to go into full-immersion, visual auditory virtual reality environments.

 

We will have useable language technologies. These are beginning to emerge, and by 2015 they will be quite effective. In this visual field of view, we will have virtual personalities with which you can interact. Computers will have virtual assistants with sufficient command of speech recognition that you can discuss subjects with them. Search engines won’t wait to be asked—they will track your conversation and attempt to anticipate your needs and help you with routine transactions. These virtual assistants won’t be at the human level, that won’t happen until we have strong AI. But they will be useful, and many transactions will be mediated by these assistants. Computing will be very powerful, and it will be a mesh of computing. Individuals who need the power of a million computers for 25 milliseconds will be able to obtain that as needed.

 

By 2015, we will have real traction with nanotechnology. I believe that we will be well on the way to overcoming major diseases, such as cancer, heart disease, and diabetes through the biotechnology revolution that we talked above. We will also make progress in learning how to stop and even reverse the aging process.

 

This interview was conducted by Sander Olson. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of CRN. Reprinted with permission.

Join the discussion about this article on Mind·X!"

[Sigi_BC84]

Ray Kurzweil is a leading futurist.

His main thesis is that the sum of human knowledge doubles every 3-4 years. Out of this exponential growth he weaves numerous predictions.

What I find really compelling is an example Charles Stross gives in one of his books: Assuming that AI (artificial intelligence) is possible at all (this being an open question), you will have a god-like AI in no time, for the AI could use the exponential growth in computing power to improve itself, which will in turn add to the potential growth (the "base" of the exponential function). Actually in his stories, such AIs already exist, providing some really hilarious settings :-).

 

I love the AI gedanken experiment because it makes it so clear what exponential technological growth really means.

 

--Sigi

[csdenmark]

OK here is just a sample of his predictions that may affect those of us on BBO :).

 

Comments welcomed.

 

 

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?....html?m=1%23643

 

"By 2015, computers will be largely invisible, and will be very small. We will be dealing with a mesh of computing and communications that will be embedded in the environment and in our clothing. People in 2005 face a dilemma because, on the one hand, they want large, high-resolution displays. They can obtain these displays by buying expensive 72” flat-panel plasma monitors. But they also want portable devices, which have limited display capabilities.  By 2015, we will have images input directly onto our retinas. This allows for a very high-resolution display that encompasses the entire visual field of view yet is physically tiny. These devices exist in 2005, and are used in high-performance applications, such as putting a soldier or a surgeon into a virtual reality environment. So in 2015, if we want a large, high-resolution computer image, it will just appear virtually in the air. We will have augmented reality, including pop-up displays explaining what is happening in the real world. We will be able to go into full-immersion, visual auditory virtual reality environments.

 

We will have useable language technologies. These are beginning to emerge, and by 2015 they will be quite effective. In this visual field of view, we will have virtual personalities with which you can interact. Computers will have virtual assistants with sufficient command of speech recognition that you can discuss subjects with them. Search engines won’t wait to be asked—they will track your conversation and attempt to anticipate your needs and help you with routine transactions. These virtual assistants won’t be at the human level, that won’t happen until we have strong AI. But they will be useful, and many transactions will be mediated by these assistants. Computing will be very powerful, and it will be a mesh of computing. Individuals who need the power of a million computers for 25 milliseconds will be able to obtain that as needed.

 

By 2015, we will have real traction with nanotechnology. I believe that we will be well on the way to overcoming major diseases, such as cancer, heart disease, and diabetes through the biotechnology revolution that we talked above. We will also make progress in learning how to stop and even reverse the aging process.

 

This interview was conducted by Sander Olson. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of CRN. Reprinted with permission.

  Join the discussion about this article on Mind·X!"

This was 10 years and not 45 years.

 

Most of your examples are already there in basic. So in 10 years I think right to say we will be able to finetune.

 

Regarding cancer and aging - these are depending of identifying the gen - nobody knows when the breakthrough will come. When it comes then it won't be that difficult to predict when it will be able be used in full scale. As far as I know the chances are good they will be able to find it.

 

How about Meteors? How about the Golf-stream? How about energy?

 

My initial argument was that inexpensive have 2 sides. One side is the consumer side. The other side is income to be able to purchase. The balance between those 2 decides what is going to be possible to happen.

 

I think you know that we in Europe are very suspicious of who is backing what in United States. We simply don't trust the american way of financing.

 

Therefore please tell me - who are backing this guy?

[joshs]

The expression "The Singularity" is one that I normally associate with Vernor Vinge.

 

Unfortunately, I think that Vinge and Kurweil miss a critical point: The same dynamics that drive the technological changes that underlie the Vinge's singularity also make it much cheaper/easier to kill things. Personally, I fear that our ability to destroy is rapidly outstripping our social maturity.

 

I know that this depressing, but I fully expect that we're going to destroy ourselves in advance of any singularity evolving. To me, the funamental question is whether its going to be some religious extremeist that kills us all or "just" some teenager who couldn't handle getting dumped.

"The power to create is the power to distroy." -Justice Marshall from McCulloch vs Maryland.

[mike777]

With all the talk of steriods and drugs in sports, can enhanced humans with chips for memory, etc be far behind.

 

In a limited form and with a huge cost we have artificial limbs, organs, joints, hearts, skin and blood. The deaf can hear with chip implants now.

 

Can a true 6$million dollar man be far behind? Genetic manipulation in the womb for life threatening illness first and then what?

Speaking of wombs, I am surprised to read almost nothing on the subject of artificial wombs. There must be a huge demand for that.

 

My guess is alot of these enhanced human issues are closer in time than most of us think. We stick our heads in the sand and hope someone else can deal with the moral and social choas they will create.

 

Ray argues it will make us rethink what it means to be human.

[csdenmark]

With all the talk of steriods and drugs in sports, can enhanced humans with chips for memory, etc be far behind.

 

In a limited form and with a huge cost we have artificial limbs, organs, joints, hearts, skin and blood.  The deaf can hear with chip implants now.

 

Can a true 6$million dollar man be far behind? Genetic manipulation in the womb for life threatening illness first and then what?

Speaking of wombs, I am surprised to read almost nothing on the subject of artificial wombs. There must be a huge demand for that.

 

My guess is alot of these enhanced human issues are closer in time than most of us think.

 

Ray argues it will make us rethink what it means to be human.

Ray argues it will make us rethink what it means to be human

Certainly not Mike - but likely the context in which we are. A world of difference.

 

Your oracle sounds a bit strange I think Mike. He seems to be far of tracks compared to scientists normally quoted in my part of the world.

[mike777]

Cool can you quote some of them rather than just say you disagree, thanks. :).

[mike777]

Old Man, Look at Your Life

 

http://wired.com/news/wireservice/1,70417-0.html

[DrTodd13]

Aubrey de Gray predicts that within 20 years, people will be living around 20 years longer. The exponential growth of technology he claims will provide cures for all 7 causes of aging and that some people alive today will live for thousands of years. Freedom would demand that we allow this to happen and if people are so unwise as to have children and live for thousands of years then you'll quickly end up with food scarcity and starvation. I think people would naturally choose not to have children rather than have children and risk the whole family starving to death. Unfortunately, we don't live in a free world and either government would make the cure for aging illegal or would give you a choice between the cure and not having children. This would only increase the rate of technological expansion because each generation would not have to waste longer and longer periods of time educating themselves to the point where they are useful. We already see stories about robot assistants for the elderly in Japan. Can useful robotic maids be far off? Increasingly, all routine tasks will become automated and perhaps we'll transition to an economy of surplus rather than scarcity where most people won't have jobs and receive the basics of life for free and the few that do still innovate and entertain will be even more elevated than they presently are.

[luke warm]

He expects many of these changes in less than 45 years.

story of my life.. a dollar short and a day late

[Gerben42]

Aubrey de Gray predicts that within 20 years, people will be living around 20 years longer

 

Well copied. Arthur C. Clarke predicted this 50 years ago.

 

I think people would naturally choose not to have children rather than have children and risk the whole family starving to death. Unfortunately, we don't live in a free world and either government would make the cure for aging illegal or would give you a choice between the cure and not having children.

 

This seems nice but some people DO live in a free world. Who says that the principality of, say, Vanuatu, would not allow cure for aging? And remember there are already too many people on the planet for a durable future. But remeber that bad things always to happen to someone else, never you.

 

Surely this anti aging cure will be horrendously expensive but those able to pay it will pay. And they are not the ones who will be starving in the end.

[Echognome]

Predictions are a numbers game. What is the cost of making predictions?

 

I predict a whole bunch of things and then when I'm right on a subset of them I say "See! I said x years ago that y would happen by z. And look it did. So give me money."

 

Isn't the classic example to send out a letter to 16 people. For 8 of them tell them a stock is going to rise and for the other 8 tell them it will fall. Then for the 8 that are correct, send another letter about a different stock. Then for the 4 for whom that predicition is correct send another letter. And then for the 2 for whom the next prediction is correct. And then for that one guy, you send a letter saying "Look. I've predicted stocks correctly for you for five times in a row. Don't you want to pay me for my next prediction?"

 

If I heard things like "So and so is worthless because they incorrectly predicted blah," then I might be more interested in people's predictions. But, as far as I can tell, there is no cost to making wild predictions.

 

I think Claus' point was that there ARE some people that have to make predicitions. Certain economists in the government have to. Stock market analysts have to. Etc. Their performance is scrutinized quite carefully. What about these authors'?

[joshs]

Aubrey de Gray predicts that within 20 years, people will be living around 20 years longer. The exponential growth of technology he claims will provide cures for all 7 causes of aging and that some people alive today will live for thousands of years. Freedom would demand that we allow this to happen and if people are so unwise as to have children and live for thousands of years then you'll quickly end up with food scarcity and starvation. I think people would naturally choose not to have children rather than have children and risk the whole family starving to death. Unfortunately, we don't live in a free world and either government would make the cure for aging illegal or would give you a choice between the cure and not having children. This would only increase the rate of technological expansion because each generation would not have to waste longer and longer periods of time educating themselves to the point where they are useful. We already see stories about robot assistants for the elderly in Japan. Can useful robotic maids be far off? Increasingly, all routine tasks will become automated and perhaps we'll transition to an economy of surplus rather than scarcity where most people won't have jobs and receive the basics of life for free and the few that do still innovate and entertain will be even more elevated than they presently are.

Maybe we should just eat our babies for food? Or am I stealing from another author.... :)

[hrothgar]

Isn't the classic example to send out a letter to 16 people. For 8 of them tell them a stock is going to rise and for the other 8 tell them it will fall. Then for the 8 that are correct, send another letter about a different stock. Then for the 4 for whom that predicition is correct send another letter. And then for the 2 for whom the next prediction is correct. And then for that one guy, you send a letter saying "Look. I've predicted stocks correctly for you for five times in a row. Don't you want to pay me for my next prediction?"

Its truly remarkable how little in life hasn't made its way onto the Simpsons.

(This exact "system" showed up in terms of football picks)

 

BTW, the Simpsons just got renewed for another two seasons...

[Gerben42]

I've read about an interesting marketing system to deal with global overpopulation.

 

Every person is born with the right to reproduce, but only 3/4 of a child. A couple therefore has the right to get 1 1/2 kids. They can purchase the right to get more children from others who then lose the right. For example if you want just one child you can sell the right of the 1/2 child to someone who wants 2.

 

Now the ethics of this is a bit dubious, what do you do with people who are expecting twins or triplets, or with women who are pregnant but do not have the right to get any more children.

 

Anyway, interesting idea (I forgot which book it came from though).

 

Can useful robotic maids be far off?

Interesting question. In the 1960s people thought that by 2000 we would have these robotic maids. Well, that was 6 years ago and I haven't seen one yet.

 

I predict that most predictions will be wrong, maybe including this one :)

 

Anyway, I think that technology will go in a direction we have not thought of yet, because if someone had thought of it already we would already be going in that direction.

[mike777]

Of course the prediction business is thought of as nothing more than a cheap parlor game. This site is called the "Water Cooler"

 

Kurzweil argues making predictions does have some real value, that it is possible to make these predictions with a significant degree of accuracy and that his track record is good. I will let you guys and gals come to your own conclusions on the value of these predictions but hope you find these posts entertaining and thought provoking at the very least.

 

Of course De Gray, a Cambridge Prof, has made an outlandish prediction saying a few people have already been born that will live a thousand years. It makes the living 20 years longer claim seem sane and moderate. ;).

 

As for Gerbens comments about robot maids by the year 2000 I disagree. For those of us alive in 1960 we do have many devices that provide maid or servant services that most of us did not have in 1960. Granted these devices are expensive and of very limited use but the they do have great value.

 

1) Central Air

2) Central Heating

3) Dishwashers

4) vacuum cleaners

5) fancy lawn mowers

 

In fact my girl friend in the 1970's home still did not have running water, had coal hand dug out of the mountain and placed in a fireplace for heat, no telephones, and outdoor toilets. They just got electricity......and this was the 1970's in the USA.

 

Btw in the year 2000 my Marketing students wrote their semester long projects on Flying Cars, Yes they do exist, just not up to George Jetson yet but getting closer.

[cherdano]

Isn't the classic example to send out a letter to 16 people. For 8 of them tell them a stock is going to rise and for the other 8 tell them it will fall. Then for the 8 that are correct, send another letter about a different stock. Then for the 4 for whom that predicition is correct send another letter. And then for the 2 for whom the next prediction is correct. And then for that one guy, you send a letter saying "Look. I've predicted stocks correctly for you for five times in a row. Don't you want to pay me for my next prediction?"

I don't understand while this is always celebrated as the classical example, while in what happens in the real world is always the other way round: 16 people making conflicting predictions every year, and after 4 year someone is praised for his incredible wisdom by making 4 correct predictions in a row....

[mike777]

Kurzweil main thesis is that the sum of human knowledge doubles every 3-4 years.

Is this true? Has anyone tried to quantify and measure this?

Is a doubling every thousand years more accurate?

 

I understand there are more Math PHD's, engineers, chemists, economists alive now than in the whole of human history. Does the knowledge base in your field double every 3-4 years? every 100 years?