advertisement


the Artificial Intelligence Singularity

The average rate of advancement between 1985 and 2015 was higher than the rate between 1955 and 1985—because the former was a more advanced world—so much more change happened in the most recent 30 years than in the prior 30.
Click to expand...

the article is full of stuff like the above. massive statements made with no empirical backing whatsoever. how does one scientifically operationalize "advamcment"? to my eye, in many ways, we seem to have been regressing since the 1930s.


vuk.
 
Fascinating. What worries me about these developments is that I accept my limited intellect, I hope those with a superior intellect to me grasp that in itself does not make them correct. This is going to be a defining threshold for mankind.
 
vuk said:
how does one scientifically operationalize "advamcment"? to my eye, in many ways, we seem to have been regressing since the 1930s.
vuk.
Click to expand...

Certainly our spelling has... (sorry but I can't just leave that open goal!)

Though I agree with you that it's very difficult to quantify rate of change of technology in any scientific way (I suspect there might actually be some sort of metrics for this but I don't know what they would be) However, it does seem quite self evident that the rate of change of technology is increasing year by year and that has to end up somewhere. I also agree that the notion of a uniformly better world manifested through technological improvement does not seem to be materialising quite as promised. For sure I'm happy to live in an era of better Dentistry and medicine but there are many aspects of life that I think have taken a step backwards.

Gintonic: Ignore on what basis? I have to say, I find that rather rude. Could you expand on your qualifications for making such a post, please? The people he's referencing the opinions of - Nick Bostrom et al - are very well respected in their field and talking to a few of the AI programmers here at work, they seem to consider it quite a plausible article.
 
Most technical progress only benefits the wealthy, the rest get a watered down version later.

We have not progressed morally/ethically and these are the ones where real change occurs,


Bloss
 
I have it on good authority that no matter how powerful AI becomes, Captain Kirk can talk the computer into self destruction.




Joe
 
Last edited by a moderator:
vuk said:
the article is full of stuff like the above. massive statements made with no empirical backing whatsoever. how does one scientifically operationalize "advamcment"? to my eye, in many ways, we seem to have been regressing since the 1930s.
vuk.
Click to expand...

I think technology has obviously advanced enormously since the 1930s, and I do think the rate of change is increasing.

Socially there has been advance and regression. Advances in terms of racism, sex equality, acceptance of homosexuality. Regression in terms of social cohesion, social welfare etc. I think we're becoming a much more isolated, self centered society and that worries me greatly. On the other hand we're generally more tolerant of differences (race, sexuality, religion).
 
vuk said:
how does one scientifically operationalize "advamcment"? to my eye, in many ways, we seem to have been regressing since the 1930s.


vuk.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the fact that you are saying this simultaneously to 3.5 billion people across the planet tend to lend some weight to us having advanced quite a lot recently? What percentage of the world population even had electricity in 1930, never mind being available for almost instantaneous communication?

My bet is the next 30 years are going to be insane. And, to keep with the Trek theme, this was funny 30 years ago:

scotty_star_trek_iv_hello_computer_talking_mouse_animated_if_siri.gif


Then you watch kids today use their phones like voice instruction is just a run-of-the-mill, everyday occurrence ...
 
vuk said:
operationalize "advamcment"? to my eye, in many ways, we seem to have been regressing since the 1930s.
Click to expand...

It's not the technology it's people holding up progress, what hope is there when some can't even master a spell check.
 
Michael,

Doesn't the fact that you are saying this simultaneously to 3.5 billion people across the planet tend to lend some weight to us having advanced quite a lot recently?
Click to expand...
People often wonder which audio discussion board is the largest -- pfm, the wam, Art of Sound, Hoffman's, etc. -- but if we're at 3.5 billion members Tony deserves a prize.



And, to keep with the Trek theme, this was funny 30 years ago.
Click to expand...

It still is funny, as is taking too much LDS in the sixties.

eoJ
 
I've only read slightly into the piece(s)...

But the fundamental premise of accelerating progress doesn't really stand up.

For example, 1903->1969, first powered flight to men on the moon and supersonic airliners. 1969-2017, subsonic airliners get more efficient.

1947-1977, Manchester Baby to Cray 1. 1977-2017, much much smaller, much much much faster, but I don't think a 1977 expert would be surprised by the topologies.

The article's definitions of AI are weak I think. If the ECU in your car is an example of ANI then so is the ignition system of a Model T.

Might read the rest later.

Paul
 
What advancements have benefitted mankind in the last 1000 years. What has made us better human beings, as this is the only way it can be judged.
 
Ragaman said:
What advancements have benefitted mankind in the last 1000 years. What has made us better human beings, as this is the only way it can be judged.
Click to expand...

I would say science and technology. Some spin offs are antibiotics, fertilzers for food production and a better living environment.

If you read the Holy Bible as a collection of ancient history books which it is but also bear in mind that most people could not read nor write you'll see that mankind hasn't changed one bit. Times have but we humans are as nasty now as we were thousands of years ago. We are after all derived from the animal kingdom.

Although we can do some really marvellous things AI isn't one of them. I don't think our simple digital technology has the capability. What we do have are very powerful data processing machines that can handle vast quantities of data very quickly indeed like that IBM cancer diagnosis machine and the chess players. None of them can think but only process data that we humans can give them. A computer no matter how powerful is only a basic logic machine. It can't even subtract!

If we do manage AI then I think that it'll be biological in nature. Just think Unix was invented in the mid-sixties as an o/s for AT&Ts digital telephone switches. Linux is an alternative kernal to Unix that does the same thing without infinging AT&Ts copywrite. SNA which is still at the heart of IBM mainframes although now well hidden goes back to 1974 but even that was developed from the old BSC environment also from the mid sixties.

We just seem to have made things smaller, faster and cheaper so far.........

Cheers,

DV
 
What, no mention of Alvin Toffler's 'future shock'?

I find it pretty cool that if i need a part made in aluminium, I can design it on a computer, print it in plastic down at the library, then look up some YouTube videos to learn how to make a little aluminium foundry and sand cast it myself.

Pretty soon I'll be able to print metal things directly, but my point is not that there is so much information available that I can learn how to do almost anything right here in my living room. I've learned so much this way.

Sometimes it's hard not to drown in all the cr*p on the internet though. Most people seem to use it to share pictures of cats and argue about vaccines and refugees.
 
Ragaman,

What advancements have benefitted mankind in the last 1000 years. What has made us better human beings, as this is the only way it can be judged.
Click to expand...
Funny cat videos on YouTube. I'm also fond of the flush toilet, but that's a distant second.

Joe
 
sean99 said:
I think technology has obviously advanced enormously since the 1930s, and I do think the rate of change is increasing.
Click to expand...

it has. my argument is not about that, but the exponential graphs he has showing "progress". how on earth does one even begin to quantify that?



vuk.
 
This whole argument is total bunk. The basic premise is that progress has been very fast till now, so it'll continue.

If you take something like powered flight, we went from a basic engine and propeller on a balsa wood frame at the turn of the last century to 400mph fighters by the 1940s. We then went to 3000mph jets screaming around in by the 1960s, and by the 1970s we had rockets travelling 15,000mph to the moon! Given this astonishing rate of progress, clearly if you add on another 50 years, we'd be travelling to other planets in the solar system, or maybe to the other side of our galaxy by now, right? Ha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top