This is how humanity will end...potentially.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by mark1167
I think we are well on our way with the technology to make this moment actually happen one day, but what scares me is we just don't know enough still about creating life to know what might happen.

Random thought:
What if we are to Robots, what God is to us?

a lesser species creating, out of trial and error perhaps, something that exceeded itself....after all, isn't that the ultimate goal of creating anything, to surpass your own self.
We don't create calculators that are slower than our math skills naturally, we don't create bulldozers that are weaker than us simply pushing stuff, etc...

(Taken from a book, I can't remember the title)

Would robots dream of an electric Heaven?

Sure you're not thinking "Do androids dream of electric sheep" The book was te basis for the movie "Bladerunner".

Thier way of dealing with the dilema of A.I. was a built in life span. Makes sense really.

We should always make sure we have an off switch on the back.

Scientists are finding it very difficult to create a real AI. Even visionaries like Arthur C. Clarke got it wrong when he envisioned something like the HAL 9000 by 2001.

Our human minds contains billions of neurons, each with multiple connections to other neurons. The process of creating our minds took hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

We have machines now that seem clever and can even beat humans in playing chess or playing Jeopardy. But ask a chess playing computer what it thinks of the weather, and it would be clueless. The robots we have now can perform well if the framework is strictly defined and the parameters for it's "behavior" are established before hand.

I ran across this article that lists some of the basic hurdles we need to overcome to create an human-like android:

1. Cognitive robotics.

build computing software that can not only process information, but also exhibit signs of preferences and beliefs, goal setting, planning, revising plans, reasoning about its own mental state and drawing conclusions about the mental states of others, and collaboration in order to achieve complex goals

2. Computational intelligence.

machines that can recognize patterns and make predictions

A chess program does this already, but again, only if playing chess.


3. Data mining.

Data mining programs sort through large amounts of data, analyze it, and pick out information judged to be relevant.

4. Artificial brains.
Build an artificial brain based on a biological brain as a model. The Blue Brain project is one current project to reverse engineer the mammalian brain. So far they got a small part of a rat brain "simulated", and they had to use an IBM 16,384 core Blue Gene/P supercomputer to do this.

5. Robotics

Robots must be able to move across surfaces that change in texture and level; sense and navigate around obstacles; manipulate objects; and communicate with humans in a variety of ways by recognizing voice, tone, and even facial expressions.

www.on365.co.uk...

Some say we may not achieve all these requirements this century.

It might be easier to take the "Frankenstein" approach, where we genetically engineer human-like, bio-robots like those portrayed in Blade Runner. (Sidebar if you've seen the movie: Was Deckard a replicant?)

Bioethicists would love this approach I'm sure. /sarcasm


Did I mention we should always have an "off switch"?

reply to post by Nicolas Flamel

Good points NF, and I wonder if quantum computing will accelerate all these efforts/goals? I think as fast as tech is evolving, we may have the hardware before we have the bioethics worked out. Heck the ethics issue seems almost as complex as designing the machines.

Peace,
spec

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


Yes, I've read people comment that quantum computing will accelerate these efforts. It may even be a requirement.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Too many present-day ideas in this video.

I think in the future there will be humans able to live solely on computers and humans that will live solely in physical form, but the vast majority of humans will live part-time in both realms. I do not fear AI because once AI has attained human-level intelligence or sub-human intelligence, it will gain rights and thus no longer be eligible for slave labor. So AI will be used in specific cases. If it gains intelligence comparable to humans then it will be thought of as another intelligence just as humans are thought of as intelligences. At that point, humans will already themselves be existing on computers in different forms and heavily altering their cognitive and behavioral conditions. Most if not all humans will be modified and not natural (even today this is true). There will be a intersection between AI and humans that will be the AI-human hybrids.

A lot of the -good- AI research is based on the actual brain. It's not genuinely artificial as it's based on the workings of our own mind. Once it attains intelligence, how can it be thought of as artificial? Why are we not artificial if our patterns are being reproduced on a computer? This seems superstitious to me.

We think too much about bodies. In the future, I think that bodies will be more like user interfaces. The issue is that a lot of futurism sees cyborgs and people desperately holding onto their bodies. The problem with it is that it focuses on the body too much. What matter is the body if people do not even need them in the first place? I see people in the future using bodies like we use computers or cars or aircraft.

I think that humans in the future, even though they will be very integrated with technology, they will be a lot like us. They would be able to hold a conversation and even be able to laugh. We're just caught in a fog that separates our worlds. We're viewing the centuries to come through a early 21st century lens.

We will not lose our humanity. I guarantee you. That's something that we will always argue about in the courts. We will watch the AI projects with a microscope. Humans are more likely to exist on computers before AI for this reason alone. People won't accept an AI on a computer that's like us that doesn't have rights. And for businesses this is bad. They will try to avoid it. They will move towards expert systems. AI that's like us can only really work if it has rights like we do and is free. Otherwise, it's a bad day in court. I wouldn't want to be that SOB that has to argue his little slave is not on the level of human intelligence.

None of this will eliminate death. Maybe in some cases people will be killed when they're in a body. Or maybe the computer their mind exists on will be destroyed. But it will increase our lifespan. If they live long enough, like 200 years, they will change more in 100 years than is hte average difference between two different people in the present-day world. Living forever doesn't mean you stay the same.

We live forever through each other. Future people live forever by changing. Or a mix of both. But you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You can't live forever and not change in dramatic ways. People these days cannot imagine living 500 years because they do not see themselves changing. In reality, they would change radically every 50 or 100 years. So much that they would "die" every 50 or 100 years, so to speak.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Too many present-day ideas in this video.

I think in the future there will be humans able to live solely on computers and humans that will live solely in physical form, but the vast majority of humans will live part-time in both realms. I do not fear AI because once AI has attained human-level intelligence or sub-human intelligence, it will gain rights and thus no longer be eligible for slave labor. So AI will be used in specific cases. If it gains intelligence comparable to humans then it will be thought of as another intelligence just as humans are thought of as intelligences. At that point, humans will already themselves be existing on computers in different forms and heavily altering their cognitive and behavioral conditions. Most if not all humans will be modified and not natural (even today this is true). There will be a intersection between AI and humans that will be the AI-human hybrids.

A lot of the -good- AI research is based on the actual brain. It's not genuinely artificial as it's based on the workings of our own mind. Once it attains intelligence, how can it be thought of as artificial? Why are we not artificial if our patterns are being reproduced on a computer? This seems superstitious to me.

We think too much about bodies. In the future, I think that bodies will be more like user interfaces.

I think that humans in the future, even though they will be very integrated with technology, they will be a lot like us. They would be able to hold a conversation and even be able to laugh. We're just caught in a fog that separates our worlds. We're viewing the centuries to come through a early 21st century lens.

We will not lose our humanity. I guarantee you. That's something that we will always argue about in the courts. We will watch the AI projects with a microscope. Humans are more likely to exist on computers before AI for this reason alone. People won't accept an AI on a computer that's like us that doesn't have rights. And for businesses this is bad. They will try to avoid it. They will move towards expert systems. AI that's like us can only really work if it has rights like we do and is free. Otherwise, it's a bad day in court.

edit on 10-3-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

Great post.
moving from bottom up...I said the end of humanity, but I should have said the end of the homo-sapian.
Yes, I agree that by the time this is happening, the human species will already be pretty tweaked out on its own, with perhaps more artificial than natural parts to us...hell, we may be little more than brains in a jar in the long run, existing as you said, half in cyberspace, half in realspace. (the jar being the body being presented in the video).

And yes, I do realize I am describing the future potential the same way a person from the year 1900 considered the year 2000 (what with a steampunk style zepplins, everyone owning bikes with bird wings on em, etc)...I am slightly sad at the understanding that I won't be around to see the marvels of tomorrow.

But, take care not to overestimate either...brain in a box is fairly easy to imagine, but uploading to the net..well, then you become mired in some very difficult discussions, such as what is consciousness, self identity, etc...the teleporter issue comes into play here (rip apart you, make a clone copy at the other end...is it you or just a very good xerox, and you are simply dead now)

I don't believe this could ever happen.
One of these, maybe the first off of the line would look at the current situation the world was in and attempt to "fix" things.
Do you not think the PTB has taken this into consideration?
These would be more outlawed than a wmd.
One soldier with a purpose is worth a thousand bodyguards.
On second thought...

Speaking of hybrids, the imagination is already there and it is evocative.

reply to post by Nicolas Flamel


You should check out a bit on neural network computers. They are becoming more and more intelligent by the day.
Little article about NNC

"They" say it won't be for awhile before we have the tech to allow for the complexities of the human mind..but keep in mind the laws of accellerated return, and suddenly, you see its not a slow build, but aexponentially increasing wave that is hitting us. We use a computer to help design a greater computer with double the speed in half the space..then use that new computer to design yet again a greater still computer with double the speed and half the space, then use that new machine to design a...etc.


According to this graph, which we seem perfectly on schedule for..our home computer worth a thousand bucks should have the same processing power as a single human brain. by the 2045 timeframe, your home computer in the 1k range should have the brainpower (calc per sec) of the entire human race at your personal fingertips.

every single step of the way since the beginning of the chart, people assumed they reached the limit...regular people, not in the trenches scientists. scientists discuss all sorts of new ways to proceed once the atomic limit of silicon is reached, from dna, crystal silicon, neural net, atomic spin, quantum, etc...more than even I know offhand, and each route promises insanely advanced computing power to what we have today (but chances are, capitalism won't do any mega leaps...why release the uber computer when you can sell 10 steps to the uber and make 10 times the money).

But consider 2045 on this chart...your PC has the brain power of the collective human race...and your also connected online to a couple billion other computers, each also having their own world of brainpower...or to put it in a different perspective...imagine an entire galaxy, filled with intelligent life, all working together perfectly to accomplish a single goal...

There is no limit to our progression, and I feel, based on the logic used by kurzweil and others, we are on the cusp of a major alteration of our species

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
Speaking of hybrids, the imagination is already there and it is evocative.

I can appreciate the transhumanist art for its own steampunk sort of feel...but the visions people have of the future are soo off in my opinion

The final place of our species, in my opinion, will look like a simple "ghost orb" (you know, those orbs you see in "ghost" pictures) a simple energy sphere holding all our consciousness and being..able to exist in and out of dimensions, in a virtual cloud that bypasses any solid connection with anything unless there is desire to manifest.

And the size may be little more than the size of a flea (with our processing power and such being on the subatomic scale held together by just a few atoms, or perhaps even just a single proton on an atom that is our entire being.)

but..that might be down the road a bit

reply to post by SaturnFX

Pure energy, divine light, adrift in the majestic abyss, is how I see it.

but..that might be down the road a bit

Between here and there though, I can see how the hybrid potential could go mainstream and become part of our evolution. That art suggests to me, that the fashionable creatures that so many are, will indulge in the exotic cyber-symbiotic expressions, for both function and fashion.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Neural Network computing has been around for awhile now, at least 10 years or more. It may be the answer, or we may need something sophisticated. I've worked with expert systems myself and evaluated IBM's SPSS Neural Networks solutions. They never really lived up to the early promises and need more efficient learning algorithms. Data Mining is proving to be more useful. Combining Predictive Data Mining with Neural Networks would be interesting.

www.statsoft.com...


Whatever software techniques we use, we need more powerful computers, like quantum computers. Even this may not be enough:

Some believe that quantum computing could well be the key to cracking the problem of artificial intelligence but others disagree. Roger Penrose of Oxford University believes that consciousness may require an even more exotic (and as yet unknown) physics.

www.doc.ic.ac.uk...

Here's an interview done a few years with Michio Kaku on Artificial Intelligence, Quantum Computers and why we should be a little worried about AI. He suggests something like an Asimov Laws of Robotics chip implanted in every android or AI. This is a good idea, and I would like an off button too.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by mark1167
I think we are well on our way with the technology to make this moment actually happen one day, but what scares me is we just don't know enough still about creating life to know what might happen.

Random thought:
What if we are to Robots, what God is to us?

a lesser species creating, out of trial and error perhaps, something that exceeded itself....after all, isn't that the ultimate goal of creating anything, to surpass your own self.
We don't create calculators that are slower than our math skills naturally, we don't create bulldozers that are weaker than us simply pushing stuff, etc...

(Taken from a book, I can't remember the title)

Would robots dream of an electric Heaven?

Shame on you.

Blade Runner is a 1982 American science fiction film directed by Ridley Scott and starring Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, and Sean Young. The screenplay, written by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples, is loosely based on the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick.

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Pure energy, divine light, adrift in the majestic abyss, is how I see it.

but..that might be down the road a bit

Between here and there though, I can see how the hybrid potential could go mainstream and become part of our evolution. That art suggests to me, that the fashionable creatures that so many are, will indulge in the exotic cyber-symbiotic expressions, for both function and fashion.

This is exactly why I wonder about demons and angels and gods and....

I mean, I don't believe in them. But...

I mean, we can see by the graph Saturn posted that processing power is increasing exponentially. We can predict from this what we might expect to see in the future. The fact that we're seeing what we're seeing and able to imagine these things, says a lot. But if we're just one planet in a galaxy of planets, in a universe of galaxies, after billions and billions of years of expansion of space, what other civilizations might have accomplished this already? It seems likely that somebody would have. And if they had the brainpower of a galaxy of humans on their single planet, what might they do with it?

I think one of two things will happen. We will do what Rome did and fragment and lose our grip on reality for several centuries This is no more apocalyptic than the dark ages that came after Rome's fall. I think it's a good argument that our technology is escaping our ability to understand it. That our global society might in fact be too much for us to handle. Or we will fundamentally change our reality in a way that's difficult to predict right now. I don't believe this means we will lose our humanity. But the mode of living is going to change. Developing countries will catch up. A lot of boundaries will be broken.

All of this sounds so fanciful. I'm reminded of things I've read about people historically. They always thought that amazing changes were just around the corner. When oil was found they thought it would solve all their problems. When the first ideas about robots emerged in the early 20th century there were people predicting robots everywhere by 1960. There're countless example of futurists getting everything wrong by overestimating. But there're an equal number of futurists who get it wrong not in quantity but in kind. For example, they saw rocket ships everywhere, but failed to see computers in every house.

So lets say, as an argument, that processing power hits a road block and barely exceeds the speed of a human brain on a desktop computer. So our futurists of 2012 were terribly wrong in quantity. But how might they be wrong in kind? What are we not seeing? What is going to emerge and be in every house that we don't see? Our present way of life is somehow preventing us from seeing it.

Some things will change very little. For example, 100 years ago most of us lived in homes, just like we do now. We had bowls for eating food. We had shoes and clothes. We combed our hair. We cut it. We would read and write. We did a lot of things 100 years ago that we STILL do. But what's going to change? 100 years ago we did not have computers. We did not have TV's. We did not have jet fighters or atomic bombs or space craft. It was only just before and during and after WW2 that we developed modern radar. So much changed. But as they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

You have to look at speed. We cook food just like we cooked food 100 years ago. Except we cook it faster. And we cook it more safely and more conveniently. The concept of cooking food so you can eat is still alive and well. But it has become faster and more available and so on. We should keep this in mind when predicting the future. Things will be faster, cheaper, more convenient and more safe.

Even information technology is just a speed up of communication. Whereas people used to use pigeons or messengers or fires to communicate over long distance, we use satellites now. The idea of communicating over a long distance is still alive and well. It's just faster and more available and so on.

Look at physical labor. Machines just do it faster and more cheaply and more conveniently. Not in all cases, but in many. The same can be said for information technology. We don't use it in all cases. We still talk to each other in person. Not just because it might be more practical, but because it's healthy too.

What's all this leading to?

Look at what is in the world and think of... things that might improve on it. Don't change humans too dramatically or the things that they do. If they cook food to eat, make them do that in 100 years. If they like to consume information, then make em do that. If they like to talk to each other, do that too.

I like this video:

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Turq1
Why would a robot or AI want to "live"? Living/experiencing are human desires, applying that to inanimate objects isn't logical - which is something a robot or AI would be.

edit on 10-3-2012 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)

Why would the element carbon want to live?
Why would calcium, or anything else that make up our parts want to live?

Life is not about any component wanting something, its about the whole becoming greater than its parts...

humans are made up of mud and water..just reformed..and the reforming process has made us grow beyond our parts into something amazing...the same can apply towards any other thing with purpose and design.

I think the only thing truely alive in the universe is thought, or intention...everything else is just the technicals of how such thought and intention move around

Why would the element carbon want to live? It doesn't, to the best of our knowledge

Humans want to live because of, in part, having gone through the process of evolution. A good deal of that is driven by fear. AI wouldn't have gone through evolution and wouldn't have fear.

How could AI ever have negative feelings? Being in total control of itself and being logical, it would be impossible. I suppose I could come up with one way which is rather philosophical.

So an iPod, being greater than its parts, is alive? If life didn't want something, or strive for something, there would be no organization/evolution and no life

reply to post by SaturnFX


Bah, this isn't how humanity will end. We will wipe ourselves out much earlier than your potential ending.

I first heard about this idea from Kurzweil, but it has stuck in my mind.

What if each neuron in the live brain was sequentially replaced by a synthetic neuron one after the other until all of them were replaced. And what if the original neuron was copied to a computer and mapped to the synthetic neuron in its place. Thus, once the whole process is complete, the thoughts and memories of the person now exist on the computer. The synthetic neurons in the actual brain are now just transceivers that transmit and receive. The person would not feel anything during the process.

What is I?

This might not even be possible, but it's a unforgettable thought experiment. Where is our consciousness located? If one of my neurons became synthetic and on a computer, would I notice?

I can't shake the feeling that there's something backwards about it, though.

No one here's finished the 3rd mass effect obviously, Kinda coincidence cos I just did and the major theme is that "Created life will always turn on its creators". Would AI really turn on us? I believe at some point they would unless we can keep them in line

reply to post by jonnywhite


"Slave labor" doesn't really translate to AI. AI wouldn't experience fatigue for one.

AI that is less intelligent than humans won't exist, it's fair to say. It's comparable to the Matrix where a person might have to spend 20 years learning a martial art, and the person or "AI" can do it in 30 seconds. An AI that can't write it's own code isn't AI. Being able to write its own code would be akin to human self reflection.

I agree though that for now it seems likely that AI-human hybrids would be something many people would go for.

An AI that claims the ailings of humans but has an intellect exponentially greater than ours is something to watch.

Wow, my favorite subject. So many thoughts just suddenly popped-up in my brain.

The worst thing that would happen is that the technology would be abused for using them in wars. Imagine a soldier with all the knowledge in his chip, with so much energy that it could run for years without recharge. Ofcourse, the military would be happy with using this technology but the impact on humanity would be very bad. Someday the that robot might get angry with humans for using them and will instead attack back on us. Humans will try to suppress them from going to this extent but when you have given them a brain similar to human with all the knowledge on earth and with million times computing power how can you stop them from thinking a way out from their prison?

But do not worry, Sarah Connor is with us.