So I'd say that the Singularity is pretty much inevitable at this point, barring some global catastrophe. The question of course is how soon will this take place.

The basis for a technological singularity is the creation of a superhuman intelligence, which in some sense we have already done (human brains have been estimated to have the equivalent of 100 teraflops of computing power; IBM's Blue Gene/L hit 280 teraflops last year). It's not so much a matter of processing power as programming, though, which is why Blue Gene hasn't already taken over the world. So the singularity could happen pretty soon, depending on if someone writes the right program. Or it could come another way, such as from the creation of nanobots that swarm together to become one intelligent entity. Which will take a bit longer, since we don't really have nanotechnology yet.

What do you guys think?

It already happened. We are all androids, humans have been exterminated.

-gets dragged off by CIA-

Heretic.

Now as I was saying, WE'RE ALL ANDROIDS, HUMANS HAVE BEEN EXTERMINATED!

*Gets put in cell next to Greenboy*

it will never happen

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Ascension counts as a singularity too.

Meh.

I prefer Verizon and T-Mobile.

We'll be ploppin' Monoliths down on distant planets within a few tens of thousands of years.

Someone reads too much Exit Mundi.

But I don't think it'll happen.

Ahaha I love that site.

Actually I was somewhat inspired by watching "The Matrix" earlier today, and then tonight's episode of "My Name is Earl".

DAMNIT.

WHY MUST THE GODS CURSE ME FOR MISSING EARL. WHY?

Well, the singularity may be inevitable, but on that day we will be saved by our one and only lord. That is why I am a member of the First Church of Carl Winslow.

lol, Carl Winslow

*urkel laugh*

Not likely to happen. it takes more than processing power, and storage to make sentience. you need to have learning, abstract thought, and other fancy stuff that needs complex thoughts. we see things and can instantly recognise them. the human brain has managed to refine these abilities to way beyond what we could do with programing languages as we know them.

It would take more than just the raw processing power and storage to simulate a brain, you would also need the programming to make it work like a huan brain.

8 years from now we will invent [a way to make the human brain faster] (or) [a simple artificial intelligence]. 14 years from now it will figure out how to make itself faster. 16 years from now it will figure out how to make itself faster. 17 years from now it will figure out how to make itself faster. 17.5 years from now it will figure out how to make itself faster. 17.75 years from now it will figure out how to make itself faster. 17.875 years from now it will figure out how to make itself faster...........

Edit: the Singularity is ascension.

Ever heard of neural nets? It's the same idea of how the brain works, its just not quite as powerful yet.

[url]www.nerogame.org[/url]

yes, that gets through some problems. but we still need to program abstract thought into those neural nets to be able to make something that could destroy humanity.

That's stupid. Doing math really fast != human thought. Apples to Oranges here. Also, sad geeks who want science fictiton to be true.


Besides, if something goes wrong, we can always install Windows ME on it. *Neo turns to face sentinels that bear a remarkable resemblance to the Windows logo* *He holds up his hand to stop them but they fall to the floor anyway. Embarrassed, Neo fakes a coma*

So some fifteen year old kid is going to completely disregard the work of mathematicians who have experience more than triple his age with the words "That's stupid"?

Awesome.

Real AI is not a given. Making something fast enough is only a part of it. The math is only good if you take the givens. Compare the number of accurate technology predictions to the number of inaccurate ones. Being smart does not compensate for the unknown.


Also, how the heck do you manage to treat comment that disagrees with you as a personal insult. Could you try to at least once engage in civil discussion? Honestly it's getting a bit old. A little less emotional involvement in threads would be nice.

Human brains are just computers. It makes me giggle when people try to pretend there's some "natural factor" that makes the ladder part of AI 'unique' to human beings.' Computers WILL one day be as smart, or smarter than humans. Exactly how we are smart. People say that PCs can't conceive infinate, and that's why they'll never be as smart as us. That's hilarious, because we can't conceive infinate either.

I'm no math wiz, but I know a whole lot about psychology and human nature. PCs don't need that extra "all powerful creator" bit just to be considered smart. They will eventually make it.

However uncontrollable that is, however, isn't inevitable. I REALLY don't think there will be a point where machines are unconrollable, or where human implants will control human-beings. I think that, however smart we make machines: WE make them. Even if machines start making machines, we will have to consciencesly ALLOW them to do things. Machines will only be as powerful as humans allow them to be. One evil dude, however, will give them that power.

This all leads to the concept of fighting robots and AI instead of humans. If we make AI as smart or smarter than humans [which I'm already assuming is possible], than the moral issue in using them as soldiers WILL come into play. Someone humility is based only on how well they sypathise with the other. If they don't have eyes, a mouth, and a face to look sad with, our sypathy won't go very far. As soon as we give robots the ability to be sad and look sad [It's why no one sees moral issues in eating vegies, but DOES find animal consumption cruel] than we will start to consider them equals.

I'd LOVE to debate people on this, as I've thought a lot about it.

Dude... Dell

well, there is the fact that our brain cells have DNA. not to mention that our brains constantly change as we grow. the fact is, while we can give a computer math skills, we cannot create a computer that is just like a human. I took millions of years to turn from simple amino acids to eucaryotic cells alone. and evem longer to become multi cellular. the fact is, that our systems have been perfected over millions of years. computers need to be changed by humans.

computers only know what they are programed to know. they cannot form their own oppions based on complex thinking. So, i realy do have to agree with obi on this.

and, tell me, what do expert mathemeticians know about complex computations. They are experts in mathematics, not computer science (or neural science, which means they cannot use statistics to compair the development of a technology that has only existed for a short time compaired to human existance.) I am not insulting them, it is just that someone who has studied computers and the physics and possibilities of computers will know more about what computers can do in the future than someone who has studied mathematics all of their life.

No they aren't.

Edit: Explanation for why human brains are not computers.

By definition a computer is a machine designed to manipulate information based on a list of instructions. A computer is a machine with a specific state that can be determined at any time (the contents of the cache, RAM and each register).

A brain is a massive neural network. It cannot perform specific operations on data, the software of the brain cannot be divorced from the hardware, and the brain does not have any particular state at any given time (neurotransmitter levels at each synapse, maybe? At the very least?)

First off, human intelligence is not AI. Second, computers and the human brain are too structurally dissimilar to strike a comparison.

No they won't. Human intelligence and computational power are not the same thing. Actually, neurons are extremely poor at even basic logic operators. Your TI-83 calculator is faster at arithmetic than your brain, kirby. Your TI-83 isn't "smart", though.

You're the only person I have ever seen even mention this. Computers are machines designed to solve mathematical equations: they have no comprehension of abstract concepts because they are not designed to comprehend abstract concepts, not that we have the technology to design a machine to "conceive" anything.
And I'm perfectly capable of understanding the concept of infinity. It's not very hard.

Computers do not have any intelligence, they are machines designed only for solving logic problems. Human brains are extremely complex and designed to operate a human body.

We already have crude devices that allow you to remotely control human beings.

To be totally blunt here, I don't think you've given a lot of thought about the subject so much as watching the Matrix trilogy a few times too many. Your theories and comments demonstrate a lack of basic understanding of neural networks as well as computer technology.

just kill all the japanese and it won't happen...

I can understand this, Jon`C, bBut one day, couldn't we combine chemicals with the workings of a computer? Imagine a substance that bridges neural gaps dynamically that works in sync with a calculator? What about nanotechnology?

I obviously don't really know enough about the topic to debate it on anything more than a conceptual level, but I guess I just find it hard to believe we can't recreate an electrically spasming control-center that seems so simple in theory.

just remember,

in theory, comunism works.

just because it seems simple in theory, it does not make it simple in practise.

Also, to make a chemical based computer, we would need to find a way to keep the chemicals in the right balance, in the right form, and in the right place. So it would be way too dificult to try to make a chemical/electrical hybrid computer.

Not to mention there are still things we dont know about the brain. how could we make a working mechanical replica of a dynamic system we still dont know everything about.

also, there is the fact that we have a seperate compex bunch of nerve fibres that control the digestive system (it is similar to the brains of basic, small multi cellular organisms). It doesnt have to have any abstract though, yet it can still determine when to send certain chemicals such as a fullness signal, and instuct the different openings between parts of the digestive system to open.

Combine what chemicals? Neurotransmitters? No, and what would that accomplish anyway?

This is pseudoscientific technobabble and I'm not going to comment on it further.

What about it?

Recreate a what? The human brain isn't electrical, it's chemical. The electrical impulse is only used for transmitting the signal within the neuron. All logic and inter-neuron communication is done with neurotransmitters.

That said, it's possible to stick just about any battery-powered electrical device into the human brain as long as it's done at a sufficiently young age. The brain doesn't have a 'set' structure: it's a neural net that trains itself to respond correctly to stimuli. As you get older it is no longer possible to use new hardware. Example.

Well, if all else fails we can just scan a human brain right down to the atomic level and then have a computer simulate that. Something like they did with that virus recently, only (obviously) far more complex -> http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060313/full/060313-4.html

If we get there it will me more than 30 years down the road. I don't think we will, ok I pray we never will. but if it does it's still a ways off.
I think I'd like to be dead by that time too.

(Ha this all coming from a Computer Engineering major)

Why isn't there a 'not gonna happen' option in this poll? :p

thats why I said >30.

But >30 means you think it will happen after at least 30 years. I'm after a never gonna happen option.

I think that if computers ever achieve similarity to human intelligence it will only define humanity, because the computer won't have it.

Just so you know, I don't have a problem. I agree with you in that I don't think it will happen. I don't think, however, that the idea is wholly a bad one, especially considering most of the things mentioned have been achieved by the online community via the internet. I'm sure the mathematicians that thought this up probably put a lot of thought and research into it, and looking at the basic jist of it I think that it won't happen. However, I'm not going to go so far as to call it "stupid" just because I don't agree with the idea. Seriously.

Well, I'm not the one who flames everyone every time he disagrees with some one.

I think the idea is dumb. Or actually, I think what people assume will be the result of such an idea is dumb.

Uh huh...I tend to disagree there, Obi.

although, it would require a computer with all its components refined to be as small as pssible, and a hard drive series the size of a small city. It would be just to much of a task to be useful

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Uh huh...I tend to disagree there, Obi.[/QUOTE]


See? Isn't that better than flaming?

I was talking about you NOT flaming people. I think we've already established that you're quite the arrogant kid who thinks the idea is stupid.